4 ms·

I could already imagine a joke about American cops sounding something like: - Friend: "Have you heard the news about the Iceland police killing a man for the f

by salient 13y ago

I could already imagine a joke about American cops sounding something like: - Friend: "Have you heard the news about the Iceland police killing a man for the first time?" - American cop, confused: "What do you mean? The first one today?" It also reminds me of this story: http://www.thewire.com/global/2012/05/german-police-used-only-85-bullets-against-people-2011/52162/ http://www.thewire.com/global/2012/05/german-police-used-onl... German police shot 85 bullets against people in the whole year, while American cops shot that many in a single person. The rapid rise of militarized SWAT teams that attack people in their homes even for minor offenses is also very scary. http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/%E2%80%9Cwhy_did_you_shoot_me_i_was_reading_a_book_the_new_warrior_cop_is_out_of_control/ http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/%E2%80%9Cwhy_did_you_shoot_m... http://www.salon.com/2013/07/10/militarized_police_overreach_oh_god_i_thought_they_were_going_to_shoot_me_next%E2%80%9D/ http://www.salon.com/2013/07/10/militarized_police_overreach...

TillE 13y ago
A few weeks ago I was reading in a local paper (Berliner Morgenpost, I think) about how the police in Berlin had shot an armed person in the leg, thereby succeeding in arresting him without any further injury. Made me quite happy, because I was reminded of all the Americans who vehemently insist that shoot to kill is the only option ever, even if the person only has a knife.
- Loughla 13y ago
  It's not that shoot to kill is the only option, ever. It's that center-body-mass is the largest target to shoot at, and therefore the safest to shoot at in a public area. Safest for everyone except the one being shot at, that is. God, does that make sense? It's hard to explain that. You want the largest part of the bad-guy to catch the bullet, to make sure the people around him don't. Therefore, shooting at the (relatively) stable center of his chest is a heck of a lot easier and safer than shooting at his moving arms or legs.
  - drcube 13y ago
    Not only that, but bullets aren't magic body vaporizers. If you shoot the guy in the right hand, he can still shoot you back with his left. Firing center mass has the best chance at stopping the threat, both because it's the largest in area and because the most important organs are in there. And you may need to hit center mass a few times before they actually stop, so don't get cute trying to shoot off fingers when innocent lives are on the line. Which is the only time it is acceptable to shoot anyone, ever.
  - DamnYuppie 13y ago
    Shooting people in center mass has nothing to do with the safety of people around them. There is no part of the human body that is going to stop a bullet. A bullet fired from even a small pistol will rip right through a human being and pretty much anything that is behind them. The reason people shot center body is that it is largest part of the body and it contains the most vital organs. Thus a shot there is most likely to be fatal and to keep that person from continuing to be a viable threat. Given all of that it is easy to see that shooting an armed and dangerous individual in the leg is not a good way of dealing with them. It makes for a great feel good story but in reality it is not a good tactic.
- drcube 13y ago
  No. Police aren't Annie Oakley. Chances are, they wounded the suspect while trying to kill. In a life or death situation (which is the only time it is acceptable to shoot a person), nobody has time to make trick shots. If the target deserves to die, aim center mass. If not, don't shoot at all. Imagine if the cops tried to "shoot to non-fatally disable" someone who didn't deserve to die, but killed him anyway? That would be murder. You don't shoot at anyone if killing them isn't justified. Then if you miss and shoot the gun out of their hand, or whatever the movies have told you is the easy, humane thing to do, well, that's a bonus. You can breathe easy knowing you didn't end up killing anyone.
  - gaius 13y ago
    Tell that to Jean-Charles de Menezes. He was shot 7 times in the face from 6 inches away after a cop had wrestled him to the ground. That cop went on to kill again.
- pc86 13y ago
  (Un?)fortunately it usually is the only option from the point of view of the American judicial system. I work with police officers on a fairly regular basis in a professional context, although I am not employed by any government or police/security force. It’s a fairly common though among laymen that shooting to wound is almost always preferable to shooting to kill. Legally, it almost never is. The way it was explained to me when I asked the very same question (I don’t necessarily agree, just offering this officer’s viewpoint): discharging a firearm is a deadly act, which always carries with it potentially deadly consequences. It should only be done to save a life, whether yours or someone else’s. The problem is that if you shoot without the intent to kill, you’re saying that you weren’t really in fear for your life, you were just stopping a lesser threat.
dopamean 13y ago
> The rapid rise of militarized SWAT teams that attack people in their homes even for minor offenses is also very scary. America is a country where the right to bear arms is held as sacred by many. It is a country with a lot of heavily armed people. It is a country with a lot of well trained, heavily armed people. Police response over the years has evolved to meet the challenges posed by a well armed civilian population. The number one priority for police forces anywhere in the country is to not get hurt followed closely by apprehending any suspects. If you believe your suspect may have assault rifles and your priority is to not get hurt then your response will be something larger than assault rifles. It's kind of insane to think that this is considered normal in developed country.

