4 ms·

One problem among many is that US police are both allowed and trained to use deadly force very quickly, when under any kind of threat. German police will often

by TillE 12y ago

One problem among many is that US police are both allowed and trained to use deadly force very quickly, when under any kind of threat. German police will often (successfully!) shoot to disable, not to kill, even when confronted by someone armed with a knife. It's a common American meme that when police fire a gun, the only rational decision is to shoot to kill, but it's just not true.

higherpurpose 12y ago
In other countries the police is even obligated to fire a "warning shot" (in the air) before shooting to disable (and only later can shoot to kill).
- pzxc 12y ago
  1. Firing a shot in the air is reckless -- the bullet/round comes down with the same speed and momentum as when it was first fired, and it's gotta land somewhere -- and I'd be surprised if that was the standard operating procedure of any law enforcement agency in the world (however my surprise doesn't mean it isn't true). Perhaps you meant they fire a warning shot in the ground, but there is a big difference and that you missed the distinction suggests to me you may not have accurate information about what law enforcement agencies are or are not required to do. 2. As for the GP, you should neither shoot to kill nor shoot to maim. You should shot to stop the threat. Whether they live or die is not as important as stopping a lethal threat (and if there is no lethal threat, you should not be shooting). And if your intent is to stop the threat rather than kill or injure, the best chance of stopping the threat is to shoot center of mass until the target goes down. (Which will, in most cases, kill the target, incidentally)
  - zik 12y ago
    > ...the bullet/round comes down with the same speed and momentum as when it was first fired... This would only be true if air resistance wasn't a thing. Physics is against you on this one.
    - pzxc 12y ago
      You're right, my explanation was technically inaccurate. However, the terminal velocity of a bullet due to gravity is still easily enough to kill someone (and does kill every year from people "celebrating" this way), so my point still stands.
    - Crito 12y ago
      When rifled bullets are fired in parabolic trajectories into the sky, they retain enough horizontal velocity to easily kill. There are numerous examples of people being struck and killed by bullets that were fired into the air (typically in celebration of something inane). Lightweight rounds, such as birdshot, are safe when fired into the sky. That is the exception.
- walshemj 12y ago
  Actually no certainly in the uk if a copper has to fire they are trained fire to kill - of course in serious anti terrorist situations they call in the SAS.
  - Crito 12y ago
    In Germany, and perhaps other countries, police are instructed to fire warning shots. It is only because German police have to fire their guns so infrequently that this has not caused innocent fatalities. The practice violates numerous firearm safety rules.
    - walshemj 12y ago
      Unfortunately Germany has had a number of very high profile terrorist incidents where it went pear shaped.
Anechoic 12y ago
German police will often (successfully!) shoot to disable, not to kill, even when confronted by someone armed with a knife. Do you have a link or cite that German police shoot to disable? Five minutes of Googling didn't turn up anything relevant for me. Thanks.
Test-Grave 12y ago
This is simply not true (At least not generally). Just recently the German Police shot a Drug Dealer while he was running away from undercover police officers. Shot was in the back of the head and as far as I remember they even said it was justified, since by German law it is allowed to use deadly force against a fleeing criminal... Sounds familiar? (Case in Burghausen)
Spooky23 12y ago
In the US, you need to shoot to kill, because living men talk and sue you. I had a cousin who retired as an NYPD Patrol Sergeant. He was proud that he had never fired and rarely pulled his pistol over the course of a 40 year career. But he sure as hell cracked his share of bones with a baton.
refurb 12y ago
German police will often (successfully!) shoot to disable, not to kill, even when confronted by someone armed with a knife. From what I've read very few police officers have the time to selectively shoot someone. If deadly force is called for, you aim for the center of the person. Also, shooting to injure rather than kill is not exactly easy. If you take a bullet in a major artery in a leg or an arm, you can bleed out just as quickly as a bullet to the chest.
brandonmenc 12y ago
> shoot to disable Proponents of this usually have no experience firing a weapon, let alone while in distress. It's nearly impossible to disable-but-not-kill a person by shooting them. > even when confronted by someone armed with a knife Again, usually someone who is not aware of how deadly a knife really is.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > It's nearly impossible to disable-but-not-kill a person by shooting them. Its not really nearly impossible to disable-but-not-kill a person by shooting them (it happens all the time, actually), it is just hard to do that reliably compared to disable-without-regard-to-killing, which is why the general rule is don't shoot unless willing to kill, and then aim center of mass -- not because hitting center of mass is the most likely place to disable or kill (though its pretty close -- the head is better for either, though), but because missing center of mass makes you more likely to at least disable than missing pretty much any place else you might aim to disable. Given the fairly high cost of failing to disable in any situation where shooting is justified at all, adding a "but not kill" constraint is generally an unacceptable risk.
- A_COMPUTER 12y ago
  It is frequently claimed that in some European countries, it is standard practice to "shoot-to-disable" but I have been told by trainers in the USA that doing that makes you likely to miss and/or risk danger of hitting another person. if that is true, then it would seem to be a bad policy, but it's claimed it works better. Who is right? I wish some journalist would write an article on this.

