3 ms·

No, it's certainly not that simple. It's still a very stark contrast that the SF police department fired a years supply of bullets in a single incident. I picke

No, it's certainly not that simple. It's still a very stark contrast that the SF police department fired a years supply of bullets in a single incident. I picked 2014 because it's the last available stats atm, and it's actually slightly above average. On average, per use of deadly force, the german police fires about 1/20th - 1/40th in terms of number of bullets. One reason for that is that the german police is trained to use deadly force as last resort and rather retreat than fire. Shooting 40 bullets at a person in a park instead of trying to clear the area is unlikely to happen here. (or anywhere in europe, for that matter)

tptacek 11y ago
When you fire a gun at someone, your goal is to kill them. If you're confronting an armed subject and you manage only to wound them, then not only are you making it possible for the to shoot you back, but you're making it overwhelmingly likely that they will --- who could blame them for trying desperately to save their own lives? So to me, 1 bullet, 20 bullets, 40 bullets, who cares? Dead is dead. If you don't want police shooting people by mistake, disarm the police. My attitude towards this might be different from a lot of other nerds. In my experience, nerds tend to be firearms enthusiasts. I hate guns.
- Xylakant 11y ago
  Why fire at all in the given setting? Instead of "Wait for backup, clear out the area"? Retreat out of the immediate danger area, take cover, take time to assess the situation. The general way things go wrong seems to be "police arrives at scene, pulls gun, pulls trigger until clip is empty." [1] - in this case multiple officers, even after the assumed hostile was on the ground and not moving. I'm fine with a deliberate assessment and a deliberate kill shot - it's warranted some times and in that case shoot to kill and make it count. It's just that I don't see the assessment. [1] the kid on the playground in cleveland, the guy in the supermarket aisle, ...
  - tptacek 11y ago
    We do not disagree.
- Tomte 11y ago
  Dozens of bullets sounds excessive. Very certainly killing someone usually takes far fewer bullets. This amount of gunfire always suggests an emotional component to me, hatred or something. That's only very generally speaking, of course. I can imagine situations where dozens of shots are rational.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    That's why the number of bullets always gets reported: it supports a narrative about angry police. But ask around (really try): the police are trained to do this. Emotion isn't a major component of bullet count --- though it is a huge component in the decision to fire a gun in the first place.
- hga 11y ago
  When you fire a gun at someone, your goal is to kill them. NO NO NO NO NO! In the US in civilian life, and this includes police although they don't really count as that any more, the goal is to stop them. Deliberate killing is reserved for the judicial system after due process. Now, if you're not lucky enough to either have a target who stops after the first hit (this is very common) or gets a Central Nervous System hit, you're going to have to keep shooting until they lose enough blood or are otherwise physically disabled, and there's a good chance that'll result in death. Especially since it's not unheard of for that to require a magazine dump, and if multiple police are engaging the target, you'll get this sort of "40 bullets!" outcome.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Can you cite a piece of police training material that suggests police be sparing with bullets once they commence firing at a target? Again, to be clear: I think the police should largely be disarmd. I do not think patrol officers should routinely be armed with handguns. I think it is monstrously silly to suggest that the solution to police shooting problems could somehow involve police being more judicious with the number of shots they take. The problem is the guns, not the way that they're used.
    - hga 11y ago
      Sorry I wasn't clear enough: once you make the decision to use the lethal force of a gun, you keep shooting, as quickly and accurately as you can, until the threat is over. The only "judiciousness" in this comes in making the decision to start, and to stop after the threat is over, and of course the latter is not always clear.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        I misunderstood you, and also wasn't very clear in my comment. You're right: the goal isn't to kill; it's just that no part of the goal involves avoiding killing.

tptacek 11y ago

When you fire a gun at someone, your goal is to kill them. If you're confronting an armed subject and you manage only to wound them, then not only are you making it possible for the to shoot you back, but you're making it overwhelmingly likely that they will --- who could blame them for trying desperately to save their own lives? So to me, 1 bullet, 20 bullets, 40 bullets, who cares? Dead is dead. If you don't want police shooting people by mistake, disarm the police. My attitude towards this might be different from a lot of other nerds. In my experience, nerds tend to be firearms enthusiasts. I hate guns.

Xylakant 11y ago
Why fire at all in the given setting? Instead of "Wait for backup, clear out the area"? Retreat out of the immediate danger area, take cover, take time to assess the situation. The general way things go wrong seems to be "police arrives at scene, pulls gun, pulls trigger until clip is empty." [1] - in this case multiple officers, even after the assumed hostile was on the ground and not moving. I'm fine with a deliberate assessment and a deliberate kill shot - it's warranted some times and in that case shoot to kill and make it count. It's just that I don't see the assessment. [1] the kid on the playground in cleveland, the guy in the supermarket aisle, ...
- tptacek 11y ago
  We do not disagree.
Tomte 11y ago
Dozens of bullets sounds excessive. Very certainly killing someone usually takes far fewer bullets. This amount of gunfire always suggests an emotional component to me, hatred or something. That's only very generally speaking, of course. I can imagine situations where dozens of shots are rational.
- tptacek 11y ago
  That's why the number of bullets always gets reported: it supports a narrative about angry police. But ask around (really try): the police are trained to do this. Emotion isn't a major component of bullet count --- though it is a huge component in the decision to fire a gun in the first place.
hga 11y ago
When you fire a gun at someone, your goal is to kill them. NO NO NO NO NO! In the US in civilian life, and this includes police although they don't really count as that any more, the goal is to stop them. Deliberate killing is reserved for the judicial system after due process. Now, if you're not lucky enough to either have a target who stops after the first hit (this is very common) or gets a Central Nervous System hit, you're going to have to keep shooting until they lose enough blood or are otherwise physically disabled, and there's a good chance that'll result in death. Especially since it's not unheard of for that to require a magazine dump, and if multiple police are engaging the target, you'll get this sort of "40 bullets!" outcome.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Can you cite a piece of police training material that suggests police be sparing with bullets once they commence firing at a target? Again, to be clear: I think the police should largely be disarmd. I do not think patrol officers should routinely be armed with handguns. I think it is monstrously silly to suggest that the solution to police shooting problems could somehow involve police being more judicious with the number of shots they take. The problem is the guns, not the way that they're used.
  - hga 11y ago
    Sorry I wasn't clear enough: once you make the decision to use the lethal force of a gun, you keep shooting, as quickly and accurately as you can, until the threat is over. The only "judiciousness" in this comes in making the decision to start, and to stop after the threat is over, and of course the latter is not always clear.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      I misunderstood you, and also wasn't very clear in my comment. You're right: the goal isn't to kill; it's just that no part of the goal involves avoiding killing.