Shoot to disable instead of shoot to kill. Let's have an open talk about this.

Dastardly

Imaginary Friend
Apr 19, 2010
2,420
0
0
Paradox SuXcess said:
Please comment below and let's have a non-flammed talk about it and if you yourself are or know any trained marksmen, what do they think about that situation, if they have told you. Some officers are discreet and I respect that.

EDIT: Thank you all for the comments and I have learnt something new. I weren't saying shoot to kill was a bad idea just thinking of the possibility of alternatives and all your answers are informative and thank you.

EDIT... again: Just to point out also, I am not saying situations like these are similar to movies and video games cause they aren't. There is a clear difference between reality and fiction and thank you to all who hasn't brought up any political wars like liberal this, ring wing that blah blah. I like whats already being said and being informed about more reasons why shoot to disable isn't the most sound idea. I appreciate it.
While I'm sure it's all been covered, just to make a short-and-sweet list of why we shoot where we do:

1. Shooting for center-mass is not about lethality. It's about safety. "Center-mass" represents the largest target, minimizing the risk of missing. Limbs and heads are very small and very mobile. And even if you managed to hit one on the fly, odds are the round would pass through with plenty of kinetic energy left to endanger someone else.

2. We are only shooting when someone threatens the lives of those around them. Center-mass shooting is also about certainty -- we need to be certain that this person is going to stop quickly. You don't want them squeezing off a few shots on the way down, or continuing toward a victim to finish stabbing them.
 

The Event

New member
Aug 16, 2012
105
0
0
Gorrath said:
Indeed, and I spent the better part of my post explaining exactly that. But I find the argument to be silly semantics. The goal of wars isn't to kill people either, it is to destroy another nation's ability to conduct war. That just also happens to include dropping a lot of bombs and shooting a lot of bullets, which happen to have the unfortunate side-effect of killing a lot of soldiers. I could say that in war, we NEVER shoot to kill, we shoot to disable the enemy, it's just that the methods we use happen to be really, really lethal. I would not presume to say that we don't shoot to kill people though, since that would ignore the whole fact that putting bullets in people has a tendency to kill them.

This is especially pertinent to this thread, as the distinction between "shoot to kill" vs "shoot to wound" has specific connotations that have nothing to do with the intent to end someone's life, but rather the way in which force is used to bring as rapid an end to an escalated situation as possible. An argument about the semantics of shoot to kill as intent has little bearing on the point of the thread, so far as I understand it. I am not attempting to belittle your point either, just explaining why Id on't think it's useful in this context. Any more than me arguing in a thread about war that the goal of wars isn't to kill people.
There is more too it than semantics.

As a soldier in a war against a uniformed enemy - things get more muddied in the case of insurgents etc. so let's use World War 2 as an example. If you come across a uniformed member of the enemy forces you can kill them. You can shoot them purely with the intention of killing them. They can be presenting no threat to you (but not surrendering) and you can kill them. They can be retreating and you can kill them. You can even answer the question "Why did you kill them?" with "Because they were the enemy" and you are immune to prosecution.

None of this appliles to the police. A police officer cannot kill someone because he was wearing gang colours or say he shot him just because "he was a criminal". He can only shoot someone who (he believes) presents an immediate threat. He can face a charge of murder if this is not the case.
In the UK, Police will give first aid to the people they shoot as soon as it is safe to do so.
Though the law may be different in your jurisdiction, this is the case in the UK. Police use of force is governed under the same laws that everyone else is governed by.

While we both agree that the use of force by police is to end the threat, this information is given to help others understand that the pokice are not seeking the death of the people they shoot and that the phrase "shoot to kill" is not factually accurate.
 

senordesol

New member
Oct 12, 2009
1,302
0
0
The Event said:
There is more too it than semantics.

As a soldier in a war against a uniformed enemy - things get more muddied in the case of insurgents etc. so let's use World War 2 as an example. If you come across a uniformed member of the enemy forces you can kill them. You can shoot them purely with the intention of killing them. They can be presenting no threat to you (but not surrendering) and you can kill them. They can be retreating and you can kill them. You can even answer the question "Why did you kill them?" with "Because they were the enemy" and you are immune to prosecution.

None of this appliles to the police. A police officer cannot kill someone because he was wearing gang colours or say he shot him just because "he was a criminal". He can only shoot someone who (he believes) presents an immediate threat. He can face a charge of murder if this is not the case.
In the UK, Police will give first aid to the people they shoot as soon as it is safe to do so.
Though the law may be different in your jurisdiction, this is the case in the UK. Police use of force is governed under the same laws that everyone else is governed by.

