Forum menu
Soldiers on the streets for NYE? There's been plenty on the streets with PTSD, substance abuse issues and homelessness for years.
rene59 - Member
Soldiers on the streets for NYE? There's been plenty on the streets with PTSD, substance abuse issues and homelessness for years.
Yeah, used up then forgotten like so many other poor sods.
Edukator - Reformed TrollThe American police often lie about incident such as this. Until they provide video footage then I suggest they just shot him when he opened the door, and that if they did shout to put his hands up he didn't hear or misunderstood. Anyhow American police = trigger-happy cowboys.
But nobody forces any of us Europeans to go to the US, Saudi, Nigeria, Mexico or any other **** up place.
Absolutely this.
Vote with your feet and don't bother with these barbaric nations.
Its actually surprising that the officer was able to hit his intended target at that distance.
Being the hopeless aim we see from a number of US videos
See that sun headline, that is the kind of shit that had brought America to the state its in. The idea that we need snipers on roofs, tanks at airports, a military force in every town to protect us. That headline normalises concepts of a militarised "protection" force that really isn't needed at all.
I've seen a very good point made elsewhere. The police arrive, a guy with no visible weapon walks out of the front door looking confused. They shine a spotlight on him and he raises his hand to shield his eyes. They shoot him.
If it was a real hostage situation, what are the odds that the police have just killed one of the hostages who's been sent out by the hostage-taker to speak to the police?
I imagine being a cop in the States must be pretty scary TBH, and I'm not surprised this sort of stuff happens (innocent people being shot at) . I mean you go to any crime, any incident; knowing full well that the odds are that some-one will have a gun and may very well try to have a go.
Mad society.
I think that a highly trained swat team at close distance should be able to shoot their gun accurately and perhaps more importantly not just shoot it at any person that moves their hands.
How many shots were fired at Jean Paul de Menezes from close range and how many hit him? He was sat down at the time.
11 fired with 7 hits. Now move the shooters away and see many more miss. This was on a brightly lit tube train.
mattsccm - Member
Crooks kill a lot more deliberately!
Well yes, they are dedicated law-breakers, not someone whose motto is "To protect and serve" 🙄
Why do they shoot to kill straight away? why not in the leg or something?
Bullets don't mess around, if you shoot at someone, you are shooting to kill.
Disagree with that latter comment. It can be a case of a shoot to stop. Imagine someone about to bring an axe down on another's head. You can shoot to stop that axe person carrying out the action.
A consequence yes might be that the person could die from the injury .... But that was not the intention of the shot being taken in the first place. The intention being to stop the axe being plunged into another's head.
The Dutch and French police have a good record of shooting people to stop them doing harm, "mettre hors état de nuire" without killing them. Some American police do too. There was a video that went viral of a "suicide by cop" contender having a gun shot out of his hand.
In this case the guy wasn't on a tube train and even with the tiny amount of range shooting I've done I'd have been confident of hitting the guy's lower leg with a rifle at that range. I'd compare it with the shooting accuracy needed on a biathlon but without the oxygen debt, pounding heart and need to shoot five times against the clock.
How many shots were fired at Jean Paul de Menezes from close range and how many hit him? He was sat down at the time.11 fired with 7 hits. Now move the shooters away and see many more miss. This was on a brightly lit tube train.
That just proves my point further... why put 7 bullets into someone?
Seems they all think they are the SAS in an embassy siege against known murdering terrorists... when in fact they are up against someone who [i]might[/i] be armed
In this case the guy wasn't on a tube train and even with the tiny amount of range shooting I've done I'd have been confident of hitting the guy's lower leg with a rifle at that range. I'd compare it with the shooting accuracy needed on a biathlon but without the oxygen debt, pounding heart and need to shoot five times against the clock.
Try telling that to an armed police officer who has had to shoot someone they’d laugh at you.
Targets on ranges are well known for trying to shoot back at you, of course, and so the situation is exactly the same as turning up to a suspected armed siege.
Targets on ranges are well known for trying to shoot back at you
as apposed to un-armed Brazilian plumbers?
Centre of visible mass is what I was taught. Got quite good at it too. Not sure what the police are taught though,probably the same.
They’re taught aiming at limbs is for films.
as apposed to un-armed Brazilian plumbers?
Do you actually think that's what they believed they were dealing with that day?
if they believed the phone call enough to send the swat team round then they must believe it's a hostage situation where some or all of the hostages are dead, therefore it's a stand off situation and of very little risk to the officers so no need at that early stage to put themselves in harms way so no need for them to fire their weapons. Trigger happy murderous ****wits the lot of them.
I was referring to Stockwell.
Try telling that to an armed police officer who has had to shoot someone they’d laugh at you.
They wouldn't/haven't when I've discussed use of firearms with gendarmes and CRS.
I imagine being a cop in the States must be pretty scary TBH, and I'm not surprised this sort of stuff happens
Me neither Nick.
Today in Denver..
http://www.thejournal.ie/denver-police-shooting-3775413-Dec2017/
They wouldn't/haven't when I've discussed use of firearms with gendarmes and CRS.
Aye right
So shoot to kill.Disagree with that latter comment...A consequence yes might be that the person could die from the injury
Quite.They’re taught aiming at limbs is for films.
When I was in the army we had a shooting accident at the base I was stationed at. The round hit the unlucky recipient in the forearm, and exited via his neck.
Bullets do not **** around.
"Aye", Drac.
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5c2_1361304595
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42372955
Bails:
That’ll be the Daniel Shaver shooting.
Absolutely horrifying. The officer in charge gave him a series of conflicting confusing requests that had him trying to crawl on the floor with his legs crossed and hands behind his head. The guy was on the ground crying for his life.
Here is PhillyD covering it (watch from 9:30) shows the police body cam footage.
That is murder pure and simple. Policemen high on power abusing their authority to shoot a terrified unarmed man.
Edukator posting some stories isn’t the same as your original claim that you were one quite good at httting a target so could probably shoot someone in a limb. That’s the laughable part alongside comparing it to an Olympic sportsman.
Add to that fact shooting someone in a limb with a rifle poses a high risk of it being lethal.
They’re taught aiming at limbs is for films.
My stories were a reply to this, Drac. At least two European countires have poliices of shooting to remove threat and not to kill. I could link more French cases, at least one in which the gendarme specifically stated in court he aimed at the legs.
When the Americans (and from what you say British) have a shoot the middle (which eqauates to shoot to kill) policy then it should be questionned because other forces around the world only shoot to kill when shooting to maim is inappropriate, their training is not as black and white and encourages "minimum force". There are also different rules of engagement. If you Google shooting involving French police it's very often the criminal who shoots first, this may mean more police/gendarme get shot but also means there is no argument about whether police shooting was in self defense or not.
Different cultures, differnt legal systems, differnet case law verdicts to guide police in their actions. Inform yourself rather than being so adamant, black and white and a .... . But the fact is some police do aim for the legs when that is an appropriate course of action.
How does shooting an armed criminal in the legs prevent them from being a threat?
My stories were a reply to this, Drac
Aye right.
However your reply to my other comment makes much more sense than “I once hit the bullseye at the fairground and won a giant stuffed unicorn toy”
Step away form the keyboard, Drac. I am.