3 ms·
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 cou
by 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 agoCan 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 agoSorry 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 agoI 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.