While we both agree that the use of force by police is to end the threat, this information is given to help others understand that the pokice are not seeking the death of the people they shoot and that the phrase "shoot to kill" is not factually accurate.
That's not strictly true. You can't shoot the wounded if you're a soldier. And you are obliged to render medical aid if a wounded enemy falls into your hands.

You can shoot for the CoM in battle, and if the man drops his rifle and falls; you're done shooting at him unless you have cause to believe he's still a threat. How well this can be enforced is up for debate, of course, but if you shoot and wound in a war; you're not allowed to 'finish the job'.
 

asinann

New member
Apr 28, 2008
1,602
0
0
TakerFoxx said:
asinann said:
If they don't shoot to kill why are there so many stories of them shooting people in the back and shooting people who are restrained, getting a few weeks paid vacation then coming back to work because they didn't violate department policy? I'm more afraid of the police than I am of walking through the ghetto with $1000 in cash on me.
Because stories about bad news and corrupt authority figures are the most likely to attract attention, ergo they're the ones that make headlines. And in a country as large and diverse as the US, there's a fair number to choose from. Stories about police behaving themselves and going out of their way to do good don't gain viewers, as such you never hear about them, even though they outnumber the bad ones by a huge percentage. Just the other day I saw a cop park his car and walk up to a homeless guy that was wandering around a gas station and assumed it was to tell him to get lost. Instead, he handed the homeless guy a bag of food and a cup of coffee. You think things like that ever make the news? Very rarely. But once a cop screws up, you better believe everyone will hear about it.
7 shootings within 6 months in ONE city dealt with in the same manner. It was prevalent enough that the FBI was brought in to be IA for the department.
 
Nov 28, 2007
10,686
0
0
asinann said:
TakerFoxx said:
asinann said:
If they don't shoot to kill why are there so many stories of them shooting people in the back and shooting people who are restrained, getting a few weeks paid vacation then coming back to work because they didn't violate department policy? I'm more afraid of the police than I am of walking through the ghetto with $1000 in cash on me.
Because stories about bad news and corrupt authority figures are the most likely to attract attention, ergo they're the ones that make headlines. And in a country as large and diverse as the US, there's a fair number to choose from. Stories about police behaving themselves and going out of their way to do good don't gain viewers, as such you never hear about them, even though they outnumber the bad ones by a huge percentage. Just the other day I saw a cop park his car and walk up to a homeless guy that was wandering around a gas station and assumed it was to tell him to get lost. Instead, he handed the homeless guy a bag of food and a cup of coffee. You think things like that ever make the news? Very rarely. But once a cop screws up, you better believe everyone will hear about it.
7 shootings within 6 months in ONE city dealt with in the same manner. It was prevalent enough that the FBI was brought in to be IA for the department.
Don't get me wrong. What happened there is wrong. However, if this was as commonplace as you seem to be implying, why would it stand out enough for the FBI to investigate? I mean, if this is standard for police, the FBI would be investigating all police departments, right?
 

Aitruis

New member
Mar 4, 2009
223
0
0
Rather than pull quotes, if you've gotten this far in the thread, I'm just going to briefly echo some of the better sediments here. Additionally, I'll touch on some of the legal aspects of carrying and using a firearm which, for a trained gun owner, are at the forefront of thought every moment of every day. For our friends outside the U.S., and gun owners in the U.S. for that matter, I hope this serves as a brief idea of what responsible gun owners are like. We're not all rednecks over here, thankfully.

Firstly, it's been said quite a few times that police are trained to aim for center mass to minimize the risk of missing. This is true. The addendum to this is that any shooter, police or private, is legally (and morally) responsible for everywhere your bullet goes. If you're in your house, and you're forced to shoot an armed home invader, and you miss, your bullet is going to go through your wall, across the street, through the neighbor's wall, and hit little Timmy enjoying his cartoons. It does not matter if you had a good reason to shoot, if you kill little Timmy by accident, you are still a murderer, and legally liable.

