Police: society's willing sacrifices??

[smileyeagle1021]

Emptying a clip is called murder. I would be quite happy to convict you if I were on a jury and you said that you did it on purpose.
In the heat of the moment I give norma people with no experience in violent altercations the benefit of the doubt.
But intentionally killing someone when there is a reasonable alternative is murder.
All the myths of people continuing to fight after recieving fatal wounds is mostly just that, a myth. It's simply that time slows down and what seems like forever is just a moment for the body to drop.

you have both convicted me and forgiven me in two paragraphs... you say that time slows down (an illusion caused by adrenaline) and that it appears the guy is still fighting when it just seems like forever for the body to drop. Yet you said that emptying the clip would make it clearly intentional. Which is it... is it the adrenaline screwing up your perceptions to make it seem like the person is still coming at you when he isn't or is it intentional murder. I foresee a hung jury in that case.
Also, in the case of a wild man running at you with a knife, what is the alternative?

[Evandril]

Emptying a clip is called murder. I would be quite happy to convict you if I were on a jury and you said that you did it on purpose.
In the heat of the moment I give norma people with no experience in violent altercations the benefit of the doubt.
But intentionally killing someone when there is a reasonable alternative is murder.
All the myths of people continuing to fight after recieving fatal wounds is mostly just that, a myth. It's simply that time slows down and what seems like forever is just a moment for the body to drop.

Personally, I'm pulling the trigger until they stop coming towards me...and that's going to put more than one bullet into 'em, hopefully Full clip, most likely not...But it is NOT uncommon for someone to just keep shooting, once they start, if they are panicing.

The drug I was talking about was PCP, and shots to the chest will be fatal...but won't stop someone that can't feel 'em, until the lack of blood makes 'em go down. Luckly, that's something you don't hear much about anymore...Hopefully that means it's not really around as much as it used to be.

[AdminAssistant]

The drug I was talking about was PCP, and shots to the chest will be fatal...but won't stop someone that can't feel 'em, until the lack of blood makes 'em go down.

Which is why you aim for the head. I have no idea how I would react to a situation like that. I hope I would have the bearings to be able to defend myself. As a civilian, I just try to keep myself out of those situations. But if I feel someone is threatening me, in anyway, I will defend myself by whatever means possible. I keep a steel hammer under my bed and I don't think I would hesitate to smash someone in the head with it. And I would feel completely justified in doing so. Especially if the attacker is male. (Side note: I don't believe in the 'just do what they tell you to and stay alive' bs. Somebody tries to rape me he is in for a FIGHT.)

I could never be a cop. Too much crap to deal with all around.

[crazylegs]

Yay all for the voice for the coppers

Did you expect any different from me Slyt...?

To first warn him, then try non lethal means, then fire a warning shot,

You shouldn't be firing a warning shot, where would you aim it? What if it ricochets and kills a child (as happened in Greece recently). As soon as you have pulled the trigger you have decided that you will be using lethal force, you can't 'wing' them, you can't fire warning shots, you either shoot them or you do not.

Which is why you aim for the head.

No, you don't. You aim for the single largest part of the body, which is the torso. Attempting to aim for the head of a person who is moving is folly at best, the head will be ducking and moving rapidly. The torso will be moving much more slowly and you have a much greater chance of hitting them. This is also the argument agains trying to shoot at limbs.

[Slytovhand]

What?? Crazy??? Are you crazy??? siding with the coppers??????

It's just that people around here have been going off about "He's only a 15 year old boy"...

As for a warning shot - into the ground between you and the assailant (if it's dirt).

And you beat me to it re: torso shots.

Also - when you shoot to stop someone, don't take 1 shot, stop and wait to see what it did (hit or not, effective or not), fire another one, check to see... etc. You fire off a few at a time (at least 3) - and if they're still moving - keep firing. Unless they're a few meters away, that may mean a full clip (given that it's more than likely not all with hit).

[AFPheonix]

He already explained that shooting into the ground could cause the bullet to ricochet.
Shooting straight into the air could have consequences too as the bullet must come down at some point and still has the ability to injure someone.

[smileyeagle1021]

He already explained that shooting into the ground could cause the bullet to ricochet.
Shooting straight into the air could have consequences too as the bullet must come down at some point and still has the ability to injure someone.

depending on the surface ricochet risks could be minimal... if it's soft ground (IE sod, lose dirt, etc)... that said... that is yet another judgment call that we have to trust to be made on whether or not a shot would be safe and whether or not it will have a chance of deterring the situation from deteriorating.

[Flyndaran]

I have been a little behind in this discussion. But NO absolutely not. A gun is a weapon used to cause greivous injury only whne one's live is in danger. It is not a toy or a bullhorn.

[Slytovhand]

Flyn.. you've lost me. Are you saying that warning shots shouldn't ever be fired?? That it is not preferable to put a couple of bullets into the ground (assuming relatively safe - ie dirt - not concrete), as a warning, rather than having first shots put into an assailant - where even 1 hit can possibly kill??

Smiley, thanks for the back up (partner ) - yes, that's what I was thinking. The actual incident occurred in a skate park - which would be concrete (but at night, and no-one else around ... so perhaps ok).

[crazylegs]

Flyn.. you've lost me. Are you saying that warning shots shouldn't ever be fired?? That it is not preferable to put a couple of bullets into the ground (assuming relatively safe - ie dirt - not concrete), as a warning, rather than having first shots put into an assailant - where even 1 hit can possibly kill??

You should never fire warning shots, it is British Army policy and UK Police policy that warning shots are not used, they spread panic, they are dangerous and they are unpredictable, who's to say that 5mm below the dirt surface you're plugging a round into that there isn't a metal plate of some description?

Warning shots are fraught with inherent risks and dangers that cannot be adequetly assesed and controlled in the short amount of time that is present for them to be used at all.

[Slytovhand]

Yeah, I can understand the logic behind that. Not 100% sure that I can agree with it, which is why we have policy in Australia that warning shots are still fired (possibly circumstantial??). Which is what the officers did in this case (and others I've heard of).

[daleduke17]

Yeah, I can understand the logic behind that. Not 100% sure that I can agree with it, which is why we have policy in Australia that warning shots are still fired (possibly circumstantial??). Which is what the officers did in this case (and others I've heard of).

If you're to the point of pulling the trigger on your sidearm, there is a reason to injure or kill the subject you're aiming at.