by salient 13y ago

TillE 13y ago

A few weeks ago I was reading in a local paper (Berliner Morgenpost, I think) about how the police in Berlin had shot an armed person in the leg, thereby succeeding in arresting him without any further injury. Made me quite happy, because I was reminded of all the Americans who vehemently insist that shoot to kill is the only option ever, even if the person only has a knife.

Loughla 13y ago
It's not that shoot to kill is the only option, ever. It's that center-body-mass is the largest target to shoot at, and therefore the safest to shoot at in a public area. Safest for everyone except the one being shot at, that is. God, does that make sense? It's hard to explain that. You want the largest part of the bad-guy to catch the bullet, to make sure the people around him don't. Therefore, shooting at the (relatively) stable center of his chest is a heck of a lot easier and safer than shooting at his moving arms or legs.
- drcube 13y ago
  Not only that, but bullets aren't magic body vaporizers. If you shoot the guy in the right hand, he can still shoot you back with his left. Firing center mass has the best chance at stopping the threat, both because it's the largest in area and because the most important organs are in there. And you may need to hit center mass a few times before they actually stop, so don't get cute trying to shoot off fingers when innocent lives are on the line. Which is the only time it is acceptable to shoot anyone, ever.
- DamnYuppie 13y ago
  Shooting people in center mass has nothing to do with the safety of people around them. There is no part of the human body that is going to stop a bullet. A bullet fired from even a small pistol will rip right through a human being and pretty much anything that is behind them. The reason people shot center body is that it is largest part of the body and it contains the most vital organs. Thus a shot there is most likely to be fatal and to keep that person from continuing to be a viable threat. Given all of that it is easy to see that shooting an armed and dangerous individual in the leg is not a good way of dealing with them. It makes for a great feel good story but in reality it is not a good tactic.
drcube 13y ago
No. Police aren't Annie Oakley. Chances are, they wounded the suspect while trying to kill. In a life or death situation (which is the only time it is acceptable to shoot a person), nobody has time to make trick shots. If the target deserves to die, aim center mass. If not, don't shoot at all. Imagine if the cops tried to "shoot to non-fatally disable" someone who didn't deserve to die, but killed him anyway? That would be murder. You don't shoot at anyone if killing them isn't justified. Then if you miss and shoot the gun out of their hand, or whatever the movies have told you is the easy, humane thing to do, well, that's a bonus. You can breathe easy knowing you didn't end up killing anyone.
- gaius 13y ago
  Tell that to Jean-Charles de Menezes. He was shot 7 times in the face from 6 inches away after a cop had wrestled him to the ground. That cop went on to kill again.
pc86 13y ago
(Un?)fortunately it usually is the only option from the point of view of the American judicial system. I work with police officers on a fairly regular basis in a professional context, although I am not employed by any government or police/security force. It’s a fairly common though among laymen that shooting to wound is almost always preferable to shooting to kill. Legally, it almost never is. The way it was explained to me when I asked the very same question (I don’t necessarily agree, just offering this officer’s viewpoint): discharging a firearm is a deadly act, which always carries with it potentially deadly consequences. It should only be done to save a life, whether yours or someone else’s. The problem is that if you shoot without the intent to kill, you’re saying that you weren’t really in fear for your life, you were just stopping a lesser threat.

dopamean 13y ago

> The rapid rise of militarized SWAT teams that attack people in their homes even for minor offenses is also very scary. America is a country where the right to bear arms is held as sacred by many. It is a country with a lot of heavily armed people. It is a country with a lot of well trained, heavily armed people. Police response over the years has evolved to meet the challenges posed by a well armed civilian population. The number one priority for police forces anywhere in the country is to not get hurt followed closely by apprehending any suspects. If you believe your suspect may have assault rifles and your priority is to not get hurt then your response will be something larger than assault rifles. It's kind of insane to think that this is considered normal in developed country.