If you have to draw, you must be aware of what's behind your target, and what's behind that. Now, there are ways to mitigate this issue. All bullets are not made alike, and obviously some kinds, including different calibers, are better for certain applications, but I'll touch on that in a second. For this reason, trained shooters, police and military included, are taught to aim for center mass to minimize the risk of what we call 'over-penetration'. Simply put, the chest and torso is the thickest part of a person, therefore presents the lowest risk of the bullet passing through the person and hitting something behind. A shot to say, the arm or knee, if you got really lucky and actually hit, the bullet would easy pass through the body and keep going, even if it hits bone, in many cases. Remember, that bullet is your responsibility from the time it leaves the barrel to the time it stops moving.

Second, type of bullet. Most everyone is aware of the two most common types, plain lead, and full metal jacket (FMJ. There also exists 'total metal jacket, which is slightly different, but for our purposes here, mostly the same thing) which is a lead bullet coated in a copper shell. Now, lead is a very soft metal. When used as a projectile, it starts spreading into a pancake and flattening the instant it hits something. The advantage to this is the round is less likely to keep traveling if you score a center mass shot, if it even leaves the body at all. FMJ rounds, by contrast, will punch right through a person, two walls, a mailbox, a tree, and hit another person. This is because the hard copper shell helps prevent the lead core from expanding and fragmenting.

In addition to those two, there exist such types of bullet, but by no means limited to, things like steel core, frangible, and hollow point ammunition. I use these as example because they are vastly different ends of the spectrum. Steel core is a FMJ round, but like the name implies, possesses a whole or partial steel core instead of lead. In short, more punching power. Usually found in rifle ammunition, it's most often used by the military, since they have a much higher expectation of encountering hostiles wearing body armor, but is civilian legal to own. Frangible rounds are interesting in that they are designed to fragment into such small pieces upon entering the first object they hit. They literally turn to sand after hitting a target. There are some interesting videos of people shooting a steel target at point blank range with frangible rounds, which would normally be a shrapnel hazard, but they're only getting peppered with sand. Good self defense ammo, but it's still rather expensive, and carries the additional problem of possibly not doing much damage to an assailant if he's wearing, say, heavy leather clothing or a kevlar vest.

Hollow point ammunition is a plain lead round, or lead ball, as it's called, with the front of the cap hollowed out. Hollow points are, in effect, designed to flatten out even faster than regular lead ball, while having the penetration power of a lead round. They are a good mix of punching power and lower risk of over-penetration, and as such enjoy the top spot on choice for self/home defense ammunition.

The reason why I explain all of this is that legally, your bullet choice can have repercussions beyond ballistic considerations. If you shoot an assailant, even if it was a legally justified shooting, or a 'clean' shoot, if you're loaded with steel core, you're going to get torn apart in court. The prosecution can and will paint you as whackjob out looking for an excuse to shoot someone, armed with ostensibly "military" ammo. Hornady, one of the better ammo manufacturers, makes a joke "zombie ammo". It is identical in all respects but two to their Critical Defense ammo, one designed for self defense carry. The differences are the color of the brass cartridge, and the color of the polymer the hollow point is filled with. That's it. If you use that ammo in a self defense shoot, though, the prosecution can (and has in cases already) make the jury think your a sociopath who dehumanized the person you shot by pretending he's a zombie. No shit, this has happened.

The point of all this is that there is a very, very long list of things that must be considered even before one starts carrying a firearm, and even more that have to be considered at the time it might be necessary to fire, in the heat of the moment. Specifically to the original topic question, firing center mass, and not to wound or disable, provides the best chance, in all cases, of the shoot going as intended, without complications and or unintended casualties.
 

TakerFoxx

New member
Jan 27, 2011
1,125
0
0
asinann said:
TakerFoxx said:
asinann said:
If they don't shoot to kill why are there so many stories of them shooting people in the back and shooting people who are restrained, getting a few weeks paid vacation then coming back to work because they didn't violate department policy? I'm more afraid of the police than I am of walking through the ghetto with $1000 in cash on me.
Because stories about bad news and corrupt authority figures are the most likely to attract attention, ergo they're the ones that make headlines. And in a country as large and diverse as the US, there's a fair number to choose from. Stories about police behaving themselves and going out of their way to do good don't gain viewers, as such you never hear about them, even though they outnumber the bad ones by a huge percentage. Just the other day I saw a cop park his car and walk up to a homeless guy that was wandering around a gas station and assumed it was to tell him to get lost. Instead, he handed the homeless guy a bag of food and a cup of coffee. You think things like that ever make the news? Very rarely. But once a cop screws up, you better believe everyone will hear about it.
7 shootings within 6 months in ONE city dealt with in the same manner. It was prevalent enough that the FBI was brought in to be IA for the department.
Yes, and that's messed up. Sounds like that city's police was very corrupt. At the same time, there are many, many, many other cities where the cops are perfectly nice people. It varies from place to place, and from cop to cop, but the large majority of police officers are perfectly decent people. No one group is all the same.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
14,931
763
118
CarnageRacing00 said:
You're never ready for it, and it never plays out the way you imagined it would. You can't rely on hindsight, you can't rely on logic, you can't rely on debates on message boards in the past... all you can do is rely on your muscle memory. Your finger lands on the trigger, your thumb flicks the safety off, and your survival instinct completely takes over. The person you're aiming at will die - and it will be almost involuntary, yet something you just have to do because your body knows it must happen if you are to survive. You're not going to have to presence of mind to aim for the knee or the shoulder. You're going to panic, and you're going to aim at center of mass, just like you were trained to do, and you're going to shoot until that person hits the ground. And you're going to puke and have nightmares for the rest of your life.
As an aside, I remember hearing about a guy...I think he ran a jeweler's store.

