4 ms·

Shooting to kill is under no circumstance allowed in Germany or Austria (for police and civilians) and it doesn't matter if it is more practical to aim for cent

Shooting to kill is under no circumstance allowed in Germany or Austria (for police and civilians) and it doesn't matter if it is more practical to aim for center mass and fire 10 times, because it's law over here. If an aspiring police officer is not willing to submit to those rules, he or she will have to look for a different job. It's easy for you to say that this is foolish, but in the end much less tragedies occur, because neither the offender, nor the police officer will feel like their lives are threatened in those heated situations. They'll catch the criminal anyways later on.

Locke1689 14y ago
No it's not. 12 of Germany's 16 states allow officers to shoot to kill to prevent loss of life. Good to know most German or Austrian citizens are about as ignorant of German law as American citizens are of ours. I do wonder where you got that idea, though. You can post the document, I speak German.
- DominikR 14y ago
  Sorry, my fault, you are right that it is allowed in some states. But my wrong perception came from the reality how weapons are actually used here. And aside from the most extreme situations, like someone who takes hostages and threatens to kill them, people are not shot with the intention to kill. (I've looked that up after you corrected me, and the law is very specific about the cases where it is allowed) What I know is that when I asked years ago about the rules when it is allowed to use a weapon, that I was told, that in most cases it ends bad for the defender, because courts accept the use of fireweapons as justified in rare situations. So shooting at burglar or somebody attacking you without a gun will cause you major troubles if the attacker should die. It's just heavily discouraged here to solve any problem by aggression. Even for slapping or insulting someone publicly you'll be held accountable for that in court.
  - bdunbar 14y ago
    So shooting at burglar or somebody attacking you without a gun will cause you major troubles if the attacker should die. IANAL, and it varies by jurisdiction, but I believe the general standard for using deadly force is .. 'Not allowed to use deadly force against any person except as necessary in self-defense or the defense of another when they have reason to believe they or another are in danger of death or grievous bodily harm' Paraphrasing from memory. In other words, I can employ deadly force against an attacker if I believe he could kill me. Doesn't matter if he's armed with a club, a knife, or a bazooka. I can't shoot a guy if he's running away. This seems prudent, but that (he smiled) might be a cultural thing. Where I grew up they used to say 'God made man, Sam Colt made them equal' and I guess I still believe it.
bdunbar 14y ago
It's easy for you to say that this is foolish, but in the end much less tragedies occur, My issue with this is that it abstracts 'gun' into 'non-lethel tool'. Culture and law aside, a gun exists for one thing, and it's only good for one thing, and that is to kill a person. Your laws can say otherwise, but that law is an ass. But hey - your country, your rules.
- DominikR 14y ago
  I'm not saying that guns are strictly non lethal tools, but there are different uses besides killing people. You could shoot the tires of a fleeing car, or you could stop a person by shooting into his leg. (a civilian probably wont be able to pull this off successfully in stressful situations) Or use it for sport or hunting. It does depend on a countries situation and culture, how excessively such weapons are used, and in which situations. When a countries population on average tends to not escalate situations, and shoot burglars or people running away, you can end up in a situation where it is hardly justifiable to use such weapons against persons. And then such laws are okay. I mean there are criminals here like everywhere, but I honestly don't know anyone personally here that has ever been threatened with a gun or a knife, though I know of one case, where someone was beat up by a burglar. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't see a lot of use for a gun as a tool for protection if you lived here.
  - bdunbar 14y ago
    I'm not saying that guns are strictly non lethal tools, but there are different uses besides killing people. Good point. You can kill animals for food, and I myself have enjoyed punching holes in paper. But this ... You could shoot the tires of a fleeing car, or you could stop a person by shooting into his leg. No, no, no. Shooting at a moving target is real hard. Shooting at a tire is stupid - the bullet is going to hit the rim, and be flung into who knows what direction. You're not getting this: if you shoot a bullet into a person, anywhere, you run the risk of killing him, or at the least crippling him for life. A shoot into the knee is a life-changing crippling event. Tear into the femoral artery and your target is going to be dead in just a few minutes. a civilian probably wont be able to pull this off successfully in stressful situations I think you are imagining the cops have a lot more juju with firearms than they do. To attain the kind of skill you are a talking about - reliably hitting a guy in the legs - takes way more range time than is going to be practical.