by TillE 12y ago

higherpurpose 12y ago

In other countries the police is even obligated to fire a "warning shot" (in the air) before shooting to disable (and only later can shoot to kill).

pzxc 12y ago
1. Firing a shot in the air is reckless -- the bullet/round comes down with the same speed and momentum as when it was first fired, and it's gotta land somewhere -- and I'd be surprised if that was the standard operating procedure of any law enforcement agency in the world (however my surprise doesn't mean it isn't true). Perhaps you meant they fire a warning shot in the ground, but there is a big difference and that you missed the distinction suggests to me you may not have accurate information about what law enforcement agencies are or are not required to do. 2. As for the GP, you should neither shoot to kill nor shoot to maim. You should shot to stop the threat. Whether they live or die is not as important as stopping a lethal threat (and if there is no lethal threat, you should not be shooting). And if your intent is to stop the threat rather than kill or injure, the best chance of stopping the threat is to shoot center of mass until the target goes down. (Which will, in most cases, kill the target, incidentally)
- zik 12y ago
  > ...the bullet/round comes down with the same speed and momentum as when it was first fired... This would only be true if air resistance wasn't a thing. Physics is against you on this one.
  - pzxc 12y ago
    You're right, my explanation was technically inaccurate. However, the terminal velocity of a bullet due to gravity is still easily enough to kill someone (and does kill every year from people "celebrating" this way), so my point still stands.
  - Crito 12y ago
    When rifled bullets are fired in parabolic trajectories into the sky, they retain enough horizontal velocity to easily kill. There are numerous examples of people being struck and killed by bullets that were fired into the air (typically in celebration of something inane). Lightweight rounds, such as birdshot, are safe when fired into the sky. That is the exception.
walshemj 12y ago
Actually no certainly in the uk if a copper has to fire they are trained fire to kill - of course in serious anti terrorist situations they call in the SAS.
- Crito 12y ago
  In Germany, and perhaps other countries, police are instructed to fire warning shots. It is only because German police have to fire their guns so infrequently that this has not caused innocent fatalities. The practice violates numerous firearm safety rules.
  - walshemj 12y ago
    Unfortunately Germany has had a number of very high profile terrorist incidents where it went pear shaped.

Anechoic 12y ago

German police will often (successfully!) shoot to disable, not to kill, even when confronted by someone armed with a knife. Do you have a link or cite that German police shoot to disable? Five minutes of Googling didn't turn up anything relevant for me. Thanks.

Test-Grave 12y ago

This is simply not true (At least not generally). Just recently the German Police shot a Drug Dealer while he was running away from undercover police officers. Shot was in the back of the head and as far as I remember they even said it was justified, since by German law it is allowed to use deadly force against a fleeing criminal... Sounds familiar? (Case in Burghausen)

Spooky23 12y ago

In the US, you need to shoot to kill, because living men talk and sue you. I had a cousin who retired as an NYPD Patrol Sergeant. He was proud that he had never fired and rarely pulled his pistol over the course of a 40 year career. But he sure as hell cracked his share of bones with a baton.

refurb 12y ago

German police will often (successfully!) shoot to disable, not to kill, even when confronted by someone armed with a knife. From what I've read very few police officers have the time to selectively shoot someone. If deadly force is called for, you aim for the center of the person. Also, shooting to injure rather than kill is not exactly easy. If you take a bullet in a major artery in a leg or an arm, you can bleed out just as quickly as a bullet to the chest.

brandonmenc 12y ago

> shoot to disable Proponents of this usually have no experience firing a weapon, let alone while in distress. It's nearly impossible to disable-but-not-kill a person by shooting them. > even when confronted by someone armed with a knife Again, usually someone who is not aware of how deadly a knife really is.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> It's nearly impossible to disable-but-not-kill a person by shooting them. Its not really nearly impossible to disable-but-not-kill a person by shooting them (it happens all the time, actually), it is just hard to do that reliably compared to disable-without-regard-to-killing, which is why the general rule is don't shoot unless willing to kill, and then aim center of mass -- not because hitting center of mass is the most likely place to disable or kill (though its pretty close -- the head is better for either, though), but because missing center of mass makes you more likely to at least disable than missing pretty much any place else you might aim to disable. Given the fairly high cost of failing to disable in any situation where shooting is justified at all, adding a "but not kill" constraint is generally an unacceptable risk.
A_COMPUTER 12y ago
It is frequently claimed that in some European countries, it is standard practice to "shoot-to-disable" but I have been told by trainers in the USA that doing that makes you likely to miss and/or risk danger of hitting another person. if that is true, then it would seem to be a bad policy, but it's claimed it works better. Who is right? I wish some journalist would write an article on this.