He carried a gun with him, and practiced regularly. Only, he practiced drawing and firing the weapon with the safety off, but he carried the gun with the safety on.

When he needed to draw it for real, this tripped him up and cost him his life.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
The Event said:
There is more too it than semantics.

As a soldier in a war against a uniformed enemy - things get more muddied in the case of insurgents etc. so let's use World War 2 as an example. If you come across a uniformed member of the enemy forces you can kill them. You can shoot them purely with the intention of killing them. They can be presenting no threat to you (but not surrendering) and you can kill them. They can be retreating and you can kill them. You can even answer the question "Why did you kill them?" with "Because they were the enemy" and you are immune to prosecution.

None of this appliles to the police. A police officer cannot kill someone because he was wearing gang colours or say he shot him just because "he was a criminal". He can only shoot someone who (he believes) presents an immediate threat. He can face a charge of murder if this is not the case.
In the UK, Police will give first aid to the people they shoot as soon as it is safe to do so.
Though the law may be different in your jurisdiction, this is the case in the UK. Police use of force is governed under the same laws that everyone else is governed by.

While we both agree that the use of force by police is to end the threat, this information is given to help others understand that the pokice are not seeking the death of the people they shoot and that the phrase "shoot to kill" is not factually accurate.
There's a lot more to most RoE (rules of engagement) than you might think and you may be surprised to find that in modern warfare we very often have as many restrictions on use of force as Police do. Despite this we are specifically trained never to "shoot to wound" because of what shooting to wound implies. If we are putting rounds on target, the purpose is to apply force sufficient to bring an end to the encounter. This may or may not involve the death of the people we are shooting at, but the methods we employ, much like those of most special police forces, are usually quite deadly. I don't see you and I so much disagreeing on the reality of these situations though. Either of us could argue that we do not technically shoot to kill, but we also sure as heck don't shoot to wound either. In both cases we shoot to complete our objective.

I get why you don't like the "shoot to kill" phrase, as it suggests an intent that does not really exist, but within the context of this discussion, it is a more apt description of the force we use when we employ firearms than "shoot to wound". As I siad though, I think we both essentially agree on the reality of the situation, which is the important part.
 

Suncatcher

New member
May 11, 2011
93
0
0
There are two kinds of people who might try to "shoot to disable". First, is the incredible master marksmen you see in movies, who may or may not exist in the real world (reports are hazy). Second, is people who don't know how guns work.

The first thing you learn when training with a firearm is that you never shoot at something you are not willing to kill. A bullet hole in the leg or the gut is likely to cause the target to bleed to death in a few minutes, even if you manage to hit it. And in real defensive situations, rather than a shooting range, the combination of a moving target, limited perception, time limits, and adrenaline make it extraordinarily difficult if not impossible to hit a target smaller or faster than 'torso'. So a person who tries to shoot to disable is very likely to accomplish nothing, slightly less likely to kill the target anyway, and has a non-zero chance of hitting somebody else with a bullet that went wide.

The only reasonable and intelligent things to do with a loaded weapon are not fire or shoot to kill. I am all for intimidation, non-lethal weapons, etc. but when you pull the trigger on a real gun you need to be willing to make the person in front of it stop being alive, because there isn't anything else you can really do there. Once you start shooting, your goal is to make the target stop being a threat as quickly as possible and their life is already forfeit, so you need to aim for the center of mass.

