3 ms·

> there is no real reason for the police not to use lethal force once the situation has got even slightly violent Also interesting to note that even private c

by rdtsc 9y ago

> there is no real reason for the police not to use lethal force once the situation has got even slightly violent Also interesting to note that even private citizens who are armed and are using it in self defense, are instructed to shoot to kill only. Obviously they are first told that it should only happen if their or others lives are in danger, but once the firearm comes up basically just empty the magazine as fast possible without hesitation. The logic is a bit like above. Shooting to wound, brandishing the weapon to scare, threatening, all those things end up "not working out" legally as well as killing the person as quickly as possible. Basically hesitating or wounding or scaring all can be later reinterpreted in court as "your life wasn't really in danger if you hesitated and just shot to maim, so you shouldn't have even pulled the deadly weapon out to begin with". Also I can see that even the perpetrator (say the burglar) might be justified in suing the owner if the owner pull the weapon out and wounds him. The burglar might even be justified in pulling his/her own weapon and shooting back because now the situation is threatening their lives. So to avoid that mess, just empty the magazine.

danielvf 9y ago
"The burglar might even be justified in pulling his/her own weapon and shooting back because now the situation is threatening their lives." In the US, there's the "Clean Hands" doctrine that excludes a legal defense of self defense from anyone who was committing a crime at the time. The hypothetical burgler would just be adding charges.
pjc50 9y ago
Instructed by whom? I'm kind of reminded of the stories of Chinese road traffic accidents where the advice is to make sure the victim is dead - reverse over him if necessary - rather than any other outcome. UK law very definitely requires you to stop shooting immediately once the danger is past - see R v Clegg.
- Zak 9y ago
  > UK law very definitely requires you to stop shooting immediately once the danger is past US law as well. If an assailant is obviously incapacitated or surrendering, it's illegal to keep shooting them. That doesn't really conflict with what the grandparent post says: self defense firearms instructors typically teach students to fire multiple shots at the torso of an assailant, often to continue firing until the assailant stops being an obvious threat. It's risky to shoot someone who's attacking you and stop to see whether it worked. As an example of the reasoning for this kind of instruction, here's an account of a gunfight between a police officer and a murder suspect. The suspect continued shooting after taking several bullets to the chest and tried to drive away after being shot a total of 22 times. http://lawofficer.com/archive/officer-down-the-peter-soulis-incident/ http://lawofficer.com/archive/officer-down-the-peter-soulis-...
- rdtsc 9y ago
  > Instructed by whom? By instructors. As in those who advise or train people to use firearms. Here are just two examples I found: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/brandishing-and-warning-shots http://www.secondcalldefense.org/brandishing-and-warning-sho... Here is a reddit post discussion someone being surprised by this advice: https://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/3e5jn6/my_cwp_instructor_told_our_class_to_shoot_to_kill/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/3e5jn6/my_cwp_instruct... > UK law very definitely requires you to stop shooting immediately once the danger is past - see R v Clegg. Pretty sure so does the US law. It comes to how determination of "danger is past" happens. There are two aspects there I can think of : 1) This idea that acting too calculating and methodical, shooting one round in the leg, waiting, seeing them crawl and reach for their firearm, shooting another round, etc might not play well in court as the jury might look at it and say "hmm, he had time sit around and think and observe, why didn't he run to save his life at that point" it becomes dubious that this was self defense it starts to look like attempted murder there. While something like "life was in danger, reacted quickly, shot all the rounds, etc". Not saying one way is right or wrong it is just juries I think are inclined to acquit in the later case. 2) There is probably the same perverse idea as the Chinese drivers backing up and making sure they really crush that victim well enough for them to die, because then a dead person they can't sue in a civil court.
openasocket 9y ago
> even private citizens who are armed and are using it in self defense, are instructed to shoot to kill only That's not because of the legal ramifications, though. Shooting to wound is very very difficult especially in a crisis. The limbs are much smaller targets than the torso and move much more rapidly and unpredictably. Additionally, they are trained to keep firing because even lethal gunshots tend not to be immediately incapacitating. Due to the effects of adrenaline, people can continue fighting even after being shot in the torso a half dozen times. In short, guns are terrible non-lethal weapons.
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
>Also interesting to note that even private citizens who are armed and are using it in self defense, are instructed to shoot to kill only This is the bullshit cliff notes watered down for stupid people who can't think for themselves. You escalate use of force until the threat is stopped. If someone comes at you with a shovel and backs down when you draw your gun you do not just shoot him because "that's what you do". If you do not need to fire your weapon to stop the threat then you should not fire your weapon. You should not draw a gun if you are not prepared to use it. If you shoot someone in the kneecap you'd better be damn good at convincing the court that it was because you have cop-quality marksmanship. Obviously once a gun comes out you should call the cops to CYA but you are not obligated to shoot someone just because you've drawn a gun.
- jMyles 9y ago
  > cop-quality marksmanship What is that exactly? Good or bad?
  - danielvf 9y ago
    The GP is using it as an insult. Handgun training and competence varies tremendously between different cities and departments. Overall, I think most departments gotten drastically better over the last twenty years. Handgun skills decline quickly without use. For a long time most American police departments only required officers to qualify once a year, and the test was easy. Your average civilian handgun shooting enthusiast who shoots once or twice a month is probably better than your average police officer at hitting targets, simply because or the range time difference. An oft quoted number that I can't source says that the average officer fires six shots per hit. However, your average police officer should be able to handle stress better, should be used to fighting back at people trying to hurt them, and should be able to work with other officers as a team.
    - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
      Yup. It's pretty terrible considering that "downrange" for where cops operate is usually not stuff you want to hit with bullets. There was a certain incident several years back in a suburb of Boston that illustrated this very well. The mag dumping behavior and complete disregard for what's behind the target annoys me much more than the accuracy shortcomings.

by rdtsc 9y ago

danielvf 9y ago

"The burglar might even be justified in pulling his/her own weapon and shooting back because now the situation is threatening their lives." In the US, there's the "Clean Hands" doctrine that excludes a legal defense of self defense from anyone who was committing a crime at the time. The hypothetical burgler would just be adding charges.

pjc50 9y ago

Instructed by whom? I'm kind of reminded of the stories of Chinese road traffic accidents where the advice is to make sure the victim is dead - reverse over him if necessary - rather than any other outcome. UK law very definitely requires you to stop shooting immediately once the danger is past - see R v Clegg.

Zak 9y ago
> UK law very definitely requires you to stop shooting immediately once the danger is past US law as well. If an assailant is obviously incapacitated or surrendering, it's illegal to keep shooting them. That doesn't really conflict with what the grandparent post says: self defense firearms instructors typically teach students to fire multiple shots at the torso of an assailant, often to continue firing until the assailant stops being an obvious threat. It's risky to shoot someone who's attacking you and stop to see whether it worked. As an example of the reasoning for this kind of instruction, here's an account of a gunfight between a police officer and a murder suspect. The suspect continued shooting after taking several bullets to the chest and tried to drive away after being shot a total of 22 times. http://lawofficer.com/archive/officer-down-the-peter-soulis-incident/ http://lawofficer.com/archive/officer-down-the-peter-soulis-...
rdtsc 9y ago
> Instructed by whom? By instructors. As in those who advise or train people to use firearms. Here are just two examples I found: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/brandishing-and-warning-shots http://www.secondcalldefense.org/brandishing-and-warning-sho... Here is a reddit post discussion someone being surprised by this advice: https://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/3e5jn6/my_cwp_instructor_told_our_class_to_shoot_to_kill/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CCW/comments/3e5jn6/my_cwp_instruct... > UK law very definitely requires you to stop shooting immediately once the danger is past - see R v Clegg. Pretty sure so does the US law. It comes to how determination of "danger is past" happens. There are two aspects there I can think of : 1) This idea that acting too calculating and methodical, shooting one round in the leg, waiting, seeing them crawl and reach for their firearm, shooting another round, etc might not play well in court as the jury might look at it and say "hmm, he had time sit around and think and observe, why didn't he run to save his life at that point" it becomes dubious that this was self defense it starts to look like attempted murder there. While something like "life was in danger, reacted quickly, shot all the rounds, etc". Not saying one way is right or wrong it is just juries I think are inclined to acquit in the later case. 2) There is probably the same perverse idea as the Chinese drivers backing up and making sure they really crush that victim well enough for them to die, because then a dead person they can't sue in a civil court.

openasocket 9y ago

> even private citizens who are armed and are using it in self defense, are instructed to shoot to kill only That's not because of the legal ramifications, though. Shooting to wound is very very difficult especially in a crisis. The limbs are much smaller targets than the torso and move much more rapidly and unpredictably. Additionally, they are trained to keep firing because even lethal gunshots tend not to be immediately incapacitating. Due to the effects of adrenaline, people can continue fighting even after being shot in the torso a half dozen times. In short, guns are terrible non-lethal weapons.

dsfyu404ed 9y ago

>Also interesting to note that even private citizens who are armed and are using it in self defense, are instructed to shoot to kill only This is the bullshit cliff notes watered down for stupid people who can't think for themselves. You escalate use of force until the threat is stopped. If someone comes at you with a shovel and backs down when you draw your gun you do not just shoot him because "that's what you do". If you do not need to fire your weapon to stop the threat then you should not fire your weapon. You should not draw a gun if you are not prepared to use it. If you shoot someone in the kneecap you'd better be damn good at convincing the court that it was because you have cop-quality marksmanship. Obviously once a gun comes out you should call the cops to CYA but you are not obligated to shoot someone just because you've drawn a gun.

jMyles 9y ago
> cop-quality marksmanship What is that exactly? Good or bad?
- danielvf 9y ago
  The GP is using it as an insult. Handgun training and competence varies tremendously between different cities and departments. Overall, I think most departments gotten drastically better over the last twenty years. Handgun skills decline quickly without use. For a long time most American police departments only required officers to qualify once a year, and the test was easy. Your average civilian handgun shooting enthusiast who shoots once or twice a month is probably better than your average police officer at hitting targets, simply because or the range time difference. An oft quoted number that I can't source says that the average officer fires six shots per hit. However, your average police officer should be able to handle stress better, should be used to fighting back at people trying to hurt them, and should be able to work with other officers as a team.
  - dsfyu404ed 9y ago
    Yup. It's pretty terrible considering that "downrange" for where cops operate is usually not stuff you want to hit with bullets. There was a certain incident several years back in a suburb of Boston that illustrated this very well. The mag dumping behavior and complete disregard for what's behind the target annoys me much more than the accuracy shortcomings.