|
hobotrashcanfires posted:I'm guessing the people who view that haven't actually played first person shooters..because..good luck with that scenario. (in a first person shooter, real life has completely different results, as we're all aware) I love the computer generated ballistics jell. that's so totally how it works. The FPS is laughable too. "Look at this perp approaching me at a walk, why I have enough time to snap this gay orange poo poo and shout warnings multiple times"
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:01 |
|
|
Naturally Selected posted:...Except both the guns they show it on (some sort of XD in the picture and a Glock in the CS mod or whatever the gently caress that LESS LETHAL thing was) have sights. It's just that their "cutouts" don't do jack to save the sight picture. In the animation it seems like it might just barely work, but you don't see it from the sides. The cop fires it, it ricochets off the head of his victim, beans him in the face.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:I love the computer generated ballistics jell. that's so totally how it works. Maybe it's supposed to be a realistic representation of how quickly a wounded teenager in shock might be moving.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Maybe it's supposed to be a realistic representation of how quickly a wounded teenager in shock might be moving. I would hope humanity isn't stupid enough to think trying to assault a cop armed with a gun by using a knife while wandering slowly in his direction is going to get you anything less than blasted however many times.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
I have serious doubts about that projectile being stable enough in flight to be useful in any real circumstance, but the concept is not nearly as outlandish as people are making it out to be. It kind of reminds me of a bullet trap rifle grenade.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
It kind of reminds me of the corruption of the MIC extending its influence to law enforcement. In addition to "solving" a problem no one has.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
So, physics-wise, wouldn't this thing start to spin and wobble all over the place if the bullet doesn't manage to lodge itself directly into the center of mass of the orange thing?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I have serious doubts about that projectile being stable enough in flight to be useful in any real circumstance, but the concept is not nearly as outlandish as people are making it out to be. It kind of reminds me of a bullet trap rifle grenade. Difference is bullet-trap grenades sit relatively deep on the rifle muzzle itself, so they have some alignment. They're also not attached physically to anything that stays on the rifle (like THE ALTERNATIVE'S ball which sits attached to the slide device). They're also GRENADES. As in "used to gently caress up that general area over there". And aside from very few users, they've been replaced by dedicated launchers like the M203/GP series, due to the extra recoil, reliability, and accuracy concerns. If you want to talk accuracy, I seriously doubt that THE ALTERNATIVE BALL will detach from all 4 supports perfectly every time. Or poo poo, even half the time. Forget ballistics, the chances of it even getting to the "ballistic inaccuracy" stage are pretty low. That also assumes that the ball will detach from the sloppily slapped on bit and not just take it along. The whole thing is completely ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
William T. Hornaday posted:So, physics-wise, wouldn't this thing start to spin and wobble all over the place if the bullet doesn't manage to lodge itself directly into the center of mass of the orange thing? Or if it does hit the center of mass but each of the four posts don't detach in exactly the same way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:http://www.wowt.com/home/headlines/UPDATE-Woman-Shot-By-Police-Dies-290296591.html?device=phone&c=y I commented on two separate body cam videos wherein an officer murdered someone (technically manslaughter because there was no malice, but gently caress that). One was a mentally ill man that slowly tottered at the officer with a knife (he obviously wanted the officer to kill him and the idea he posed a threat was laughable) and an officer mag dumping into an elderly man in the driver seat of a car in a parking lot (the officer claimed he was reaching for a BB gun). I simply said that what the officers did was not in accordance with police procedure, (I have taken a year of criminal justice and police training) the hundreds of comments in reply turned my stomach. One of the things I was taught is that aiming for the legs is a "trick shot." In a dynamic, intense situation, it's hard enough to hit someone with a pistol at all, (they're really lousy weapons in every respect except portability) officers are trained that aiming at the legs is both too difficult to achieve reliably and may also be lethal. Arteries, bones, even an infection can lead to a suspect you wanted to incapacitate later dying. Shooting is a last resort, following the "escalation of force" doctrine. You aim for center of body mass and fire two or three rounds then reassess, you do that when there is substantive reason to believe a suspect is about to kill someone (including you!). Training varies and many police are woefully under-trained, (I feel terrible for them, given a year of shoddy training then thrown into the snake pit) police are also trained in how to accurately assess a threat, they're also trained in hand to hand techniques. There is a chance that a woman with a knife can kill me, but I'm drat well going to try to disarm her rather than blasting her to death. Police work is dangerous, but someone afraid of a woman with a knife probably shouldn't be in that line of work, just like a firefighter with a phobia of buildings, fire, or red trucks shouldn't be a firefighter. A 39 year old women, in open ground. Not a wanted murderer in a lightless, tight space like some Hollywood movie, just an irate idiot with knives. If you're unable to get that situation under control without slaughtering the person, resign from police work. I hope this post has been measured and informative, I await the replies of shitposts and memes. Edit: It may be worth noting that police that do get training sometimes get taught by deranged, "everyone is out to kill you" maniacs. Count how many times this video completely makes up poo poo, like the, "Baseball cap with razor blades sewn into it!" in the video "How To Survive Edged Weapons." Condensed version here,  for some gore:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFr30p0aZl0 Full one and a half hour feature here, which I have never watched: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-lDtCHFmvg Post 9-11 User fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Feb 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Reminder that police "training" is the universally the result of hundreds of prior lawsuits and may not actually reflect the best practices for use of firearms. "Shoot to kill" training is a direct result of pesky survivors waking up and telling the nice lawyer what actually happened.