4 ms·

Do the police have to shoot to kill? Is it possible to aim somewhere else? Or shoot into the air? Also, I think in my country they are obligated to shout out "s

by dsego 9y ago

Do the police have to shoot to kill? Is it possible to aim somewhere else? Or shoot into the air? Also, I think in my country they are obligated to shout out "stop, I will shoot" or something to that effect.

alkonaut 9y ago
Handguns are (perhaps surprisingly) lethal. Here (Sweden) officers somewhat controversially use hollow point in order to reduce the risk of stray bullets going through walls or suspects. This has the side effect that suspects shot in thighs, nearly anywhere in the abdomen etc are often instantly in critical condition.
- r00fus 9y ago
  Police using hollow-points sounds insane.
  - grzm 9y ago
    Firearms are deadly force. The decision to use them is the decision to use deadly force. People can disagree with the use of deadly force. If deadly force is allowed, it still makes sense to make its application as precise and limited in scope as possible. Hollow points, compared with full metal jacketed bullets, reduce penetration, reducing shoot-throughs and the potential of injuring those who are not the target. They also increase the likelihood that a lower number of rounds will be needed to be effective. Limiting the number of rounds limits the time of the encounter and the number of rounds that potentially going to be off-target. To be clear, there's a lot that should go into the decision to use deadly force, and it's one that should not be considered likely. People can disagree with when the decision is correctly made. Once it's made however, hollow-points are more effective than fully-jacketed rounds.
    - r00fus 9y ago
      Then why do the militaries still use ball-ammunition? Here's what I was told when I was in the service. The goal is to incapacitate the target, not to kill. From a military standpoint, incapacitation of targets causes additional burden to their sqaud-mates. It also demoralizes the enemy. Weapons are used for many things, not just deadly force. They act as intimidation (warning shot), deterrence (visual presence) as well.
      - grzm 9y ago
        You're right that firearms (weapons) can be used for many things. In the context of police work (or self defense), they are used for deadly force. The reason militaries use ball ammunition is (among other reasons such as those you mention) due to international conventions. For what it's worth, there are fully-jacketed rounds made to abide by these conventions yet still have many of the characteristics of hallow-point rounds. And you're right about incapacitation on the field of battle. You've pointed out a distinct difference between police work and self defense, and (some) military tactics. Considerations like additional burden and demoralization are battle-field considerations: they're different from what police are typically involved in, where you want to remove an imminent or active threat to the public. (Just to reiterate, there are a lot of decisions that people can disagree about leading up to the decision to use deadly force in police work and whether that use was justified in any particular situation. That's not the discussion at hand here.) Your examples of intimidation and deterrence are both indications that deadly force is available and willing to be applied. From the standpoint of brandishing, it doesn't matter what types of rounds are used. I'm not clear as to how often police actually fire warning shots, but if this is this case, they would be also be interested in ensuring the shot does not shoot through the intended target. (Shooting into the air is incredibly reckless and I can't imagine that's something police would be trained to do.)
      - ridgeguy 9y ago
        It seems that full metal jacket (ball) ammunition was adopted for technical reasons. The 1899 Hague Convention prohibited ammunition that flattened or expanded on impact, but did not require jacketing. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_metal_jacket_bullet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_metal_jacket_bullet
  - tomschlick 9y ago
    Hollow points are designed to stay in the person you're shooting and stop the threat without over penetrating and hitting an innocent person behind the target. I understand they sound scary to people not familiar with guns but they are the safest option for everyone else around the person you are shooting. Not using hollow points for defensive/police purposes would be insane.
    - tzs 9y ago
      I know nothing about bullets other than what one might deduce from elementary Newtonian physics, so this may be a stupid question. To make a bullet not over penetrate you have to make it so all of its energy is spent in the target (or at least so much is spent in the target that if it does go all the way through it does not have enough left to cause serious injury to whatever it hits on the other side). Hollow points do this by expanding in the target, so that they transfer energy much better than does a regular bullet that enters the target with the same energy. Would it not be possible instead do design a gun and bullet system that shoots regular bullets, but at lower energy, so they don't need to be as effective at energy transfer as a hollow point in order to stop in the target? Lower energy would mean either lower velocity, or lower mass, or both. Lower velocity means shorter range. So does lower mass [1]. Thus, lower energy bullets would have reduced range, but I would expect that would be acceptable in almost all police situations. One drawback I see for lower energy bullets is that bullet resistant material would be more effective, and so in places where criminal wear such things they may need high energy bullets to allow for that (and so need solutions like hollow point to keep them from over penetrating when they use them on someone who is not wearing such material). [1] because of air resistance. Think of trying to throw a ping pong ball and a steel ball bearing of the same size, at the same velocity...the ball bearing will go much farther.
      - grzm 9y ago
        The energy transfer into the target is roughly its "stopping power". The goal is to remove an imminent or active threat. Your newtonian physics intuition is correct: lower velocity and/or lower mass is going to lower the energy of the round. If the goal is to stop the individual, you want to be able to deliver as much energy as possible into the target. Lower velocity/lower mass rounds aren't going to be as effective in stopping the target. If a bullet passes through an individual, it hasn't delivered all of its energy to the individual. It's still going, so this is inefficient and dangerous: you're less likely to have stopped the target, and you're more likely to hit something unintended.
tomschlick 9y ago
Police don't shoot to kill. They shoot to stop the threat. That means aiming center mass (the chest) as it is the biggest target and the easiest to hit. Sometimes that means the person dies, but that's not the objective. As someone who is very well versed in shooting, it would be insane to expect someone to hit a leg or arm of a suspect; especially with a pistol. That would lead to many stray rounds which stay lethal for up to a mile and can easily penetrate walls killing someone you did not intend to shoot.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

by dsego 9y ago

alkonaut 9y ago

Handguns are (perhaps surprisingly) lethal. Here (Sweden) officers somewhat controversially use hollow point in order to reduce the risk of stray bullets going through walls or suspects. This has the side effect that suspects shot in thighs, nearly anywhere in the abdomen etc are often instantly in critical condition.

