-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Man attempts to kill artist of the controversial Muhammad cartoons, and is arrested.
- Thread starter xelios
- Start date
- Status
It's all statistical any way though. If you have police firing warning shots and shooting at extremities eventually someone not intended will get hit. Of course just having guns means someone will get shot. My question is is it worth 1 innocent person getting shot every 15 years for more criminals to be brought in alive? I say no. Europe thinks yes, or perhaps they think this way is safer for all involved, which it's not. It is a more dangerous method for the police and for the public.ItsInMyVeins said:
What I'd like to definitely clear up is everyone saying they should shoot to wound are in fact using the safest form of gun use for themselves and the general public. Jean-Claude Picard and others saying the people against this notion are dangerous are 100% incorrect. Sure, shooting center mass is most dangerous for the criminal but it is by far safer for both the officer and the public as is not firing any warning shots. Less bullets flying around, in the least amount of angles equals safer for everyone but the criminal. I take offense to him saying I'd be dangerous with my gun, if he were next to me with my gun standing down an armed attacker or next to some police officer trying to shoot to wound he has a much higher chance being hit on accident by that police officer than he would with me. If he wants to say that chance is an acceptable risk for society to take to try and assure the safety of the criminal, hey that's his prerogative, but it doesn't change the fact it's more dangerous for any bystanders pr the police.
I'm trying to recreate the scene in my head that involves the cop shooting the guys arm or hand after the guy swung an knife at him and unless he was in a vacant warehouse I just can't see that being safe for anyone but the attacker. First I believe a firearm should always be fired forward, no grabbing a guys arm putting your gun to it and shooting their arm or that shit, it's just crazy. As your attacker gets closer and closer your field of vision or I guess "cone of awareness" also shrinks, you get less and less of your surroundings and you focus on the guy closer and closer to you, to the point where I think it's ridiculously dangerous to try and shoot an extremity so close to you in a knife fight.
As I said, I think it's a danger to the public and a danger to the officers involved but if that's the way they want it to be, whatever, but I don't like it when people try and say it's safer for the public as well because it just is not.
And sorry for going the same route that you were about to take Boogie, you probably would have done better actually.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
That's interesting. If you don't mind me asking, why would you place the safety of officers (who signed up for the risk of danger) over that of innocent bystanders?mAcOdIn said:
mAcOdIn said:
Oh look, someone who shows an understanding of the psychological and physiological effects of stress on the human body, and how that would affect a police officer's use of his firearm.
's all good. Better this way anyway, means fewer F bombs dropped by me. :lol
Chairman Yang said:
That's actually the only part of his statement I disagreed with. Depending upon the exact nature of the scenario, shooting to stop the threat can either place public and police safety on an equal footing, or public safety ahead of police safety (ie. a situation where the suspect is attacking/about to attack a third party, and the police shoot. The action places public safety first, as the police officer is not directly threatened at that time.)
The important part in my mind is that both public and police safety rank faaaaaaaaaar ahead of the suspect's safety, to the point it is not a concern of mine until the threat is stopped.
I don't but unfortunately it's physically impossible for that to be the first priority. By nature of being there and being not involved they're automatically second or third in rank, you can arrange how close to second or how far away from second place they are but they can't be first.Chairman Yang said:
For instance, assuming there were bystanders around a knife wielding lunatic and he was attacking you it might seem like it's safest for the general public for you to not shoot, but then if you die our are incapacitated by him then the public is faced with an even greater threat than over penetration or a missed shot. There's no way to put the public's safety first in all scenarios.
Now you do have instances where that's untrue, for instance high speed chases, where it doesn't matter how great of a driver the cop is, just by forcing someone to drive 125 miles an hour down city roads and running lights puts people at a more immediate risk than that one man may if he gets away. Which is why we debate whether chasing someone over vehicle theft or whatnot is worth it these days. If the dudes a serial killer and kills someone every Wednesday then yeah he needs to be brought down but if all he's done is steal a car or not want a ticket is it really safer to the public to give chase to him? I think there's plenty of room for debate on what's truly in the public's interest in matters like this but when it comes to armed confrontation between the police and an assailant I don't feel there's ever a true way to place the immediate public's safety as the top priority. Obviously if a situation presents itself to get people out of the area first or try to talk down the suspect those avenues should be explored but once it comes down to having to use the gun there's no way for the public to be first, just above the criminals safety or below the criminals safety.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
mAcOdIn said:
I doubt they came up with their tactics over night and I also doubt all the shots taken by american police officers, even when aimed at center mass, actually hit them. On top of that, I'm sure that american police officers are far more likely to fire their weapons than their european counterparts and therefore are more likely to injure someone else in some type of crossfire situation which rarely happens here.