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
That's unfair to police. In theory, you only shoot when necessary and you shoot to put down the threat. Whether that is actually practiced may not be the best reflection of how people act when they're given authority, but the principle is to shoot when it's necessary to save lives. You can't shoot a weapon out of someone's hand unless you're an unprecedented master, very lucky, or in a Hollywood movie (it has been done but only by expert snipers in ideal conditions during hostage situations).SocketWrench posted:I would hope humanity isn't stupid enough to think trying to assault a cop armed with a gun by using a knife while wandering slowly in his direction is going to get you anything less than blasted however many times. You, you're it. No, someone that is not a threat but foolish enough to do this does not deserve to die. Stupidity or illness is not a lawful justification for killing someone. If a stupid or insane person poses an actual threat to someone's life then it is lawful to use whatever force necessary to subdue the person, even lethal force. You are one of the, "talk poo poo, get hit!" idiot kings polluting our society, saying it's okay for police to massacre people because they are the lords of the Earth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
^Slow down on the trigger there, officer. I don't think "they had it coming". I said I would hope humanity isn't that stupid to think it would earn them anything less than being shot, since the example given was some wounded teen in shock. That's because cops are more likely to shoot them than to try to wrestle them down or try a less lethal way that isn't a guarantee. This is what i hate about cop threads, there's always some "quick to shoot" dick (basically firing off some criticism or insult without a thought) bitching about quick to shoot cops Jarmak posted:I have serious doubts about that projectile being stable enough in flight to be useful in any real circumstance, but the concept is not nearly as outlandish as people are making it out to be. It kind of reminds me of a bullet trap rifle grenade. Think of rubber bullets. Sure, they could and do work, but only in certain instances and not without some major injury just shy of lethal. They're still plenty lethal outside of that 2-3 percent of the time they aren't. And that still ignores the point that this is only good for one shot unless cops are gonna have these slung on their belts like Nerf arrows SocketWrench fucked around with this message at 00:32 on Feb 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Woozy posted:Reminder that police "training" is the universally the result of hundreds of prior lawsuits and may not actually reflect the best practices for use of firearms. "Shoot to kill" training is a direct result of pesky survivors waking up and telling the nice lawyer what actually happened. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Feb 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
You yell 'less lethal, less lethal!' in case there's any recordings around. It's part of the sacred sect of rules that includes 'Finders keepers' and 'No takebacks'.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:This isn't true at all. Police training in many jurisdictions is the result of doing the absolute minimum required by state law. Mostly focused on instilling an understanding of what things are crimes and how not to produce too many lawsuits. The vast majority of police officers are essentially big uniformed babysitters for the community's population of assholes and crazy people and thus do not require extensive training in gun-fu. This is true. Bullets do a lot of damage to the body even when they're not fatal hits. It's not some Brad Pitt movie where you take a round or two, brush it off and jump back into things. A bullet, no matter where, is gonna gently caress you up. Even more so when the nearest medical help is 20 minutes away and you have a few guys pinning you down to restrain you as you bleed out. That's why there's the universal gun safety rule to never point a gun at something you're not willing to kill. Thinking that cops have some training program to make sure they shoot to kill is a joke.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Like seriously, they might as well just teach police to throw Argentine bolas at the legs of an advancing attacker because the training curve would not be as steep. GodDAMN this would rule. I want bolas standard on all police.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:GodDAMN this would rule. I want bolas standard on all police. Finally, the post that unifies the thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 01:15
|
|
|
Stanos posted:You yell 'less lethal, less lethal!' in case there's any recordings around. It's part of the sacred sect of rules that includes 'Finders keepers' and 'No takebacks'. I think SedanChair was actually right on this, its to avoid causing other cops to start firing
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Stanos posted:You yell 'less lethal, less lethal!' in case there's any recordings around. It's part of the sacred sect of rules that includes 'Finders keepers' and 'No takebacks'. And "You have to tell me if you're a cop." What if they're just larping being a cop though? "Less Lethal! Less Lethal! Lightning Bolt! Lightning Bolt!" ...though they could legit do the latter with tasers. Hmm...
