Why shoot to kill?

[mistermack]

How often do you shoot in a combat situation?

This was a man across the street, with a bird gun. The police had telescopic sights, body armour and barriers. And it was seven high-powered rifles against one bird gun. If I have to face a combat situation, I'll choose that one.
.

[Feck]

to say that police take shooting people (at least in the UK is not true)

They could have just shot this this fucker ..I would have .
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdocIzbH ... re=related[/youtube]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The policy is shoot to stop. It's the same thing. Do you know about shotguns, or are you assuming that as it's just little pellety things they just bounce off stuff?
Non-lethal weapons would be great, but they don't always have a place in real life. Yet.

Anyway, he started it.

Cops would love to have effective non-lethal weapons. It would save all that time with the counselors after a shoot, and the issue of whether the board is going to deem it righteous or not. And the law suits whether it was righteous or not. And the relatives who will never be convinced it was necessary no matter what the actual facts of the matter are.

[mistermack]

I don't think any of you have had the nerve to answer the question. You're just answering DIFFERENT questions. These cops could EASILY have shot the guy in the arm, or shoulder, ( or even both arms ). He was a sitting duck, and there was no danger to anybody. They knew that.
.

[Trolldor]

You clearly have been watching far too many movies. Do you have any idea how quickly someone can die after being shot? There's more than just bloodloss to account for, there's shock as well.

[Feck]

Were you there ? do you know how close the nearest other person was ,do you know how likely it was that he would kill his hostage ,do you know the chances of a bullet in the arm killing someone ? ,or not stopping them ?

[mistermack]

You clearly have been watching far too many movies. Do you have any idea how quickly someone can die after being shot? There's more than just bloodloss to account for, there's shock as well.

JC, why is everybody so concerned about his health? Are you really saying shoot to kill, because otherwise you might hurt him?
.

[Trolldor]

Every shot is a shot to kill, some just take longer than others.
Those shots which aren't lethal are tricky, limit what you can use, and aren't guaranteed to be non-lethal anyway.

[mistermack]

Were you there ? do you know how close the nearest other person was ,do you know how likely it was that he would kill his hostage ,do you know the chances of a bullet in the arm killing someone ? ,or not stopping them ?

He was in an upstairs room. He couldn't get out. He had no hostage. That would be entirely different.
I'm saying why shoot to kill, WHEN YOU CLEARLY DON'T HAVE TO!
That's all. Not when it's fifty fifty, or when he has a hostage. That's an entirely different question.
.

[mistermack]

Every shot is a shot to kill, some just take longer than others.
Those shots which aren't lethal are tricky, limit what you can use, and aren't guaranteed to be non-lethal anyway.

If that was my brother or son up there, out of his mind, I would very much appreciate someone shooting him in the arm or shoulder.
Even if it ended badly, and he bled to death, I would thank them for trying.
.

[anna09]

When you take a class on shooting or if you're in the police academy or military you are trained to shoot for the largest part of the body--the chest. You don't aim for the head, the arms, or the legs. Why would you aim for such a small spot that's moving around? Then when you add on the high stress of the situation (which hinders your aim tremendously) you're simply more likely to shoot somebody else. Also, this is simply your interpretation of an event, I see no link or reference to any article to help YOUR case.

This guy had a SHOTGUN, and the police had had many hours to ensure their safety.

.

This made me lol.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

These cops could EASILY have shot the guy in the arm, or shoulder, ( or even both arms ).

How often do you shoot in a combat situation?

[mistermack]

When you take a class on shooting or if you're in the police academy or military you are trained to shoot for the largest part of the body--the chest. You don't aim for the head, the arms, or the legs. Why would you aim for such a small spot that's moving around? Then when you add on the high stress of the situation (which hinders your aim tremendously) you're simply more likely to shoot somebody else. Also, this is simply your interpretation of an event, I see no link or reference to any article to help YOUR case.

This guy had a SHOTGUN, and the police had had many hours to ensure their safety.

.

This made me lol.

That's pretty dumb, when it was the TRAINING that I criticised in the first place.
When your life is in danger, that is fine. But when they are not in danger, as in this case, they act in EXACTLY the same way.
That's what's stupid.
This guy was shown on TV, up to a split second before they killed him.
He was on the second floor, couldn't get any nearer to them, and he had a bird gun.
It was NOT a life-threatening situation.
.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That's pretty dumb, when it was the TRAINING that I criticised in the first place.

Criticizing something you know jack-shit about.

[Trolldor]

Every shot is a shot to kill, some just take longer than others.
Those shots which aren't lethal are tricky, limit what you can use, and aren't guaranteed to be non-lethal anyway.

If that was my brother or son up there, out of his mind, I would very much appreciate someone shooting him in the arm or shoulder.
Even if it ended badly, and he bled to death, I would thank them for trying.
.

Well then, I hope you can come up with a system to train every single officer with a firearm to be an exceptional marksman. Of course, you would also be stopping them from using anything with a decent range so as to be out of sight and notice of the guy with the loaded gun threatening the hsotages.