About what happened in Denmark, I don't know. Maybe the officer just hit him in the leg and arm by accident. I can't say, and neither can you.
But let's say the police find a man with a knife who's threatening to attack them and maybe walks towards them slowly. What would you say is the proper procedure here?
Well I also agree that American cops shoot too much, don't see where I was trying to say one countries police were better than another or how that factors in to this discussion.ItsInMyVeins said:
And American cops do also miss even while shooting at center mass, all that does is prove that shooting at an extremity just means more misses, hence more dangerous for everyone but the suspect.
By the sheer number of times American cops have to use their weapons versus Danish cops I'd also agree that our chances of hitting an innocent person is also higher, but it'd be even higher if we shot at extremities.
As for whether he meant to go for an arm and a leg, lol, you're right, I can't say for sure, all I said was I think trying was "ridiculously dangerous," which is true.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
mAcOdIn said:
Well, you did say that it was a more dangerous method for the police and public. I can see why you'd say it's more dangerous for the police, although in those situations they're usually at least a couple of police officers there and I assume that only one of them goes for a leg shot while the other ones are ready to fire if it'd would turn bad. But that's just my assumptions, then.
The thing is, most of the situations seems to involve a person with a knife who's not rarely mentally unstable. Someone firing at the police is probably very uncommon in comparison to the US for instance. Now, I'm not saying that the US should employ these types of tactics, all I'm saying is that you guys need to realize that there's a difference in when the weapons are being used and how simply because it's different here in some regards.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
Boogie said:
Yes, and clearly this is the best practice for a lot of Europe as it is now.
ItsInMyVeins said:
situational factors notwithstanding, I draw my gun, point it at the subject and yell "police, drop the knife!" assuming the subject does not comply, I fire at the centre of mass until the subject drops the knife or drops as a threat. I then advance cautiously on the subject, keeping my firearm trained on him in case he is still a threat, and proceed to put the subject in handcuffs. As soon as the subject is safely handcuffed, I seek medical attention for his wounds.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
Boogie said:
In comparison and according to what most posts here seem to say then, is that in several European countries the police in a similar situation would opt to shoot him in the leg first if he doesn't listen to any warnings or a possible warning shot -- assuming that the criminal isn't running up to them too, I guess.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
Boogie said:
Yes, clearly, you're more in touch with the policing in Europe than the police force here. I can just as easily say that shooting until the subject drops right off the bat after one warning creates a more reckless behavior in general and might very well end up with someone dead who didn't need to be -- maybe because the person is mentally unstable, didn't understand or whatever. But then I'd be talking about something I don't know anything about, so maybe I shouldn't?
By the way, how often do suspects manage to walk even when shot with a hollow point bullet in the leg?
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
Boogie said:
Yes, I'm curious since you haven't answered that and you've mentioned ricocheting over and over again. I did read one story about a person who got shot in the foot but that didn't seem to stop him. But on the other hand, this was in the central parts of town with people everywhere. Had they started to fire right at him "until he dropped" it could really have gone bad, I'd say.
ItsInMyVeins said:
Haven't answered it? In what way? You want a percentage? I can't give you that, I can only say that it's axiomatic that shooting people in limbs is unlikely to stop them. And I even posted an article stating the physiological reasoning why that is. Did you even read it?
As an aside, the recent Tacoma Washington shooting was an incident where the subject was shot in the leg, and that certainly didn't stop him.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
Boogie said:
Yes, I read the article. But I've also read articles where it's clearly enough as well. But in the end I guess it depends on the situation. They probably are gonna go the for a leg in certain situations and in some a warning shot is enough. If the subject has a gun on the other hand, then they'd probably wouldn't go for a leg and I don't think they have to fire a warning shot if the situation is that bad.
EDIT: Also, like I said before, I think there's quite a difference in the type of crime they encounter and that's probably a big reason as to why the tactics are a bit different.
tfur
Member
ItsInMyVeins said:
Most big city police in the U.S. can handle a situation like this w/o using a gun. Situations like you propose arise so often in large population centers, that police learn to handle these situations without shooting or killing. If you had a cop shoot at every suspect with a knife, you would have hundreds of cops killing citizens across the U.S. every day.
tfur said:
Umm, what?
Perhaps one of our American officers can chime in here, but in Canada, knife-wielding assailants are often shot by police.
What options, exactly, do American police officers have to avoid using firearms in such a situation, assuming the subject cannot be talked down or ignores demands to drop the knife?
