|
Nathilus posted: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. So do you think Danish police procedure is wrong because they'll fire warning shots? And to be clear, is it that in your mind it would be better for police to kill someone than fire a warning shot or what?
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 23:42 |
|
|
Getting shot 16 times in the leg probably won't lead to a higher survivor rate than being shot 16 times in the body.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
botany posted: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. Again, does anyone actually have reliable numbers on how many leg shots have hit the target among even a single country's police?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Why do European police routinely break these rules? Why does breaking these rules seem to produce better outcomes? 1. You are risking a shot that is more likely dangerous to bystanders. 2. It allows for greater obfuscation of intent. 3. In the same vein, it adds fuzziness to situations that are immediate. "Is this threat only bad enough that I should try for a 420noscope wingshot or should I really just be putting it down?" There are several other reasons I could list that have already been gone over. I don't have enough information about european police agencies and their shooting rules to make any kind of knowledgable answer to your questions. Though I might suggest their better outcomes are likely not purely or mostly a function of these specific rules but rather a reflection of lower gun violence rates and a differing character of police work when compared to the US. Those basic rules of firearm handling are not "American", or at least we do not owe them to cultural convention in any major way. Guns have the same effects regardless of where on the surface of the earth they are used. The methods to keep from accidentally blowing things apart with them are drat near universal, a natural outcropping of their abilities. For example, bullets are not only dangerous to your immediate target. They are also dangerous to things around and behind that target. So it's not a good idea to spray them senselessly, whether that's up in the air or near things you really don't want to destroy. It's likely that the european departments in question decided there were counterbalancing forces that made sometimes breaking these logical rules acceptable. I can handle that. No rule is totally absolute and there are always tradeoffs. It's not even any of my business, really. But i'm an American. That means I'm loud, opinionated, and like pretending that it's important for my voice to be heard when it comes to American policy. When I think of American cops being allowed to go for wingshots, my nature makes it inevitable that I start shouting nonononono.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So do you think Danish police procedure is wrong because they'll fire warning shots? Yes. I'm not Danish and they can do what they want. I would really hate it if a cop started spraying "warning" lead on a street I was on, though! quote:And to be clear, is it that in your mind it would be better for police to kill someone than fire a warning shot or what? A false dichotomy. I would prefer warnings before the lethal force comes out to be in a language other than gunfire. Anything a warning shot hits is not going to be deserving of lethal force unless it ricochets or something and actually hits the target that was meant to be warned. Even then it's a bad shoot, because the intention was to warn.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
botany posted:Oh no, warning shots are part of the official escalation of force rules too I have no problem with saying the German police policy is stupid, if you want to suddenly hold up appeals to authority as the be all end all then that changes the character of this thread significantly. I generally think that escalation of force procedures that have proven to be too dangerous to civilians to use in a warzone probably shouldn't be used by the police. Also I'm not sure what you think has been proven effective and by what data.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:05
|
|
you should probably also contact
|
chitoryu12 posted:Again, does anyone actually have reliable numbers on how many leg shots have hit the target among even a single country's police? German police officers fired a total of 85 bullets in 2011, 49 of which were warning shots, the German publication Der Spiegel reported. Officers fired 36 times at people, killing six and injuring 15. This is a slight decline from 2010, when seven people were killed and 17 injured. Ninety-six shots were fired in 2010
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:Getting shot 16 times in the leg probably won't lead to a higher survivor rate than being shot 16 times in the body. Anyone with a basic understanding of anatomy would know that it would lead to a higher survivor rate, because unlike your body, your legs don't have a bunch of organs in them. Yeah some people would die, because an artery could be severed, but otherwise legs are full of pretty non-vital stuff. Not to mention legs are a smaller target than a torso, so fewer of those 16 bullets would hit them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:08
|
|
|