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:GodDAMN this would rule. I want bolas standard on all police. I submit that bola launchers are the only reasonable weapon in this scenario.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
Shooting to kill is a fine rule. The other unwritten half of the rule however, is that you only use the gun to kill someone, not for any other purpose, say compliance, intimidation, as a flashlight, etc. It's also supposed to be a last resorts but welp... Additionally shooting at the legs is a good way to miss and cause bullets to go places you don't intend them to, and in America the police already have a big enough problem with that while trying to actually shoot someone in the center of mass.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:police that do get training sometimes get taught by deranged, "everyone is out to kill you" maniacs. Count how many times this video completely makes up poo poo, like the, "Baseball cap with razor blades sewn into it!" in the video "How To Survive Edged Weapons." Was this the video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65nNcNiwJHM&t=45s
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 08:57
|
|
|
Cichlid the Loach posted:Was this the video? No, this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFr30p0aZl0 tw: fake gore
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Shooting to kill is a fine rule. The other unwritten half of the rule however, is that you only use the gun to kill someone, not for any other purpose, say compliance, intimidation, as a flashlight, etc. It's also supposed to be a last resorts but welp... Additionally shooting at the legs is a good way to miss and cause bullets to go places you don't intend them to, and in America the police already have a big enough problem with that while trying to actually shoot someone in the center of mass. It does really only seem to be Americans claiming that shooting people in the leg is impossible, I think the main issue is getting American police to fire limited bursts or *gasp* one shot then reassess. Its probably true if you asked US cops to shoot people in the legs they'd still be squeezing off 10-30 shots depending on how dark your skin is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
While the theory of incapacitation over killing is sound, if you aren't intending to kill someone, then use a taser, not a lethal-weapon. Even much-better trained cyborg officers, I'd rather have them use "less-than-lethal" weapons, if they aren't intending to kill.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:It does really only seem to be Americans claiming that shooting people in the leg is impossible Uh I'm not sure if you've really thought through the reasons why that might be I think it'd be a pretty safe bet for me to say that no police force on the planet thinks aiming for the leg is a good idea. You've got a greater chance of missing the target and a shot to the leg is just as capable of killing the person as a shot to the chest. Tiny Timbs fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Feb 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:It does really only seem to be Americans claiming that shooting people in the leg is impossible, I think the main issue is getting American police to fire limited bursts or *gasp* one shot then reassess. Its probably true if you asked US cops to shoot people in the legs they'd still be squeezing off 10-30 shots depending on how dark your skin is. Getting shot in the leg is often fatal. And if you're shooting to disable a suspect, then you're in a situation that doesn't call for lethal force. As for "fire and reassess" I don't know, that sounds like it would take a level of cool-headedness that you're not going to find in very many people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
The only time I think an aimed shot like that is appropriate is when you're dealing with hostage situations and you have snipers. If there's time to line up a trick shot with a pistol there's time to deescalate the threat through other means.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
GENDERWEIRD GREEDO posted:Uh I'm not sure if you've really thought through the reasons why that might be Ah whatever, googling police shootings is only getting me US articles anyway and yeah those do seem to coincidentally be concerned with justifying spraying bullets into people's centre mass instead. Maybe if you're a terrible shot and a hot head don't be given a gun? e: To be fair police here in the UK shoot to kill generally when given a gun and shown a black man but we're cunts. Firing into the centre mass on principle strikes me as an odd thing for a public servant to do though, rather than a soldier or assassin. Communist Thoughts fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Feb 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:If there's time to line up a trick shot with a pistol there's time to deescalate the threat through other means.