|
Jarmak posted:People who are "successfully" shot in the leg should never have been shot to begin with. No disagreement here except that I and many others feel that many people who are "successfully" shot to death by cops in the US should not have been shot in the first place. People with knives and razors should be able to be apprehended by our police without murdering them.
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:22 |
|
|
DrNutt posted:No disagreement here except that I and many others feel that many people who are "successfully" shot to death by cops in the US should not have been shot in the first place. People with knives and razors should be able to be apprehended by our police without murdering them. It's depressing that any suggestion of providing police with lesser means of subduing suspects is argued against (perhaps justifiably so) because police will resist any accountability, and merely use new methods as opportunities for further abuse, instead of reducing harm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
I would rather have two people injured unnessicarily than one killed unnessicarily if those are the options. Edit: Which they aren't. Not every country has a horribly broken and violent police force, clearly it is a fixable problem. Silver Nitrate fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Dec 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:People who are "successfully" shot in the leg should never have been shot to begin with. So your objection to shooting to wound is almost entirely idealogical despite the evidence showing that it does work. Your training/background has taught you otherwise and you're sticking to it. The same goes for chitoryu12. Please do remember that the police usually have exhausted other means of de-escalation before shooting to wound and that even bringing guns on scene is treated as seriously as if someone has open fired. But given how incompetent your average officer appear to be, shooting to wound isn't an option, better off they lose their holstered weapon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Keep in mind we also wouldn't even need to have this loving discussion if cops would use tazers as the less than lethal option they are intended as instead of compliance tools.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
i do think that shooting to wound has its place, but i have no idea how you can look at the way, say, tasers are used in this country and think that it would be a good idea to say "oh hey, you can shoot someone with your gun now and call it nonlethal force" it'll turn a couple horrifying shootings into instances where a badass hero cop takes the bad guy down with a cool trick shot and everyone cheers, sure, but for every case like that there are going to be hundreds of brand-new horrifying shootings that wouldn't have been shootings before. that's not including cases like the killing of mario woods (the one that sparked the whole shoot-to-wound derail) where shooting the guy just once instead of fifteen times would still be insane, but hey, now department policy is even clearer about it being a good shoot
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Yeah, if we gave any tool to American cops suddenly we'd find everyone who talked back during a traffic stop shot in the knee just like they use tasers today. The only solution is to tie the hands of police so hard they have to beg society to allow them to behave.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:Keep in mind we also wouldn't even need to have this loving discussion if cops would use tazers as the less than lethal option they are intended as instead of compliance tools. But then cops couldn't feel utterly superior to the homeless man desperately begging them to not zap them again because he dared to call the cop a pig. Why do you hate cops? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Justice Department to open probe of Chicago Police Departmentquote:WASHINGTON – The Justice Department is expected to announce this week a civil rights investigation of the Chicago Police Department similar to probes of police departments in Baltimore and Ferguson, Missouri.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Samog posted:i do think that shooting to wound has its place, but i have no idea how you can look at the way, say, tasers are used in this country and think that it would be a good idea to say "oh hey, you can shoot someone with your gun now and call it nonlethal force" Yeah, this is exactly what I'm getting at.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2015 23:54
|
|
|
I've never encountered legshots as lesslethal doctrine. They've always been deadly force.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:So your objection to shooting to wound is almost entirely idealogical despite the evidence showing that it does work. Your training/background has taught you otherwise and you're sticking to it. The same goes for chitoryu12. Exactly how much firearms experience do you have?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:People who are "successfully" shot in the leg should never have been shot to begin with. No, it's still lethal force and should be treated as such. People can and do die from leg wounds. Using lethal force doesn't mean you definitely get to kill the person, it means using force that has a reasonable chance of killing someone. The focus on lethal force as a license to kill has all sorts of cultural problems, for example the guy claiming earlier in this thread that if you are justified in shooting someone once to stop them then you're automatically justified in shooting them 10 or 20 or 100 times with every officer surrounding them and magdumping to be sure of the kill. Once you shoot once or double-tap, the situation is going to be different and it's time to reassess not go "welp I had the right to kill so *blam*blam*blam*blam*blam*" Or that bridge shooting-out-the-engine block case earlier. One of the arguments was that since spike strips might kill the driver, therefore you're justified in just executing him on purpose. Regardless of QI, that cop should not be working as a cop anymore, because that's not how it should work, police should still be trained to use the least lethal but still effective method of containing the threat, not take the opportunity to blow someone away once the minimum threshold of legality for lethal force is met. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Exactly how much firearms experience do you have? None, also irrelevant. Accepting new and different things can be hard especially when so heavily ingrained or run counter to everything you believe. Then check the third line. oohhboy posted:But given how incompetent your average officer appear to be, shooting to wound isn't an option, better off they lose their holstered weapon. American officers can't control shooting to kill, what bloody hope do they have to shoot to wound regardless of weapon. The biggest thing I like about that shoot to wound video is how bloody calm the shooter is. There isn't any screaming, he calmly takes responsibility for the shoot before he gets the results in. He owned the bullet he fired even after it stopped.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Exactly how much firearms experience do you have? That is completely besides the point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
botany posted:That is completely besides the point. It's entirely not. He's trying to argue something on a subject that he doesn't actually have any personal experience in. He's assuming that it must be some super easy thing that any cop should be expected to pull off without endangering others. Does anyone actually have numbers on things like leg and arm shots for European police?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
Never heard of an arm shot being practiced.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 07:07
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:It's entirely not. He's trying to argue something on a subject that he doesn't actually have any personal experience in. He's assuming that it must be some super easy thing that any cop should be expected to pull off without endangering others. You don't need personal experience to prove that a thing can be done if you have other evidence that proves it. I don't know how to fly a jet plane, and even less of a clue on how to make one drop a bomb that lands within meters of its target, but I have it on pretty good authority that it can be done. He's saying that it can be done because the police forces of other nations actually do it. There is evidence that it can be done. His own personal ability to do it is immaterial. Now this question, "Does anyone actually have numbers on things like leg and arm shots for European police?" is a good one. That's a question that might help determine if this practice is worthwhile or not, but asking, "Can you, SA Poster #85477, personally do it?"  is meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 07:42
|
|
|
this reminds me of a funny thing i read about that "blade runner" dude that killed his girlfriend. the judge admonished him for not using a warning shot. in the U.S., there was a woman who got the book thrown at her for using a warning shot, because hey if you shot your gun you were trying to kill someone, regardless of your motives. It's tricky, since you want to encourage an attitude that you only want too shoot at all when you have to, but there's a line between saying "only shoot if you're willing to have someone die" and "only shoot when you want to kill", and I think the latter, while seemingly more restrictive, plays a role in the high body count of U.S. police, since it on edge cases like "noncompliant suspect with knife", it encourages overkill in the form of fifteen rounds into a crumpling figure, since any restrained behavior on the cops part damages the rationalization for shooting in the first place. I think it's more an unconscious thing, since people tend to act first and rationalize later, so they adjust their behaviour so there's no cognitive dissonance; the cop wants to shoot for whatever reason, so they internally justify their shooting by going extra lethal, when a less restrictive doctrine would help by not placing police in an immediate "do I need to want to kill this person?" mentality. this is just a pet hypothesis, mind you, and im not being terribly clear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 07:49
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:Never heard of an arm shot being practiced. I know of exactly one similar situation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVnwkDbeARw Even the sniper admitted after the fact that it was an incredibly lucky shot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 08:17
|
|
|
I'm just curious what the liability would be if he, say, missed and shattered the dude's hand at the wrist. Or loving killed him. I'm pretty sure maiming someone for life in order to stop their suicide isn't covered under QI.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I'm just curious what the liability would be if he, say, missed and shattered the dude's hand at the wrist. Or loving killed him. I'm pretty sure maiming someone for life in order to stop their suicide isn't covered under QI. Maiming them wouldn't be covered but killing them would be?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 08:44
|
|
|
Thats not what hes saying at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 09:54
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:He's assuming that it must be some super easy thing that any cop should be expected to pull off without endangering others. That's true. It's clearly more dangerous to "others" than multiple mag dumps.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 10:02
|
|
|