fosborb posted:German police officers fired a total of 85 bullets in 2011, 49 of which were warning shots, the German publication Der Spiegel reported. Officers fired 36 times at people, killing six and injuring 15. This is a slight decline from 2010, when seven people were killed and 17 injured. Ninety-six shots were fired in 2010 Is there a breakdown of how many shots were fired in the individual situations and the injuries sustained? 36 shots and 21 people hit would suggest that 15 rounds missed, but I can't accurately suggest anything without more data. Also, any word on where the warning shots landed?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Again, does anyone actually have reliable numbers on how many leg shots have hit the target among even a single country's police? Leg shots are not tracked separately in any statistic I know of. I've tried to find stats that discriminate as much as possible between different types of weapon usage by german police. According to those stats, in 2014 german police fired 10336 shots, 10157 of which were not aimed at humans. The remaining 133 shots were directed at humans: 65 were warning shots, 22 were aimed at property, 46 were aimed at humans themselves. 7 people were killed as a result, 31 were injured. 1 bystander was injured as a result of police firearms usage (not included in the 31 injured). In 5 cases, firearms usage directed at persons was found to be improper, in 2 cases firearms usage directed at property was found to be improper. 1 person was harmed as a result of these improper firearms discharges. The chain of escalation is basically talk, shout, pepper spray etc., warning shot, legshot, shoot to kill, with the obvious shortcuts in case the suspect is actively shooting and so on. We know that some percentage of the 31 injuries that resulted from proper firearms usage against persons were legshots due to news stories etc., but I can't find any specific percentage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
botany posted:Leg shots are not tracked separately in any statistic I know of. I've tried to find stats that discriminate as much as possible between different types of weapon usage by german police. According to those stats, in 2014 german police fired 10336 shots, 10157 of which were not aimed at humans. The remaining 133 shots were directed at humans: 65 were warning shots, 22 were aimed at property, 46 were aimed at humans themselves. 7 people were killed as a result, 31 were injured. 1 bystander was injured as a result of police firearms usage (not included in the 31 injured). In 5 cases, firearms usage directed at persons was found to be improper, in 2 cases firearms usage directed at property was found to be improper. 1 person was harmed as a result of these improper firearms discharges. The thing fosborb used said that only 85 rounds were fired in 2011. Unless Germany was hit by a Chitauri invasion in 2014, I'm wondering if one of you two had an inaccurate source. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
The figure you should be comparing to is obviously 133 shots fired at humans (and perhaps you need to subtract the shots at property as well, I don't know what situations this entails). Don't be stupid. I found this pdf, where the cases are sourced (and there is at least some information about leg shots) but don't have the time now to go through all the incidents: http://schusswaffeneinsatz.de/Fallsammlung_files/Verletzung%20durch%20Polizeibeamte.pdf
true.spoon fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
Nathilus posted:1. You are risking a shot that is more likely dangerous to bystanders. There is no evidence that these shots are more dangerous to bystanders than shooting to center mass, considering 9mm JHP rounds possess sufficient kinetic energy to pass through the vast majority of unarmored targets. quote:2. It allows for greater obfuscation of intent. What does this even mean? If a police officer is pointing a gun at you today, it means you're going to die. In my world, it might also mean that you're going to be disabled. quote:3. In the same vein, it adds fuzziness to situations that are immediate. "Is this threat only bad enough that I should try for a 420noscope wingshot or should I really just be putting it down?" No, not at all. If you look at videos where this technique is employed, it's in situations where you've got a few seconds to think. If you've got a few seconds to think and a shoot-to-disable looks like it would work, do it. If you don't have a few seconds or don't think it woudl work, shoot to kill (per current American SOP). quote:There are several other reasons I could list that have already been gone over. I don't have enough information about european police agencies and their shooting rules to make any kind of knowledgable answer to your questions. Though I might suggest their better outcomes are likely not purely or mostly a function of these specific rules but rather a reflection of lower gun violence rates and a differing character of police work when compared to the US. Then educate yourself? Don't know what I'm supposed to say when you've got a strong opinion about something you're admitting you don't know much about. And please, elaborate on the meaningless equivocation about "differing character of police work" specifically re: why American cops "can't" shoot to disable. quote:Those basic rules of firearm handling are not "American", or at least we do not owe them to cultural convention