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Even if America didn't have the 2nd amendment, the only people who would absolutely still have guns would be Police. Which imo shouldn't be the case, but you aren't going to be disarming the police in america any time soon, even if it were a good idea. So in the meantime, discouraging handgun use among police is good policy. This can be accomplished by better police training, and encouraging the use tazors/less-then-lethal over handguns, for starters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:Maybe if you're a terrible shot and a hot head don't be given a gun? And again, promoting "don't pull your gun unless you're willing to kill somebody" is a really, really good idea! If what you need to do is incapacitate someone, not kill them, why the hell did you pull out a gun. edit: If cops were really good they'd just shooting the orange, incredibly visible barrels next to groups of enemies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:e: To be fair police here in the UK shoot to kill generally when given a gun and shown a black man but we're cunts. Firing into the centre mass on principle strikes me as an odd thing for a public servant to do though, rather than a soldier or assassin. You're missing the key point, which is that the only time a police officer should be using a lethal weapon in the first place is when lethal force is required to protect themselves or others from imminent grievous harm. If it's a situation where you do not need to kill or otherwise incapacitate the target by the most direct means available, you shouldn't be using a gun. It may not shake out that way in practice, but that is the intent behind the policy. theflyingorc posted:If what you need to do is incapacitate someone, not kill them, why the hell did you pull out a gun. theflyingorc posted:If what you need to do is incapacitate someone, not kill them, why the hell did you pull out a gun. theflyingorc posted:If what you need to do is incapacitate someone, not kill them, why the hell did you pull out a gun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:Maybe if you're a terrible shot and a hot head don't be given a gun? Generally, police departments try to shake out the hotheads and others who are psychologically unsuited to the job in the interview and probation process. As for being terrible shots, shooting at something that's alive and moving is pretty goddamn difficult, even at short range. Add to that an extremely heightened psychological state, and any fancy shooting goes out the window.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
It's great that, 4 months later, this thread devolved right back into SHOOT FOR THE LEGS in under 3 pages  i saw a video of a swat sniper shoot out a gun once there's no reason why cops everywhere shouldn't have the same split-second capability 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
Naturally Selected posted:It's great that, 4 months later, this thread inevitably devolved right back into SHOOT FOR THE LEGS I agree, expecting the poorly trained, poorly disciplined cowards and thugs who infest American police forces to have any other stress response than a hail of indiscriminate gunfire really is asking too much of them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:Ah whatever, googling police shootings is only getting me US articles anyway and yeah those do seem to coincidentally be concerned with justifying spraying bullets into people's centre mass instead. Nobody is a "good shot" shooting at moving extremities outside of hollywood movies, hope this helps. Center mass shots are far more accurate, likely to stop w/o hitting bystanders, and to actually incapacitate the person, rather than a leg shot where the person can still be a harm to others. Why on earth would you want police using guns to take out people's legs? That's dumb as gently caress, we have plenty of less than lethal methods that are far better than shooting the legs if less-than-lethal is what you are going for. Your logic makes no sense. People shoot to kill because you should absolutely not be pointing a gun at someone you want to live! Zeroisanumber posted:Generally, police departments try to shake out the hotheads and others who are psychologically unsuited to the job in the interview and probation process. As for being terrible shots, shooting at something that's alive and moving is pretty goddamn difficult, even at short range. Add to that an extremely heightened psychological state, and any fancy shooting goes out the window. Yea it's really clear that a lot of people that comment in these sorts of threads have utterly no idea what the psychology of people under extreme stress is like, even if we give the benefit of the doubt and assume they've maybe been to the range a couple times. Like people have watched wayyyy too many movies if they think you can just calmly shoot guns out of people's hands while quipping one-liners. tsa fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Feb 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
GENDERWEIRD GREEDO posted:Uh I'm not sure if you've really thought through the reasons why that might be Just as potentially capable doesn't mean just as likely, though. For example, the german police force does explicitly make room for shots whose primary intent is not to kill but to incapacitate, as well as warning shots (though of course for either of them to be legal, the situation must have escalated to the point where potentially lethal force is appropriate, just as with intentional kill shots). Just from a quick googling this is also something that is used every now and then, with the target surviving afterwards, and I think overall Germany also enjoys a better ratio of police firearm use to fatalaties. As an example, this guy was charging a policeman armed with a machete and a sword and was stopped with a single, aimed shot to the leg, and he survived.  Now, whether it's feasible or even a good idea to try and apply a similar doctrine to US police forces is a different question entirely, but to act like it's completely impossible and nobody ever does it is just shortsighted.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:01 |
|
|
nopantsjack posted:e: To be fair police here in the UK shoot to kill generally when given a gun and shown a black man but we're cunts. Firing into the centre mass on principle strikes me as an odd thing for a public servant to do though, rather than a soldier or assassin. Guns are lethal force, understand? It is more terrifying to suppose they are an appropriate tool to use in situations short of needing to kill somebody instantly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2015 19:13
|
|