botany posted:Yeah, just ignore that police in civilized countries use legshots successfully, it is definitely not a good idea. America is different! Nothing can be done! It's the price for freedom! American police candidates are selected by HR for low intelligence and poorly trained on top of that. Of course <civilised police behaviour> doesn't work in America.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:American police candidates are selected by HR for low intelligence and poorly trained on top of that. Of course <civilised police behaviour> doesn't work in America. The specific case you're thinking of was discussed either late last thread or earlier in this one. In the interest of fairness, that particular department was screening for applicants who were average to slightly above-average (but not exceptionally above-average). Your point about training stands; based on the stories presented in these threads, US police training seems to fall somewhere between insufficient and malignant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:That's true. It's clearly more dangerous to "others" than multiple mag dumps. Just because what American officers do is more dangerous doesn't make trying to do trick shots to use your gun as a less-lethal tool suddenly okay.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Just because what American officers do is more dangerous doesn't make trying to do trick shots to use your gun as a less-lethal tool suddenly okay. Does make it less dangerous though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
All the shots where American police would be using their "shoot to disable" technique would be instances where the person would probably have been shot to death anyways, so what's the issue? They *already* have guns and are clearly able to use them nearly whenever they want to as long as their fellow cops back them up, and the person they're killing doesn't have an excessively high social status. Allowing them to shoot in the leg instead of the face, which they would have, seems like a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Radbot posted:All the shots where American police would be using their "shoot to disable" technique would be instances where the person would probably have been shot to death anyways, so what's the issue? When you have a hammer a whole lot of things start to look like nails.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:When you have a hammer a whole lot of things start to look like nails. Right. The point being, they already have a hammer and the permission to use it with impunity. Allowing people to hammer hands and feet instead of faces isn't an escalation of permission.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Just because what American officers do is more dangerous doesn't make trying to do trick shots to use your gun as a less-lethal tool suddenly okay. This is the contact page for the german federal police. You should probably inform them that this thing they've been doing for years, which works, is actually bad. I'm sure they'll appreciate your incredible insight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
I'm against training police for leg shots. There are a lot of overlapping issues that make it a terrible goddamned idea regardless of what country you are in. They've all been gone over already so I won't regurgitate them. I will say this however: shooting at someone is lethal force. A leg shot is easily lethal. Don't let movies injury mentality obfuscate those simple facts. Warning shots are even worse. The very idea breaks at least 3 of the basic rules of firearms handling. Spewing lead without an intent to kill what you are shooting is utterly idiotic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Nathilus posted:I'm against training police for leg shots. There are a lot of overlapping issues that make it a terrible goddamned idea regardless of what country you are in. They've all been gone over already so I won't regurgitate them. I will say this however: shooting at someone is lethal force. A leg shot is easily lethal. Don't let movies injury mentality obfuscate those simple facts. Oh no, warning shots are part of the official escalation of force rules too  you should probably also contact the german police, just to make sure they're aware of their oversight!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
It's absolutely amazing that people are saying "nope, it doesn't work" when it's been shown multiple times that it absolutely works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Here's some Danish regulation on the use of guns by police:quote:17. (1) Firearms may only be used: While it might go against NRA-based training, a warning shot to ensure that the suspect has been fully informed that police to intend to fire if police orders are not observed actually makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Nathilus posted:Warning shots are even worse. The very idea breaks at least 3 of the basic rules of firearms handling. Spewing lead without an intent to kill what you are shooting is utterly idiotic. Why do European police routinely break these rules? Why does breaking these rules seem to produce better outcomes? Your "basic" rules are American firearms rules. We loving get that even a leg shot is lethal force. The idea is that you shoot someone in the leg when you **WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE** shot them to death.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
botany posted:Oh no, warning shots are part of the official escalation of force rules too Just because it's official somewhere doesn't make it a good idea. People shoot guns into the air at weddings in certain parts of the world and every once in a while someone catches lead on its way back down. I'm not gonna wail and gnash my teeth hard enough to keep anyone awake over either of those situations, but I internalized the lesson that even pointing a gun at something you don't intend to destroy is a very bad idea long ago.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
But it demonstratively IS a workable idea...
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 23:22 |
|
|
Nathilus posted:Just because it's official somewhere doesn't make it a good idea. No. The fact that it often leads to better outcomes than mag dumps makes it a good idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 18:31
|
|