in any major way. Guns have the same effects regardless of where on the surface of the earth they are used. The methods to keep from accidentally blowing things apart with them are drat near universal, a natural outcropping of their abilities. And yet, Europeans don't follow these rules and have better outcomes. Perhaps, we should study that. quote:It's likely that the european departments in question decided there were counterbalancing forces that made sometimes breaking these logical rules acceptable. I can handle that. No rule is totally absolute and there are always tradeoffs. It's not even any of my business, really. But i'm an American. That means I'm loud, opinionated, and like pretending that it's important for my voice to be heard when it comes to American policy. When I think of American cops being allowed to go for wingshots, my nature makes it inevitable that I start shouting nonononono. OK, good to hear about your nature. Don't see how it's relevant to the discussion at hand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The thing fosborb posted said that only 85 rounds were fired in 2011. Unless Germany was hit by a Chitauri invasion in 2014, I'm wondering if one of you two had an inaccurate source. It's difficult to access the original sources since I'm quoting some university guy who compiled them, but my stats are more inclusive. For instance, I also have police firing directly at persons 36 times in 2011, and 49 warning shots. In addition, they also fired 30 times against property held or used by persons. This comes to 105 shots directed at persons. My statistics also list an additional 8821 shots not directed at persons. I'm not sure what's included, but I wrote the guy an email, I'll report back when I hear from him. I've asked him to send me the original sources as well, maybe he's kind enough to do that, academic to academic 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
botany posted:It's difficult to access the original sources since I'm quoting some university guy who compiled them, but my stats are more inclusive. For instance, I also have police firing directly at persons 36 times in 2011, and 49 warning shots. In addition, they also fired 30 times against property held or used by persons. This comes to 105 shots directed at persons. My statistics also list an additional 8821 shots not directed at persons. I'm not sure what's included, but I wrote the guy an email, I'll report back when I hear from him. I've asked him to send me the original sources as well, maybe he's kind enough to do that, academic to academic The reason I questioned it is because his source (whatever it was, since he didn't link it) claimed 85 rounds fired total, 49 of which were warning shots and 36 aimed at people. Would the 8821 be training being included?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
botany posted:It's difficult to access the original sources since I'm quoting some university guy who compiled them, but my stats are more inclusive. For instance, I also have police firing directly at persons 36 times in 2011, and 49 warning shots. In addition, they also fired 30 times against property held or used by persons. This comes to 105 shots directed at persons. My statistics also list an additional 8821 shots not directed at persons. I'm not sure what's included, but I wrote the guy an email, I'll report back when I hear from him. I've asked him to send me the original sources as well, maybe he's kind enough to do that, academic to academic Is it possible they're counting rounds spent on a training range? Edit: Beaten. While we're here though, I guess I don't understand the argument against it. We've already got several incidents on film that show that police are not shy about using their firearms, so the argument that they'll abuse something they're already accused of abusing doesn't really hold water with me... Raerlynn fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
 More shots fired and more bystanderd injured in Empire State shooting by NYPD than whole Denmark in a year, yet less intended targets hit. Vahakyla fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Nathilus posted:Yes. I'm not Danish and they can do what they want. I would really hate it if a cop started spraying "warning" lead on a street I was on, though! Of course, you're ignoring how the rules expressly require the officer to only fire a warning shot if they can do so safely. quote:There are indications that 16 out of the 23 persons hit by police bullets were mentally ill, and that 2 out of 3 were under the influence of drugs, medicine or alcohol when they were shot. Often police officers tried other means of force before using their pistols. Based on reports submitted by police officers from 1996 to 2006, a slight decrease can be noted with respect to whether the suspects are armed, particularly with firearms. However, the numbers of police officers who are threatened or attacked with weapons are, with some fluctuation, relatively stable over the period. In the 23 shooting incidents examined, 14 suspects were armed, predominantly with stabbing weapons. 9 suspects threatened or attacked police officers physically in person or by driving a car at them or a third party. Oh look, and no one has been shot because of a warning shot either! I would really hate if a cop shot killer lead on a street I was on, and more so than a warning shot!