Going hands on? Hell no.
Using a baton? Hell no.
Pepper spray? Nope. Limited range, have to hit suspect's eyes, delayed reaction/chance of suspect being immune due to excited delerium, etc.
Taser? Maybe. But not all forces allow all officers to carry tasers. And tasers should only be used in a death/grievous bodily harm situation when you have another officer providing lethal overwatch with his firearm.
That leaves.......you guessed it.....the officer's firearm. A knife-wielding assailant presents a risk of death or grievous bodily harm. And a situation that presents a risk of death or grievous bodily harm allows for the use of lethal force.
Want to bring this up again so it isn't lost entirely: in 23% of incidents where police shot at civilians in Denmark(excluding warning shots), they missed. And not 23% of the shots missed, they are talking about an entire incident where no one was hit. In 50% of the cases where a civilian was shot the bullet continued through their body entirely.
KHarvey16 said:
I didn't want to focus on that stat because I don't know how far out of line that would be with North American police shootings. I have a study on police shootings in the USA at my computer at work, perhaps I will try to dig it up for this thread when I go in on Tuesday.
Although, as you say, it is significant that this stat is not 23% of their shots missed, but rather that in 23% of the incidents they never hit the target once.
Still, even in North America, there are too many officer who only practise their shooting once a year, for their annual qualifications.
This is a VERY significant stat though, as it would be expected from a force that encourages shooting for the limbs.
That's another reason why we aim centre of mass. It minimizes the chances of the bullet penetrating and continuing through the subject, where it can threaten someone else.
Shooting the limb increases the chance the bullet will pass right through and pose a potential danger to bystanders.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
To both of you, from the PDF that Kharvey mentions:
Police bullets mostly hit arms and legs; the bullet continues through the body part in approximately 50 percent of all incidents. No third party has been hit by a police bullet since the introduction of the Action 3 round.
(A little anecdote; from what I understand no one's been hurt by a stray shot or a warning shot in Sweden at least). I'm almost willing to bet that you'd see at least a similar amount of missed shots in the US as well.
Also, the 23% stat is, just to clairfy it a bit, 66 shots where 51 hit over a ten year span, sometimes regarding car pursuits as well. This also includes tear gas, whatever that means. During the same time period shots were fired 163 times (including warning shots) and weapons were drawn 2725 times.
EDIT: By the way, are you sure it's missed entirely?
Police bullets mostly hit arms and legs; the bullet continues through the body part in approximately 50 percent of all incidents. No third party has been hit by a police bullet since the introduction of the Action 3 round.
(A little anecdote; from what I understand no one's been hurt by a stray shot or a warning shot in Sweden at least). I'm almost willing to bet that you'd see at least a similar amount of missed shots in the US as well.
Also, the 23% stat is, just to clairfy it a bit, 66 shots where 51 hit over a ten year span, sometimes regarding car pursuits as well. This also includes tear gas, whatever that means. During the same time period shots were fired 163 times (including warning shots) and weapons were drawn 2725 times.
EDIT: By the way, are you sure it's missed entirely?
ItsInMyVeins said:
Again, not missed shots but whole incidents where shots were fired and no one was hit. Also, the argument about no one being hit is like saying you don't need to wear a seatbelt because you've never gone through your windshield. It's like security through obscurity, except lives are at risk instead of bits.
ItsInMyVeins said:
The 163 number includes warning shots, so I only used the number of incidents where shots were aimed at civilians.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
KHarvey16 said:
I edited my last post asking about that. Anyhow, how did you figure out your seat belt analogy? I'm sure american police officers also miss their targets quite frequently, considering that they seem to be more likely to use their weapons and fire more bullets? To me it sounds like you're arguing for the police to not use guns at all!
ItsInMyVeins said:
I'm fairly sure it's missed entirely, since they list the number wounded and killed and then the sum of those as "persons hit."
The point relates to the system of prioritization discussed a little bit ago. All cases where a gun is used by a police officer places the officer, the suspect and the public in danger. This can't be avoided, so all anyone can do is limit the amount of danger to those they wish to protect. A high instance of over penetration and missing is putting the public in more danger than seems necessary. Even if the rate at which these police miss is not abhorrent relative to other countries, I would argue it could be reduced even further. The 50% over penetration rate just seems terrible to me.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
KHarvey16 said:
It could very well mean that during a few incident more than one bullet was shot and that one or more missed. It doesn't have to imply that they "missed entirely".