And of course most weapons won't kill instantly when used for self-defence. A trained soldier or police officer, after taking one bullet, will drop or fall back and get medical attention, but a drugged up thug or enraged attacker will often just keep coming until they run out of blood. Meaning that if you aren't using something with a great deal of stopping power (like a shotgun or a big rifle), you're better off putting several rounds through them. Because yes, it makes it less likely they they'll survive their idiocy, and that's tragic, but it's probably the only way to prevent them from doing as bad or worse to you or your loved ones.
 

k-ossuburb

New member
Jul 31, 2009
1,312
0
0
I've not gone through the entire thread, so I don't know if this was brought up or not, but what about the non-lethal alternatives? Rubber bullets and what-not? I know we're talking about live ammunition here and I know that most police don't really get a huge amount of time to make the kind of decision as to whether or not lethal force is required, but it's an option, isn't it? I don't actually know a lot about firearms, I know some of the names of the famous ones from movies and games and the basics of how they work, that's really the extent of my knowledge. My weaponry knowledge doesn't really extend much further than the 15th century, the closest thing to a gun I have some idea about is the trebuchet, so I'm just as interested as to why the non-lethal approach wouldn't work as the OP.

Please reply to inform me as to why non-lethal stuff is impractical and not used, possibly with reasons why the British couldn't use them, if I happen to see my neighbour, (who was in armed response, then went to canine, then airport security now is retired) I'll see if he has any answers, but I look forward to anyone with some insight into this who's willing to respond.
 

quezlar

New member
Mar 21, 2013
4
0
0
its already been pretty well explained here why you always shoot to stop a threat

but that's why tazers are used, they shoot to incapacitate
 

nepheleim

New member
Sep 10, 2008
194
0
0
k-ossuburb said:
I've not gone through the entire thread, so I don't know if this was brought up or not, but what about the non-lethal alternatives? Rubber bullets and what-not? I know we're talking about live ammunition here and I know that most police don't really get a huge amount of time to make the kind of decision as to whether or not lethal force is required, but it's an option, isn't it? I don't actually know a lot about firearms, I know some of the names of the famous ones from movies and games and the basics of how they work, that's really the extent of my knowledge. My weaponry knowledge doesn't really extend much further than the 15th century, the closest thing to a gun I have some idea about is the trebuchet, so I'm just as interested as to why the non-lethal approach wouldn't work as the OP.

Please reply to inform me as to why non-lethal stuff is impractical and not used, possibly with reasons why the British couldn't use them, if I happen to see my neighbour, (who was in armed response, then went to canine, then airport security now is retired) I'll see if he has any answers, but I look forward to anyone with some insight into this who's willing to respond.
We covered this somewhere around page 4, I think.

Anyway, quick summary:

There's no such thing as "non lethal". Rubber bullets kill people. Bean bags kill people. Tear Gas kills people. Sleeping gas (knockout gas) killed a whole mess of people. Tasers killed people. Hand and feet kill people.

Bottom line: A true "non lethal" alternative to a firearm would be a weapon that instantly incapacitates 100% of the people it is turned against, while also causing no harm to 100% of them. Given the sheer variety in human beings from everything from lifestyles, drugs ingested, genetic background, congenital defects, etc, this "non-lethal" effective weapon doesn't exist. The closest we have is to not engage at all, or run away, though I can see the obese cokehead dying of a heart attack chasing you.
 

averydeeadaccount

New member
Aug 12, 2011
77
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
Paradox SuXcess said:
I do see your point and I understand that shoot to kill can happen HOWEVER in certain situations why do they have to shoot the suspect in the back if they are running but not the legs where they would fall and stop. I know it's not guaranteed but there can be alternatives can't they?
In what situation would someone be a threat if they were running away?

That's not a shoot to kill issue, that's a police training issue. The police shouldn't be shooting anything if the person isn't a threat.
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=HIE_zF1Rv7MC&lpg=PA380&ots=fWwBfF_rZQ&dq=can%20police%20shoot%20a%20fleeing%20felon&pg=PA380#v=onepage&q=can%20police%20shoot%20a%20fleeing%20felon&f=false

Under Common law, it is legal for a police officer to use deadly force against a fleeing suspect who doesn't pose a risk, however there was a supreme court case in 1985 (Tennessee vs. Garner) which decided it was unlawful. The usual result is that the police officer will be heavily reprimanded, but since it isn't against common law they wont be prosecuted.