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
The onechitoryu12 posted:Is there a breakdown of how many shots were fired in the individual situations and the injuries sustained? 36 shots and 21 people hit would suggest that 15 rounds missed, but I can't accurately suggest anything without more data. Also, any word on where the warning shots landed? This article has more recent numbers: http://www.thelocal.de/20150717/police-killed-7-people-in-2014 The one person shot while running away was the result of aiming for the leg after firing a warning shot. Both actions were heavily criticized and the death was marked by protests. Not sure what happened to the officer due to German papers' pesky policies of not immediately doxxing everyone remotely related to the event.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Is it possible they're counting rounds spent on a training range? chitoryu12 posted:The reason I questioned it is because his source (whatever it was, since he didn't link it) claimed 85 rounds fired total, 49 of which were warning shots and 36 aimed at people. Would the 8821 be training being included? I suspect that's the case, but I've asked him via email.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The reason I questioned it is because his source (whatever it was, since he didn't link it) claimed 85 rounds fired total, 49 of which were warning shots and 36 aimed at people. Would the 8821 be training being included? Those are shots fired at animals. Most of them against animals hit by vehicles. Yes, Germans actually count those.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
This Speigel article gives 8812 animals put down by police in 2011. Seems to be most of the use against things other than people. edit: you got me
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:http://m.imgur.com/account/kalleerikvahakyla/images/NQMlkPW That shooting is one of my biggest sources of criticism of the NYPD firearms policy. For those who aren't familiar, they're terrified of their poorly trained officers fingerfucking their guns and accidentally shooting stuff or forgetting to deactivate their safety during a sudden attack and getting stabbed or shot because they can't fire their gun...but they also really don't trust modern triggers like the Glock, P226, or Smith & Wesson M&P have as safe enough to prevent negligent discharge from a cop leaving his finger on the trigger. So they mandate an 11 or 12 pound trigger be added to all of their guns and use double-action only pistols so they have a stupidly heavy trigger on every single shot. Works really well for making sure that only a deliberate pull will fire the gun, but it also majorly fucks with your accuracy. If you're willing to spend about $50, you can test this yourself by buying a cheap non-blowback air pistol from Walmart (like the Umarex USP) and playing around with it. You'll notice how the heavy trigger causes the sights to move around even if you pull very slowly and carefully, as the weight of the trigger is so much higher than the weight of the gun itself. When combined with the rapid fire that American cops often use and the recoil of the gun, the NYPD inevitably ends up blasting everything in sight in a crowded urban city. This is how two officers attempting to shoot a single man at close range ended up directly hitting several civilians with missed shots and spraying others with shrapnel and bullet fragments. It's surprisingly hard to find public information on exactly how the NYPD does their qualification, but an NYPD officer did a Reddit AMA in regards to the shooting. The important points: quote:•Every officer hired since the introduction of pistols in the NYPD back in the early nineties is NOT allowed to use a revolver as their service weapon. They must choose between a Glock 19, S&W 5946, or a Sig p226. All of these guns are in DAO variant and have NO external safety.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Limb shots in America would expand the number of situations in which American police would understand firearm use to be appropriate. For that reason it is a bad and dangerous idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:44
|
|
|
^^^^ ah, so those are probably mostly animals being put down, thanks!true.spoon posted:The figure you should be comparing to is obviously 133 shots fired at humans (and perhaps you need to subtract the shots at property as well, I don't know what situations this entails). Don't be stupid. I found this pdf, where the cases are sourced (and there is at least some information about leg shots) but don't have the time now to go through all the incidents: http://schusswaffeneinsatz.de/Fallsammlung_files/Verletzung%20durch%20Polizeibeamte.pdf I've looked through this, and for those of you who can't speak German, I would estimate that around a quarter of the reports are legshots. Most reports are unspecific ("police shoot at robber, wound him"). Most legshots are in situations where the police officers are actively being attacked with knifes etc. I've translated some, because it's interesting and sometimes funny: 15.4.2015: A man threatens first responders and police with a firearms. Police fire warning shot, man doesn't put down the weapon, gets shot in the leg. 21.8.2015: A man attacks his wife and daughter with knifes, starts approaching police, gets shot in the leg. 1.9.2015: A presumably mentally disabled man has a knife, behaves erratically at the Berlin central train yard, doesn't drop the weapon despite warnings. Gets shot in the leg. 3.6.2014: A heavily intoxicated man is roaming through the streets, armed with a machete and a sword (I'm guessing he wanted to make sure??), attacks police officers, gets shot in the leg. 31.12.2014: A robber is interrupted, starts attacking the police officers. Pepper spray and warning shot are used, no result, gets shot in the leg. 30.5.2014: Suicidal man with firearm threatens to kill both the officers and himself. Starts aiming at police, walking towards them. Gets shot in the leg. All the other ones are pretty much like that, and most if not all of these incidents would have ended in deaths in the US. All of these were successful in stopping the suspects without further harm to anyone, for the record.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Also, to add onto the NYPD thing, a problem the officer on Reddit mentions is that NYC is extremely rigid and strict with firearms ownership, even more than New York state is. What this means is that ranges where an officer can practice independently (if he even wants to) are few and far between and tend to charge a premium compared to more gun-friendly states. He says that he has to go out of his way to find practice ranges that aren't charging rip-off prices. This also implies that he doesn't get a big discount by virtue of being a cop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:51
