|
Those charges are a good thing. If we've learned anything from the past few years, it's that charges that seem aggressive are usually just the DA trying to get an acquittal.
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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: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
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Because the effect of introducing a leg shot policy is to expand the total set of situations in which police open fire. No, it doesn't. You'd only use this technique if you were otherwise going to shoot to kill. chitoryu12 posted: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). I don't give a gently caress about ballistics or any of that poo poo, beyond the fact that most rounds that most officers shoot around the world will still be lethal even if they have hit their target first.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
twodot posted:That's obviously the ideal policy, but in reality introducing this policy means that at least one person is going to go for a leg shot when they weren't otherwise going to shoot to kill. From there the only question is "Are there more shootings incorrectly escalated to leg shots than (correctly executed leg shots - extra bystanders shot by missing a trickier target)?" Other countries have demonstrated it's at least possible to balance that equation, but I'd expect anyone proposing it for the US (across thousands of individual jurisdictions) to have a detailed plan before being taken seriously. And yet, it works in Europe. I'm OK with having one extra person shot in the leg in the current US policing environment, where people are routinely killed for contempt of cop. And if there's a bystander around, I'm OK with not shooting to disable.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Except as was shown today in Lynnwood, police officers routinely bully women to retract their claims of rape.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
Look man, if not all police officers do it, it's not worth talking about. 100% of bad apples spoil the bunch, as the saying goes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 23:17
|
|