Locke1689 14y ago

No it's not. 12 of Germany's 16 states allow officers to shoot to kill to prevent loss of life. Good to know most German or Austrian citizens are about as ignorant of German law as American citizens are of ours. I do wonder where you got that idea, though. You can post the document, I speak German.

DominikR 14y ago
Sorry, my fault, you are right that it is allowed in some states. But my wrong perception came from the reality how weapons are actually used here. And aside from the most extreme situations, like someone who takes hostages and threatens to kill them, people are not shot with the intention to kill. (I've looked that up after you corrected me, and the law is very specific about the cases where it is allowed) What I know is that when I asked years ago about the rules when it is allowed to use a weapon, that I was told, that in most cases it ends bad for the defender, because courts accept the use of fireweapons as justified in rare situations. So shooting at burglar or somebody attacking you without a gun will cause you major troubles if the attacker should die. It's just heavily discouraged here to solve any problem by aggression. Even for slapping or insulting someone publicly you'll be held accountable for that in court.
- bdunbar 14y ago
  So shooting at burglar or somebody attacking you without a gun will cause you major troubles if the attacker should die. IANAL, and it varies by jurisdiction, but I believe the general standard for using deadly force is .. 'Not allowed to use deadly force against any person except as necessary in self-defense or the defense of another when they have reason to believe they or another are in danger of death or grievous bodily harm' Paraphrasing from memory. In other words, I can employ deadly force against an attacker if I believe he could kill me. Doesn't matter if he's armed with a club, a knife, or a bazooka. I can't shoot a guy if he's running away. This seems prudent, but that (he smiled) might be a cultural thing. Where I grew up they used to say 'God made man, Sam Colt made them equal' and I guess I still believe it.

bdunbar 14y ago

It's easy for you to say that this is foolish, but in the end much less tragedies occur, My issue with this is that it abstracts 'gun' into 'non-lethel tool'. Culture and law aside, a gun exists for one thing, and it's only good for one thing, and that is to kill a person. Your laws can say otherwise, but that law is an ass. But hey - your country, your rules.

DominikR 14y ago
I'm not saying that guns are strictly non lethal tools, but there are different uses besides killing people. You could shoot the tires of a fleeing car, or you could stop a person by shooting into his leg. (a civilian probably wont be able to pull this off successfully in stressful situations) Or use it for sport or hunting. It does depend on a countries situation and culture, how excessively such weapons are used, and in which situations. When a countries population on average tends to not escalate situations, and shoot burglars or people running away, you can end up in a situation where it is hardly justifiable to use such weapons against persons. And then such laws are okay. I mean there are criminals here like everywhere, but I honestly don't know anyone personally here that has ever been threatened with a gun or a knife, though I know of one case, where someone was beat up by a burglar. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't see a lot of use for a gun as a tool for protection if you lived here.
- bdunbar 14y ago
  I'm not saying that guns are strictly non lethal tools, but there are different uses besides killing people. Good point. You can kill animals for food, and I myself have enjoyed punching holes in paper. But this ... You could shoot the tires of a fleeing car, or you could stop a person by shooting into his leg. No, no, no. Shooting at a moving target is real hard. Shooting at a tire is stupid - the bullet is going to hit the rim, and be flung into who knows what direction. You're not getting this: if you shoot a bullet into a person, anywhere, you run the risk of killing him, or at the least crippling him for life. A shoot into the knee is a life-changing crippling event. Tear into the femoral artery and your target is going to be dead in just a few minutes. a civilian probably wont be able to pull this off successfully in stressful situations I think you are imagining the cops have a lot more juju with firearms than they do. To attain the kind of skill you are a talking about - reliably hitting a guy in the legs - takes way more range time than is going to be practical.