|
|
|
botany posted:^^^^ ah, so those are probably mostly animals being put down, thanks! It's pretty slow going translating these myself, since I speak basically no German. Out of curiosity, are there any incidents where an officer responded to a gun-wielding suspect who was actually taking shots at people in a fashion that didn't result in their death?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Limb shots in America would expand the number of situations in which American police would understand firearm use to be appropriate. For that reason it is a bad and dangerous idea. No, it would simply turn some fatal shots into non-fatal shots. It's not as if police officers in America need much justification for lethal force, when compared to the justification required in western Europe. If Europe was able to make this work, considering limb shots are an escalation of force there versus a neutral or possible de-escalation of force in America, we can do it, too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:It's pretty slow going translating these myself, since I speak basically no German. Out of curiosity, are there any incidents where an officer responded to a gun-wielding suspect who was actually taking shots at people in a fashion that didn't result in their death? edit: wait, rephrase that. Are you looking for shooters who were taking shots in a fashion that didn't result in death, or are you looking for police officers who responded in a way that didn't result in death?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
botany posted:edit: wait, rephrase that. Are you looking for shooters who were taking shots in a fashion that didn't result in death, or are you looking for police officers who responded in a way that didn't result in death? The latter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted: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.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
botany posted:The chain of escalation is basically talk, shout, pepper spray etc., warning shot, legshot, shoot to kill, with the obvious shortcuts in case the suspect is actively shooting and so on. We know that some percentage of the 31 injuries that resulted from proper firearms usage against persons were legshots due to news stories etc., but I can't find any specific percentage. Radbot posted:No, not at all. If you look at videos where this technique is employed, it's in situations where you've got a few seconds to think. If you've got a few seconds to think and a shoot-to-disable looks like it would work, do it. If you don't have a few seconds or don't think it woudl work, shoot to kill (per current American SOP). Sounds reasonable to me. Which is why it will never happen in America. But then is probably true too: SedanChair posted:Limb shots in America would expand the number of situations in which American police would understand firearm use to be appropriate. For that reason it is a bad and dangerous idea. For real police reform in America to happen, most police departments probably need to be completely dismantled and rebuilt, in order to kill the hosed up culture that's ingrained in them. fosborb posted:Those are shots fired at animals. Most of them against animals hit by vehicles. Are you really surprised that Germans are counting things?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:08
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:The latter. 18.3.2014: Police interrupt ongoing robbery, firefight between robber and officers ensues, one officer and the robber are injured, both survive. 1.7.2014: 27 year old male fires shotgun at his neighbour's door. When police arrives, he starts firing at them too. Officers return fire, shooter is hit multiple times. (This entry doesn't specify that he survived, but from context I highly suspect that he did.) 3.4.2014: (I'm including this one because wtf) 50 year old wants to blow his house up (?!), gets shot and injured, survives. 24.3.2014: Officers escort a woman back to her apartment, where her husband starts shooting at her. Gets shot in the leg. 19.6.2011: Husband and wife are separated, husband owns several weapons and threatens wife. SEK (german SWAT) is called to arrest him, a shootout happens, police fire 38 bullets, shooter is heavily injured but survives. (They clearly weren't trying to just neutralize him, they shot him in the face. He just happened to survive.) 6.10.2011: Armed man is rampaging around the red light district. When police show up, he immediately starts shooting at them. They shoot back, he gets heavily injured but survives. 291.2010: Man rampages in from of a restaurant. Female police officer shows up, he draws a gun, starts shooting at her. Gets shot in the leg. That's around half the document, the rest is kind of like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
Radbot posted:There is no evidence that these shots are more dangerous to bystanders than shooting to center mass, considering 9mm JHP rounds possess sufficient kinetic energy to pass through the vast majority of unarmored targets. Logically, it's a given. A miss is more likely with a leg shot, and a bullet that hasn't encountered any resistence is more dangerous to its surroundings than one that has. You don't need to run a study to figure this out. I'll grant that with some discretion when it comes to keeping clear lines of fire this can be made a negligable factor, but why rely on discretion when it is often so poor? quote:What does this even mean? If a police officer is pointing a gun at you today, it means you're going to die. In my world, it might also mean that you're going to be disabled. You shoot at things you want to destroy. Firing a gun is a potentially lethal act. That is the reality behind firing a weapon at someone. If you just want to stop them, and manage to avoid killing them, great! But you shouldn't let anything get in the way of the fact that any shot has but a single