I agree that the penetration rate is kinda high but I guess that's why they've introduced the different type of ammunition which is supposed to be a great deal less likely to do so (but when they did that I don't know). And even if they're not aiming for legs it could penetrate, especially if they fire more than 1-2 shots (which seems to be the typical amount per incident).
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
KHarvey16 said:
I'm saying that it could imply that they hit the person with one out of two shots.
Over penetration might be more likely, but you're probably doing it wrong if you're shooting at a suspect with people directly behind him. Aiming for the legs will at least result in the bullet going slightly downward which I'd say is less risky than missing a shot in chest height, unless the criminal's got a gun.
ItsInMyVeins said:
It's listed as incidents. So if in one incident they shot 3 times and only one bullet hit, that incident still counts as a hit. And thinking about it now, having per-shot data can't improve that 23% number in any way. It can only leave it unchanged, or more likely, hurt it.
ItsInMyVeins said:
What if people are behind something or far away? Depending on the angle even a shot toward the ground can strike a hard surface, bounce and simply continue on. Over penetration hurts the round accountability Boogie mentioned and you always want to avoid it, so doing things that make it more likely is again trading some of the public's safety for the suspect's.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
KHarvey16 said:
So it is incident they're talking about? Because I read it as reports of shots fired (i.e. how many shots were fired that year aimed at criminals). If it's like you say then it's a bit weird and either the suspect gave up or managed to get away from the police somehow (?).
As far as the ricocheting goes I've gone over it several times already. They use bullets that expand on impact because that significantly lowers the possibilty of ricocheting or going through a nearby wall.
ItsInMyVeins said:
Well, the graph is labeled as "total number of reports of shots aimed at civilians."
ItsInMyVeins said:
An abstract from The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology:
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
Kharvey:
Of course they are a risk but not to the same extent as ordinary bullets. Tell me, how does firing several bullet in chest height against a running criminal make more sense to you? How could that possibly be less of a risk for the surrounding? Seriously, I'd imagine that the police force have put in a bit more research into this than you.
Of course they are a risk but not to the same extent as ordinary bullets. Tell me, how does firing several bullet in chest height against a running criminal make more sense to you? How could that possibly be less of a risk for the surrounding? Seriously, I'd imagine that the police force have put in a bit more research into this than you.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
KHarvey16 said:
And more likely to seriously injure someone if you do?
Wickerbasket
Member
Nevermind. Read it wrong.
:lolarab said:
I just want to point everyone to this fantastic documentary on the role of Islam in Europe during the dark ages. It will shed a new light into the proposition that 'Islam is a faith of peace'
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/when-moors-ruled-europe/
The contrast between the cosmopolitan, learned, and curious Islam of the Moors in Spain is a world apart from the evangelical Islam that seems so dominant today.
It also shows the possibilities of what could have been had a modern, advanced and rich Islamic country survived the re-conquest and the religion retained its virtues, instead of descending into the puritanism of Wahhabi Saudi Islamo fascism.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/when-moors-ruled-europe/
The contrast between the cosmopolitan, learned, and curious Islam of the Moors in Spain is a world apart from the evangelical Islam that seems so dominant today.
It also shows the possibilities of what could have been had a modern, advanced and rich Islamic country survived the re-conquest and the religion retained its virtues, instead of descending into the puritanism of Wahhabi Saudi Islamo fascism.
ItsInMyVeins said:
Perhaps, perhaps not, but the overall impact on the safety of the public would depend on how often police miss when shooting at center mass and how often the bullets over penetrate. Also remember that most shots in Denmark hit legs and arms. Shooting at the arms would have the same considerations as shooting center mass without any of the benefits.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
KHarvey16 said:
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and assume that they've actually thought about the safety of the public too. I doubt their line of thought was "how can we endanger the police and the public more?". The fact remains that gun violence and police officers firing their weapons are a lot less common there and their strategies are made to work there, not necessarily in the US, both from a practical and sociological way (is "sociological" the right word here?).
This isn't hard guys, yes shooting at an extremity is more dangerous for everyone but the criminal than shooting center mass, I don't see why there's even an argument over this. Europe and NA are a little different, I forget when it was but there was a big stink about UK police carrying guns while I was alive, there was no such discussion in America in my lifetime. The mentalities are totally different, even assuming a civilian was killed I still think Denmark would probably keep their procedures because a lot of European countries just have this thing about police killing people. From a moral or humanitarian point of view there is nothing wrong with that standpoint. Nothing. From a logical or practical standpoint, the thinking is flawed. But that's never stopped humanity from doing things that are illogical. Take water boarding for instance, I actually think it makes sense to torture people we know have information but won't divulge it, however I'm against the government actually doing that, why? Because I think it's wrong on humanitarian grounds, not that it doesn't work or that it breeds more terrorists. Now, torturing anyone you think's related to terrorism or anyone who fights you in a war of occupation, yeah I think that breeds more of them but different argument.