r00fus 9y ago
Police using hollow-points sounds insane.
- grzm 9y ago
  Firearms are deadly force. The decision to use them is the decision to use deadly force. People can disagree with the use of deadly force. If deadly force is allowed, it still makes sense to make its application as precise and limited in scope as possible. Hollow points, compared with full metal jacketed bullets, reduce penetration, reducing shoot-throughs and the potential of injuring those who are not the target. They also increase the likelihood that a lower number of rounds will be needed to be effective. Limiting the number of rounds limits the time of the encounter and the number of rounds that potentially going to be off-target. To be clear, there's a lot that should go into the decision to use deadly force, and it's one that should not be considered likely. People can disagree with when the decision is correctly made. Once it's made however, hollow-points are more effective than fully-jacketed rounds.
  - r00fus 9y ago
    Then why do the militaries still use ball-ammunition? Here's what I was told when I was in the service. The goal is to incapacitate the target, not to kill. From a military standpoint, incapacitation of targets causes additional burden to their sqaud-mates. It also demoralizes the enemy. Weapons are used for many things, not just deadly force. They act as intimidation (warning shot), deterrence (visual presence) as well.
    - grzm 9y ago
      You're right that firearms (weapons) can be used for many things. In the context of police work (or self defense), they are used for deadly force. The reason militaries use ball ammunition is (among other reasons such as those you mention) due to international conventions. For what it's worth, there are fully-jacketed rounds made to abide by these conventions yet still have many of the characteristics of hallow-point rounds. And you're right about incapacitation on the field of battle. You've pointed out a distinct difference between police work and self defense, and (some) military tactics. Considerations like additional burden and demoralization are battle-field considerations: they're different from what police are typically involved in, where you want to remove an imminent or active threat to the public. (Just to reiterate, there are a lot of decisions that people can disagree about leading up to the decision to use deadly force in police work and whether that use was justified in any particular situation. That's not the discussion at hand here.) Your examples of intimidation and deterrence are both indications that deadly force is available and willing to be applied. From the standpoint of brandishing, it doesn't matter what types of rounds are used. I'm not clear as to how often police actually fire warning shots, but if this is this case, they would be also be interested in ensuring the shot does not shoot through the intended target. (Shooting into the air is incredibly reckless and I can't imagine that's something police would be trained to do.)
    - ridgeguy 9y ago
      It seems that full metal jacket (ball) ammunition was adopted for technical reasons. The 1899 Hague Convention prohibited ammunition that flattened or expanded on impact, but did not require jacketing. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_metal_jacket_bullet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_metal_jacket_bullet
- tomschlick 9y ago
  Hollow points are designed to stay in the person you're shooting and stop the threat without over penetrating and hitting an innocent person behind the target. I understand they sound scary to people not familiar with guns but they are the safest option for everyone else around the person you are shooting. Not using hollow points for defensive/police purposes would be insane.
  - tzs 9y ago
    I know nothing about bullets other than what one might deduce from elementary Newtonian physics, so this may be a stupid question. To make a bullet not over penetrate you have to make it so all of its energy is spent in the target (or at least so much is spent in the target that if it does go all the way through it does not have enough left to cause serious injury to whatever it hits on the other side). Hollow points do this by expanding in the target, so that they transfer energy much better than does a regular bullet that enters the target with the same energy. Would it not be possible instead do design a gun and bullet system that shoots regular bullets, but at lower energy, so they don't need to be as effective at energy transfer as a hollow point in order to stop in the target? Lower energy would mean either lower velocity, or lower mass, or both. Lower velocity means shorter range. So does lower mass [1]. Thus, lower energy bullets would have reduced range, but I would expect that would be acceptable in almost all police situations. One drawback I see for lower energy bullets is that bullet resistant material would be more effective, and so in places where criminal wear such things they may need high energy bullets to allow for that (and so need solutions like hollow point to keep them from over penetrating when they use them on someone who is not wearing such material). [1] because of air resistance. Think of trying to throw a ping pong ball and a steel ball bearing of the same size, at the same velocity...the ball bearing will go much farther.
    - grzm 9y ago
      The energy transfer into the target is roughly its "stopping power". The goal is to remove an imminent or active threat. Your newtonian physics intuition is correct: lower velocity and/or lower mass is going to lower the energy of the round. If the goal is to stop the individual, you want to be able to deliver as much energy as possible into the target. Lower velocity/lower mass rounds aren't going to be as effective in stopping the target. If a bullet passes through an individual, it hasn't delivered all of its energy to the individual. It's still going, so this is inefficient and dangerous: you're less likely to have stopped the target, and you're more likely to hit something unintended.

tomschlick 9y ago

Police don't shoot to kill. They shoot to stop the threat. That means aiming center mass (the chest) as it is the biggest target and the easiest to hit. Sometimes that means the person dies, but that's not the objective. As someone who is very well versed in shooting, it would be insane to expect someone to hit a leg or arm of a suspect; especially with a pistol. That would lead to many stray rounds which stay lethal for up to a mile and can easily penetrate walls killing someone you did not intend to shoot.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]