purpose. Hoping for lucky leg shots that inject lead but aren't meant to kill is counter to this principle. quote:No, not at all. If you look at videos where this technique is employed, it's in situations where you've got a few seconds to think. If you've got a few seconds to think and a shoot-to-disable looks like it would work, do it. If you don't have a few seconds or don't think it woudl work, shoot to kill (per current American SOP). American cops already shoot to kill within a second of rolling up on a black kid. Do we also need them firing warning shots half a second earlier? Or deciding that because they can just try to leg 'im they can take the first lethal shot while commando rolling out of the cruiser? We need to consider not only specific outcomes (the black kid is dead regardless), but what these policies communicate when implemented procedurally. quote:Then educate yourself? Don't know what I'm supposed to say when you've got a strong opinion about something you're admitting you don't know much about. And please, elaborate on the meaningless equivocation about "differing character of police work" specifically re: why American cops "can't" shoot to disable. Don't be an rear end. My argument is against the implementation of leg shots and warning shots in American police work. I'm not uneducated on that topic. What Europe does is beyond the scope of what I am talking about. They do a lot of things differently than we do. On the whole I'd say likely better, but because of that array of differences, european cops work under different realities than american cops do. They don't detain or arrest people at nearly the rate we do, for instance. Which is why my comment on the differing character of police work is not meaningless. quote:And yet, Europeans don't follow these rules and have better outcomes. Perhaps, we should study that. Perhaps transplanting two or three of those rules into our own system as it is won't gain us the same outcomes. quote:OK, good to hear about your nature. Don't see how it's relevant to the discussion at hand. I was being glib. Chill just a little, man. We can discuss this without devolving into irritated pedantry. To bring it together and sum it up, I admit that the german numbers look good. The injury to kill ratio is superb all things considered, 1 bystander harmed is within a reasonable margin, and the 87 shots I would consider senselessly dangerous didn't apparently wreak any noteworthy havok. I question if we'd see similar results if these rules were incoporated into american police training. European police tactics are ok to me where they are, but when it comes to the changes to the status quo here I'd like to see, more reasons to shoot bullets is not on my list. Edit: phone posting typos. Nathilus fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Dec 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
botany posted:18.3.2014: Police interrupt ongoing robbery, firefight between robber and officers ensues, one officer and the robber are injured, both survive. This seems to suggest that German police either fire fewer rounds at suspects, provide more prompt and serious medical attention to injured suspects, or both. Likely both. It's a much more professional way of handling lethal force.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
botany posted:24.3.2014: Officers escort a woman back to her apartment, where her husband starts shooting at her. Gets shot in the leg. Am I the only one that skimmed this, and read it like the second husband-wife incident was a followup to the first? I don't think anybody in the thread advocating leg shots for US policing is doing it in a vacuum without factoring in other changes to make effective. If that were the only thing, then yeah, it would be pretty dumb, and it would just get summarily ignored.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:46
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:I don't think anybody in the thread advocating leg shots for US policing is doing it in a vacuum without factoring in other changes to make effective. If that were the only thing, then yeah, it would be pretty dumb, and it would just get summarily ignored. I think the changes to American policing that would make leg shots a safe proposition would be so great as to reduce police brutality and needless killings on their own.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:I think the changes to American policing that would make leg shots a safe proposition would be so great as to reduce police brutality and needless killings on their own. Why are leg shots less safe than any other shot aimed at a person, considering the rounds usually used by American police travel through unarmored targets?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Why are leg shots less safe than any other shot aimed at a person, considering the rounds usually used by American police travel through unarmored targets? Exactly what ammo are you using for this? There's a huge variety of defensive ammo in use by police around the country with widely varying penetration. Lucky Gunner did a very good series of charts detailing their penetration tests of over 100 common defense rounds for .380 ACP, 9x19mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP. Even among 9mm rounds (which are the highest velocity being tested), most of them were 18 inches or less of penetration. This is sufficient to reach the vital organs after passing through someone's arms and thick clothing, but that's about it. The bullets that exit the body will be coming out at very low velocities. The bullets that had massive overpenetration were generally faulty designs that failed to expand (usually from the hollow point being clogged with clothing). On the other hand, shots that just plain miss will retain lethal velocity for well over 100 yards if they don't hit anything along the way, and shots that miss the legs and hit the ground at an angle can easily ricochet off and fly behind the target.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 23:42 |
|
Radbot posted:Why are leg shots less safe than any other shot aimed at a person, considering the rounds usually used by American police travel through unarmored targets? Because the effect of introducing a leg shot policy is to expand the total set of situations in which police open fire.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2015 21:03
|
|