Personally i'm against arming beat cops in the first place. If the fact the situation required snap judgement and that they didn't have time to decide can be used in the cops defence, why should they be carrying guns.
 

psijac

$20 a year for this message
Nov 20, 2008
281
0
0
nepheleim said:
There's no such thing as "non lethal". Rubber bullets kill people. Bean bags kill people. Tear Gas kills people. Sleeping gas (knockout gas) killed a whole mess of people. Tasers killed people. Hand and feet kill people.

Bottom line: A true "non lethal" alternative to a firearm would be a weapon that instantly incapacitates 100% of the people it is turned against, while also causing no harm to 100% of them. Given the sheer variety in human beings from everything from lifestyles, drugs ingested, genetic background, congenital defects, etc, this "non-lethal" effective weapon doesn't exist. The closest we have is to not engage at all, or run away, though I can see the obese cokehead dying of a heart attack chasing you.
I always thought of the Startrek Phaser this best possible gun ever, until I realiszed it would be the ultimate date-rape drug. Of course Captain Kirk Always had one
 

TakerFoxx

New member
Jan 27, 2011
1,125
0
0
psijac said:
nepheleim said:
There's no such thing as "non lethal". Rubber bullets kill people. Bean bags kill people. Tear Gas kills people. Sleeping gas (knockout gas) killed a whole mess of people. Tasers killed people. Hand and feet kill people.

Bottom line: A true "non lethal" alternative to a firearm would be a weapon that instantly incapacitates 100% of the people it is turned against, while also causing no harm to 100% of them. Given the sheer variety in human beings from everything from lifestyles, drugs ingested, genetic background, congenital defects, etc, this "non-lethal" effective weapon doesn't exist. The closest we have is to not engage at all, or run away, though I can see the obese cokehead dying of a heart attack chasing you.
I always thought of the Startrek Phaser this best possible gun ever, until I realiszed it would be the ultimate date-rape drug. Of course Captain Kirk Always had one
Captain Kirk didn't need it, at least for that purpose. All he had to do was smile and promise to help the alien babe of the week with whatever weird problem her people were dealing with.

Personally, I never really saw the appeal. I always felt that Picard was the more attractive, but that's getting off topic.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
14,931
763
118
nepheleim said:
We covered this somewhere around page 4, I think.

Anyway, quick summary:

There's no such thing as "non lethal". Rubber bullets kill people. Bean bags kill people. Tear Gas kills people. Sleeping gas (knockout gas) killed a whole mess of people. Tasers killed people. Hand and feet kill people.

Bottom line: A true "non lethal" alternative to a firearm would be a weapon that instantly incapacitates 100% of the people it is turned against, while also causing no harm to 100% of them. Given the sheer variety in human beings from everything from lifestyles, drugs ingested, genetic background, congenital defects, etc, this "non-lethal" effective weapon doesn't exist. The closest we have is to not engage at all, or run away, though I can see the obese cokehead dying of a heart attack chasing you.
To add to what you said, less-lethal weapons are used in preference to...is the term "more-lethal"?

But, unfortunately, they often aren't appropriate. When you have to end a threat right now, less lethal weapons generally aren't going to do the job.

(And, also unfortunately, certain people confuse "less-lethal" with "fine to use all the time". People end up being a bit over-eager to use them, even if they don't kill, they are often excessive)
 

thedarkfreak

New member
Apr 7, 2011
57
0
0
mathsisfun said:
Personally i'm against arming beat cops in the first place. If the fact the situation required snap judgement and that they didn't have time to decide can be used in the cops defence, why should they be carrying guns.
It's possible I'm misunderstanding you, but that's exactly why they should have guns. While guns should be a last resort, it's a fallback that a law enforcement officer should definitely have. What is the beat cop going to do if the suspect he's attempting to bring in pulls a weapon on him? In that situation, I'd rather have a dead criminal than a dead cop.
 

NSGrendel

New member
Jul 1, 2010
110
0
0
This thread delivers in lols, although it's rather short on factual content.

If only there was some way to stop guns being so prolific or to stop handing them out to everyone with a pulse.

Still, this will forever remain a mystery, I guess.

Just to wrench this nonsense back into the real world for a moment - there is a world of difference between small and large calibre firearms. Anyone saying "I was taught that if you shoot someone, x will happen" should be deleted by moderators as a troll or an idiot.

Also, I find it amazing that US police need to be armed and yet proportionately, vastly more US citizens get shot, whereas British police are largely unarmed and manage to largely get through the day. Perhaps not every situation is improved with a high velocity projectile?

/facepalm