3 ms·

> I'd lose my mind if some swine pointed a gun at my child. I understand the sentiment. I really do. But that is the wrong response when someone is pointing a

> I'd lose my mind if some swine pointed a gun at my child. I understand the sentiment. I really do. But that is the wrong response when someone is pointing a gun at you. That’s how’s your child loses their father or mother. Don’t forget that police are trained to shoot to kill. There is no training for “shoot to injure” ... the logic being that if you are injured, you can reach into your clothes and pull out a gun, potentially killing the officer who shot you.

giantg2 6y ago
Yep, the correct response is comply, document everything, hire a civil lawyer. Cities spend 10s to 100s of millions to settle police lawsuits every year. Might as well get your cut.
sokoloff 6y ago
Most police (and self-defense) training is "shoot to stop".
- TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  That’s a euphemism.
  - Ancapistani 6y ago
    I understand where you’re coming from, but it really isn’t. Most training is to shoot “center of mass”. That often kills, yes, but if the goal was to kill (or even kill quickly), tactics like the “Mozambique drill” - two shots center of mass and one shot to the head - would be standard. It’s not. It’s specifically used as training for exceptional circumstances.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      Exactly. Law enforcement or self-defense training does not train to put a security round into the head of a downed subject (shoot to kill training), but rather to summon/render medical aid once the threat has been stopped (shoot to stop training).
Simulacra 6y ago
What’s wrong with just doing as the police say?
craftlnator 6y ago
I appreciate your sentiment, but, as a former Marine with a little combat experience, I probably have a bit more understanding of this type of situation than you (statistically likely). You say it's the "wrong response"; I've seen people who have their families put under threat of death; they actually lose it. It's not some choice of bravado, not an honor thing, it's a physiological reaction to the extreme emotional stress. You may not understand this type of situation, but I've experienced the feeling of going from a safe, comfortable environment to being in pain and seeing friends hurt, all in a split second; even with Marine Corps training, I was ready to snap. My hands were shaking, there was a roaring in my ears, and I was ready to kill the first threat I saw. That situation, in my home, with my family? It isn't a choice. We are biological creatures, and there are some reactions that are just biological. It's easy to play armchair general and discount all of the human factors.
- TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
  > We are biological creatures, and there are some reactions that are just biological I understand and I assume you have weapons stashed around your residence in case of these kind of encounters. But this family almost certainly did not. If you watch the video, the gun is pointing upstairs, presumably at the husband and children. I doubt the husband has a firearm handy or a means to defend himself for this situation. So his emotional response to attack without proper weaponry is foolish, unless on the odd chance he’s a trained ninja like you :)
  - craftlnator 6y ago
    I think I did a poor job in highlighting the meat of my response from the rest. The point is not about what I would do, or could do, in a situation like that. The point was that people don't behave rationally in situations like that; not because they're fools, or weak, or immature; it's because they are having a physiological response to extreme emotional trauma. If they don't, they are textbook sociopaths, or have been put through large amounts of emotional conditioning. Read through your comment: "I doubt the husband has a firearm handy or a means to defend himself for this situation. So his emotional response to attack without proper weaponry is foolish" This point of view is speculative, it doesn't come from experience (or even a basic psychological understanding). People do NOT function that way. Maybe they do when playing Call of Duty or watching a Die Hard movie, but not in real life. I can't really impart what it feels like in that sort of situation, but I hope you never have to experience it. You end up needing therapy.
vharuck 6y ago
>There is no training for “shoot to injure” ... the logic being that if you are injured, you can reach into your clothes and pull out a gun, potentially killing the officer who shot you. I'd have thought the logic is, "If you want to injure, use a baton. Guns are tools for killing." Teaching "shoot to injure" would be reckless considering the chances a "wounding" shot ends up killing somebody.
matheusmoreira 6y ago
If some insane police officer with no trigger discipline is dumb enough to point his gun at an unarmed child, the child's parents are justified in shooting him dead. If the officer reacts with lethal force, he should be charged with murder.

giantg2 6y ago

Yep, the correct response is comply, document everything, hire a civil lawyer. Cities spend 10s to 100s of millions to settle police lawsuits every year. Might as well get your cut.

sokoloff 6y ago

Most police (and self-defense) training is "shoot to stop".

TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
That’s a euphemism.
- Ancapistani 6y ago
  I understand where you’re coming from, but it really isn’t. Most training is to shoot “center of mass”. That often kills, yes, but if the goal was to kill (or even kill quickly), tactics like the “Mozambique drill” - two shots center of mass and one shot to the head - would be standard. It’s not. It’s specifically used as training for exceptional circumstances.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    Exactly. Law enforcement or self-defense training does not train to put a security round into the head of a downed subject (shoot to kill training), but rather to summon/render medical aid once the threat has been stopped (shoot to stop training).

Simulacra 6y ago

What’s wrong with just doing as the police say?

craftlnator 6y ago

I appreciate your sentiment, but, as a former Marine with a little combat experience, I probably have a bit more understanding of this type of situation than you (statistically likely). You say it's the "wrong response"; I've seen people who have their families put under threat of death; they actually lose it. It's not some choice of bravado, not an honor thing, it's a physiological reaction to the extreme emotional stress. You may not understand this type of situation, but I've experienced the feeling of going from a safe, comfortable environment to being in pain and seeing friends hurt, all in a split second; even with Marine Corps training, I was ready to snap. My hands were shaking, there was a roaring in my ears, and I was ready to kill the first threat I saw. That situation, in my home, with my family? It isn't a choice. We are biological creatures, and there are some reactions that are just biological. It's easy to play armchair general and discount all of the human factors.

TedDoesntTalk 6y ago
> We are biological creatures, and there are some reactions that are just biological I understand and I assume you have weapons stashed around your residence in case of these kind of encounters. But this family almost certainly did not. If you watch the video, the gun is pointing upstairs, presumably at the husband and children. I doubt the husband has a firearm handy or a means to defend himself for this situation. So his emotional response to attack without proper weaponry is foolish, unless on the odd chance he’s a trained ninja like you :)
- craftlnator 6y ago
  I think I did a poor job in highlighting the meat of my response from the rest. The point is not about what I would do, or could do, in a situation like that. The point was that people don't behave rationally in situations like that; not because they're fools, or weak, or immature; it's because they are having a physiological response to extreme emotional trauma. If they don't, they are textbook sociopaths, or have been put through large amounts of emotional conditioning. Read through your comment: "I doubt the husband has a firearm handy or a means to defend himself for this situation. So his emotional response to attack without proper weaponry is foolish" This point of view is speculative, it doesn't come from experience (or even a basic psychological understanding). People do NOT function that way. Maybe they do when playing Call of Duty or watching a Die Hard movie, but not in real life. I can't really impart what it feels like in that sort of situation, but I hope you never have to experience it. You end up needing therapy.

vharuck 6y ago

>There is no training for “shoot to injure” ... the logic being that if you are injured, you can reach into your clothes and pull out a gun, potentially killing the officer who shot you. I'd have thought the logic is, "If you want to injure, use a baton. Guns are tools for killing." Teaching "shoot to injure" would be reckless considering the chances a "wounding" shot ends up killing somebody.

matheusmoreira 6y ago

If some insane police officer with no trigger discipline is dumb enough to point his gun at an unarmed child, the child's parents are justified in shooting him dead. If the officer reacts with lethal force, he should be charged with murder.