I'm totally convinced that if the Denmark police's stance cost 1 innocent life every 20 years in exchange for who knows how many criminals saved that the public would probably still defend that policy. I don't agree with it, I think all of Europe is soft on crime, but many parts of Europe can afford to be. Because you can afford to do something doesn't make it the best way to do something, just that it's an acceptable outcome for you. I can afford to drop 5 dollars every pay period on the ground, doesn't make it a good idea and over time that'd equal a lot of money. Denmark can afford to take a slightly higher risk when detaining criminals because they do it so infrequently that over time the civilian casualties would be considered acceptable by the population, doesn't make it safer.
If you were to see Denmark's crime start to look like the US you can bet your ass that it'd reach a point though where they'd re evaluate the shooting to wound concept because the risk will then be too high. Cool they're not there yet but that doesn't make it safe.
But I really don't see how anyone can claim that shooting to wound is safer for the public or the officer, it mathematically can not be true. It's like arguing over the existence of Unicorns. Why even debate that? It makes your whole position seem stupid, instead you should be debating the humanitarian reasons for doing so at which point we'd be at a stalemate and can all go back to talking about how Radical Islam is silly for wanting to kill people over cartoons.
I'm totally convinced that if the Denmark police's stance cost 1 innocent life every 20 years in exchange for who knows how many criminals saved that the public would probably still defend that policy. I don't agree with it, I think all of Europe is soft on crime, but many parts of Europe can afford to be. Because you can afford to do something doesn't make it the best way to do something, just that it's an acceptable outcome for you. I can afford to drop 5 dollars every pay period on the ground, doesn't make it a good idea and over time that'd equal a lot of money. Denmark can afford to take a slightly higher risk when detaining criminals because they do it so infrequently that over time the civilian casualties would be considered acceptable by the population, doesn't make it safer.
If you were to see Denmark's crime start to look like the US you can bet your ass that it'd reach a point though where they'd re evaluate the shooting to wound concept because the risk will then be too high. Cool they're not there yet but that doesn't make it safe.
But I really don't see how anyone can claim that shooting to wound is safer for the public or the officer, it mathematically can not be true. It's like arguing over the existence of Unicorns. Why even debate that? It makes your whole position seem stupid, instead you should be debating the humanitarian reasons for doing so at which point we'd be at a stalemate and can all go back to talking about how Radical Islam is silly for wanting to kill people over cartoons.
The Netherlands ranks third behind the USA and Canada in a comparative case study about lethal police shootings (between 9 western countries). It has 3 lethal shootings per year (300 in the USA) with a population of 16 million (thats 1 death per 5 millions civilians, 1 on 1 in the USA). But where in the US there is one police officer killed for every 4 civilians, its only 1 per 9 in the Netherlands.
In total there are 50 to 100 incidents a year where police fire shots, aprroximately 17 people get hit every year of which 3 die. Police officers are trained to shoot below the belt, but the probable cause of all the lethal incidents is lack of firearm training and the amount of incidents in which officers are allowed to pull their firearm.
The safest country in the study is Great Britain where only 1 civilian in 27 million dies by police bullets. In the UK police patrol without guns, but this doesnt seem to influence the death rate because in countries like Ireland and Norway where police also don't carry firearms the death rates are much higher.
In total there are 50 to 100 incidents a year where police fire shots, aprroximately 17 people get hit every year of which 3 die. Police officers are trained to shoot below the belt, but the probable cause of all the lethal incidents is lack of firearm training and the amount of incidents in which officers are allowed to pull their firearm.
The safest country in the study is Great Britain where only 1 civilian in 27 million dies by police bullets. In the UK police patrol without guns, but this doesnt seem to influence the death rate because in countries like Ireland and Norway where police also don't carry firearms the death rates are much higher.
I must admit I don't understand the idea behind warning shots. Do the police really have to prove that they're carrying a loaded weapon? They're already trained to act and sound intimidating and they just pointed a gun at you. Is firing a round off more likely to make the person surrender? I'm going to say that anytime these Norwegians have to fire the warning shot they inevitably have to go for an arm or leg shot because if a loaded weapon aimed at you isn't intimidation enough then there is a problem.
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
:lol :lol :lolarab said:
so good
silverbullet1080
Banned
It's not exactly like all are point blank though.Boogie said:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked