blame space said:
:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
blame space said:
:lol I actually giggled out loud.speculawyer said:My god is so weak that he needs humans to protect him from insults. What a powerless god.
because it does not exist IMHO.
Boogie said:And this is probably the truth. These countries lack gun violence which is more prevalent in NA (which, consequently, makes policing more dangerous in NA), so the police procedures and policies, and legal implications regarding use of deadly force and firearms aren't as well-developed.
I am positively jaw-to-the-floor shocked that these countries have it written in policy encouraging actions such as warning shots and aiming for limbs.
Boogie said:Two words why warning shots are fucking retarded: Round accountability.
I am positively jaw-to-the-floor shocked that these countries have it written in policy encouraging actions such as warning shots and aiming for limbs.
Jean-Claude Picard said::lol Where exactly do they allow people like you to carry a gun? Just from the bullshit you spout it's clear you should stay as far away from anything law related as possible.
blame space said:
Are you kidding? As much as I disagree with some of Boogies opinions on this board, he is one of the few posters here I would even remotely trust with a firearm. Or have I just fallen for the troll? :lolJean-Claude Picard said::lol Where exactly do they allow people like you to carry a gun? Just from the bullshit you spout it's clear you should stay as far away from anything law related as possible.
No, encouraging the use of a firearm for non-lethal purposes is what's stupid. A gun does only one thing well, seriously injure or kill people, or I guess animals, that's it. That's what they're made for. Encouraging the use of a deadly weapon in non deadly scenarios is just begging for innocent people to get hurt. I'm a gun owner myself, was an ex-infantryman in the Army and have used firearms a lot, I would never use a gun so casually, if I pull it on you and the initial intimidation factor alone doesn't stop you, your ass is dead, at least that's what I'm going to try and do, if fate deems otherwise and you get hit in the shoulder or arm, well it was your lucky day but I'm going to try and kill you, that's what the gun's for and that's why I'd use it. If I was absolutely intent on bringing you in alive I'd try to physically restrain you instead, pulling that gun with the intent of using it without hurting you too much is beyond idiotic. It's some fantasy shit.Jean-Claude Picard said::lol Where exactly do they allow people like you to carry a gun? Just from the bullshit you spout it's clear you should stay as far away from anything law related as possible.
mAcOdIn said:No, encouraging the use of a firearm for non-lethal purposes is what's stupid. A gun does only one thing well, seriously injure or kill people, or I guess animals, that's it. That's what they're made for. Encouraging the use of a deadly weapon in non deadly scenarios is just begging for innocent people to get hurt.
Obviously very little, but I still imagine there's better shit like tazers and the like for mentally unbalanced guy with a knife acting shifty, even in Denmark.ItsInMyVeins said:macodin:
How much insight do you have in the danish police routines and the type of crime they encounter, really? And what's up with your examples? "If I was absolutely intent on bringing you in alive I'd try to physically restrain you instead"? A lot of the times when I read about someone being shot in the leg it seems to be unstable persons with a knife for instance, not rushing the police but definitely acting very threatening and dangerously. And while they might not actually fire their weapons a lot I'd bet it's not uncommon for them to draw their weapons.
And apparently you have no place being on the internet because you can't read, what's your point?Jean-Claude Picard said:You don't get the point. It's about the responsibility to cause as little damage as possible. If the suspect is yielding an axe you don't shoot his body, you shoot his legs. And if you can't or don't want to do that you have no place being armed.
Your whole argument has little to do with real life situations in Europe where the police is forced to draw a gun. Not giving warning shots because it could hit bystanders for example. You think unsafe for the police to make warning shots but then they'll try to directly hit the suspect? :lol
Because gun violence has escalated in Denmark in recent years. One year ago someone broke into a military training facility and stole more than 100 guns and riffles.mAcOdIn said:But it really begs the question, if the intent is not to kill, why give them guns? That's what makes no fucking sense, there's a myriad of weapons out there better suited to the task of incapacitating criminals without lethal force that the entire concept of using a gun for that purpose is just retarded. Retarded. I don't care what kind of ammunition you load or the caliber you use, it's just beyond logic.
mAcOdIn said:
Duh? Show me where I said that? Also, while you're looking for that, how about I instead have you find the sentence where I acknowledge as much in the very post you truncated?Bitmap Frogs said:Europe != America
Sigh? Why does he have to use a knife? What the fuck is this shit?bjaelke said:Because gun violence has escalated in Denmark in recent years. One year ago someone broke into a military training facility and stole more than 100 guns and riffles.
I'd like you to explain to me how a police officer is supposed to defend himself against a criminal who throws an ax at him and then charges him with a knife. Sure the officer could've pulled a knife and re-enacted a scene from Rambo but unless the officer is Sly himself then I don't see why they should risk it. Better to equip the police with superior equipment than to take chances, don't you think?
Edit: And yes the Danish police force is also equipped with pepper spray.
mAcOdIn said:Obviously very little, but I still imagine there's better shit like tazers and the like for mentally unbalanced guy with a knife acting shifty, even in Denmark.
I have no problem with drawing a weapon, but if it's actually fired it's silly to try and do heroics with it. I'm just saying, if they get into a situation where they're firing their weapon yet still looking out for the safety of the criminal that there has to be a better way for both parties involved. They obviously need guns because it'd suck to be a cop and actually run across a truly violent criminal and not have some kind of equal equipment at your disposal, but to use a gun as your non violent means of restrain is silly.
I mean seriously, we have rubber bullets, tazers, stun guns, pepper spray, bean bag rounds, gas, tranquilizer guns, annoying sound generating thingies, annoying light generating thingies and yet we're trying to find a way to use a standard firearm with a low velocity round to not kill a person? It just seems idiotic and counter productive to me.
I'm not against not killing the individual, I'm against using a gun in a situation where you don't want to kill the assailant and the gun doesn't need to be used anyways in the first place.
mAcOdIn said:Duh? Show me where I said that? Also, while you're looking for that, how about I instead have you find the sentence where I acknowledge as much in the very post you truncated?
bjaelke said:I'd like you to explain to me how a police officer is supposed to defend himself against a criminal who throws an ax at him and then charges him with a knife. Sure the officer could've pulled a knife and re-enacted a scene from Rambo but unless the officer is Sly himself then I don't see why they should risk it. Better to equip the police with superior equipment than to take chances, don't you think?
.
Jean-Claude Picard said:You don't get the point. It's about the responsibility to cause as little damage as possible. If the suspect is yielding an axe you don't shoot his body, you shoot his legs. And if you can't or don't want to do that you have no place being armed.
heliosRAzi said:However, I must point out that someone getting shot in the leg doesn't mean that they'll stop. Sometimes the perp will keep going, not realizing that he has been shot. Also, thee bullet can hit an artery in the leg, and he can bleed out extremely fast, faster than it takes to get to the hospital.
heliosRAzi said:Also, in high tension situations, like gunfights, your aiming goes to shit. Aiming for something so small and is constantly moving, you have a high chance of missing.
Jean-Claude Picard said:You don't get the point. It's about the responsibility to cause as little damage as possible. If the suspect is yielding an axe you don't shoot his body, you shoot his legs. And if you can't or don't want to do that you have no place being armed.
Your whole argument has little to do with real life situations in Europe where the police is forced to draw a gun. Not giving warning shots because it could hit bystanders for example. You think unsafe for the police to make warning shots but then they'll try to directly hit the suspect? :lol
ItsInMyVeins said:According to the PDF posted earlier, when the danish police fire their weapons it's typically at a distance of between 1-5 metres, by the way. It's not about heroics but procedure. I assume that if the criminal's actually got a gun and is trying to shoot them that it's a different thing.
Nope, just this one aspect, there's a few nuggets of wisdom American cops should take from the Danes, like not trying to kill everyone.Bitmap Frogs said:You are questioning the way the danish police works comparing it to american cops.
Things are different here.
Sho_Nuff82 said:That explains it then. They're taking point blank shots at unmoving targets.
To make a point that the gun is superior to the knife. Most of the equipment you mentioned isn't really usable in the situation. Even a pogo stick (pepper spray, handcuffs, tazer etc.) would render you vulnerable to a knife wielding maniac. Don't get me wrong. I hate guns but if it can keep people like him behind bars then I'm okay with our police force using it.mAcOdIn said:Sigh? Why does he have to use a knife? What the fuck is this shit?
My "example" is from the event in the OP.You already explained why he didn't shoot him in his center mass:heliosRAzi said:For your example, the officer should shoot him in his center mass, not the leg, arm, or feet or whatever. If a man is charging at you with an axe and knife, at least in the US, that's a go to use lethal force.
The guy was very close to the officer when he got shot (he swung the knife at the office one time according to a Danish paper).heliosRAzi said:Also, in high tension situations, like gunfights, your aiming goes to shit. Aiming for something so small and is constantly moving, you have a high chance of missing.
Officers arrived two minutes later and tried to arrest the assailant, who wielded an ax at a police officer. The officer then shot the man in a knee and a hand, authorities said. Nielsen said despite his injuries the suspect's life was not in danger.
Sho_Nuff82 said:I think you're being deliberately obtuse.
Warning shots are dangerous. Either to the shooter, innocents in the immediate area, or anyone in the trajectory of the bullet if you idiotically shoot it into the air. They are an irresponsible way to use a gun. If Denmark trains their police force to do otherwise, they are putting their officers in harms way, through either naivety or deliberate ignorance.
Here in this thread, you've had several people with police, military, and general handgun training telling you that 99% of the world's defense forces aim for center mass for for effectiveness and safety.
Sanjay said:Denmark best Police confirmed, how many happy trigger police officers would have just shot to kill.
TheLastFantasy said:Ok, I don't wanna turn this into an endless discussion, but I just wanna point some stuff out.
First of all, what that guy -who claims to be a Muslim- did, is absolutely unacceptable. In Islam, we deeply respect and honor every aspect of our religion including Mohammed the prophet, there's nothing wrong with that of course. When somebody makes fun of Mohammed in a way that isn't even funny like drawing a bomb as a head for him, we get a little offended because everybody should know by now that those terrorists just claim to be Muslims when they are absolutely not. I just wanted to tell you guys why we get offended by those cartoons, but I still believe that trying to murder a man for a reason like "drawing an offending cartoon" is ridiculous and unacceptable.
As I said, I don't wanna turn this into a discussion, so this is my only post in this thread.
How gracious of you to concede that murder isn't a proper response to editorial cartoons.TheLastFantasy said:Ok, I don't wanna turn this into an endless discussion, but I just wanna point some stuff out.
First of all, what that guy -who claims to be a Muslim- did, is absolutely unacceptable. In Islam, we deeply respect and honor every aspect of our religion including Mohammed the prophet, there's nothing wrong with that of course. When somebody makes fun of Mohammed in a way that isn't even funny like drawing a bomb as a head for him, we get a little offended because everybody should know by now that those terrorists just claim to be Muslims when they are absolutely not. I just wanted to tell you guys why we get offended by those cartoons, but I still believe that trying to murder a man for a reason like "drawing an offending cartoon" is ridiculous and unacceptable.
As I said, I don't wanna turn this into a discussion, so this is my only post in this thread.
There was a case recently where a mentally ill person after injuring two police officers (one of them badly) with a knife was killed by a close range gunshot to the head. No warning shot was fired. So it does happen and there has been an increase in fatal shootings by the police in recent years but overall I'm confident our police generally uses an appropriate level of force. I certainly understand the arguments about aiming for center mass but at the same time Denmark is not US so I'm not sure American protocols have much relevance here. Either way I certainly don't see American conditions as something to aspire to.mAcOdIn said:Me being ignorant on Danish Police could never say for certain if they're expected to pull of 100% extremity shots(which I'd find absurd) or if it's encouraged to do so if they feel they can do it
Jean-Claude Picard said::lol Where exactly do they allow people like you to carry a gun? Just from the bullshit you spout it's clear you should stay as far away from anything law related as possible.
ItsInMyVeins said:According to the PDF posted earlier, when the danish police fire their weapons it's typically at a distance of between 1-5 metres, by the way. It's not about heroics but procedure.
ItsInMyVeins said:Even so, wouldn't being hit in the leg by a hollow point bullet pretty much render a leg useless?.
cybamerc said:There was a case recently where a mentally ill person after injuring two police officers (one of them badly) with a knife was killed by a close range gunshot to the head. No warning shot was fired. So it does happen and there has been an increase in fatal shootings by the police in recent years but overall I'm confident our police generally uses an appropriate level of force. I certainly understand the arguments about aiming for center mass but at the same time Denmark is not US so I'm not sure American protocols have much relevance here.
GaimeGuy said:Wait, people are arguing that the police acted poorly because they shot someone without killing them? Huh? "How dare he not kill!"
Am I reading this right?
I find it difficult to argue that showing a reasonable amount of restraint is dangerous. It's not like you have to fire off a warning shot if a fuse is being lit on a bomb or something, lol.Boogie said:No. I'm saying that in this situation the police are damn lucky that their policy worked and that they didn't get their own ass killed and that, regardless of the outcome of this specific situation, having a policy that requires warning shots and aiming for non vital areas is an illogical, dangerous policy that puts the public and the police at risk and relies on luck, not training, to succeed.
Please. Surely you don't suggest that there is only one way to handle criminals? Different societies, different norms and practices. Denmark is a small and relatively peaceful country which is reflected in crime statistics. I think it's rather arrogant of you to suggest that because our police doesn't shoot to kill somehow they don't know what they're doing or at least not as competently as police that uses lethal force as a rule of thumb. If it works for them why is that a bad thing?Boogie said:Oh. I didn't know that the laws of physics and human biology were different in Denmark than they are in North America and that all Denmark police are crack super-snipers who can shoot circles around North American police officers.
GaimeGuy said:I find it difficult to argue that showing a reasonable amount of restraint is dangerous. It's not like you have to fire off a warning shot if a fuse is being lit on a bomb or something, lol.
If the situation permits for you to be able to fire off a warning shot or to immobilize someone and subdue them without killing them, I see no reason why an officer should not be encouraged to pursue such measures, as long as they do not endanger anyone else.
I think it's rather arrogant of you to suggest that because our police doesn't shoot to kill
cybamerc said:Please. Surely you don't suggest that there is only one way to handle criminals? Different societies, different norms and practices. Denmark is a small and relatively peaceful country which is reflected in crime statistics.
I think it's rather arrogant of you to suggest that because our police doesn't shoot to kill somehow they don't know what they're doing or at least not as competently as police that uses lethal force as a rule of thumb. If it works for them why is that a bad thing?
Boogie said:I note that you did not answer my query as to your own qualifications. I shall therefore assume that you are a fifteen year old pasty boy posting from your mom's basement.
ie. Shut the fuck up you lame ass troll.
I'm not saying eveyrone should aim for the kneecaps first off or shit like that, that would bes stupid. I'm just saying that once you fire your first shot, you don't have to keep shooting until they're dead in all situations.Boogie said:GaimeGuy, I'm going to resist quoting your tag and ask you to re-read my arguments.
Police officers are responsible for every round that leaves their firearm. Warning shots are dangerous because they are unaccountable. If fired into the air, the bullet will come back down, and could hurt an innocent bystander. If fired into the ground, the bullet can ricochet, and hurt an innocent bystander.
And aiming for limbs is, quite simply, impossible to do consistently, and therefore also puts bystanders at unacceptable risk, and also cannot guarantee stopping a threat, as people do not simply fall back when being shot.
GaimeGuy, I'm going to ask you to re-read my arguments.
Police officers are responsible for every round that leaves their firearm. Warning shots are dangerous because they are unaccountable. If fired into the air, the bullet will come back down, and could hurt an innocent bystander. If fired into the ground, the bullet can ricochet, and hurt an innocent bystander.
And aiming for limbs is, quite simply, impossible to do consistently, and therefore also puts bystanders at unacceptable risk, and also cannot guarantee stopping a threat, as people do not simply fall back when being shot.
I simply do not believe that.Boogie said:The policy only succeeds, if it succeeds, due to good fortune, not police training.
Admitedly I don't know much about our Danish cousins' police firearm usage procedures, but I'm more inclined to trust them than... well.Boogie said:And that is why it's a dangerous policy. If it's a life and death situation and the subject is within 1-5 metres with a fucking axe, then he's already in stabbing range and aiming for a limb is putting the officer's own life in danger.
GaimeGuy said:I'm not saying eveyrone should aim for the kneecaps first off or shit like that, that would bes stupid. I'm just saying that once you fire your first shot, you don't have to keep shooting until they're dead in all situations.
I think we're both kind of speaking about this with a different scenario/situation playing out in our minds, and this isn't being conveyed sufficiently in words.
I am not saying police should fire their bullets irresponsibly or aim at small targets. I'm just saying that if a policeman does shoot someone and immobilize them, they don't have to continue unloading bullets until the person is dead..
There's a difference imo between shooting with the intention of killing (I will shoot you in order to stop you, and am prepared to kill you in the process), and shooting with the GOAL of killing. I don't think I'm adequately conveying my intended statement, and that fault lies with me.
GaimeGuy said:I am not saying police should fire their bullets irresponsibly or aim at small targets. I'm just saying that if a policeman does shoot someone and immobilize them, they don't have to continue unloading bullets until the person is dead..
There's a difference imo between shooting with the intention of killing (I will shoot you in order to stop you, and am prepared to kill you in the process), and shooting with the GOAL of killing. I don't think I'm adequately conveying my intended statement, and that fault lies with me.
cybamerc said:You say that the policy is dumb but the policy doesn't say that police can't shoot at the torso. However if the police officer feels comfortable shooting at the legs I really can't see the problem in that. You talk about innocent bystanders a lot but I'm quite sure there aren't always people around when the police fire their weapons.
Boogie said:And that is why it's a dangerous policy. If it's a life and death situation and the subject is within 1-5 metres with a fucking axe, then he's already in stabbing range and aiming for a limb is putting the officer's own life in danger.
Oh gee, looks like someone didn't read the article I posted. And some of you people wonder why I get rude and start throwing out insults in threads like these.
NO, hitting the leg does NOT render a leg useless instantly.
I think this guys response to me sorta sums up our disagreements here.bjaelke said:It was a moving target...
To make a point that the gun is superior to the knife. Most of the equipment you mentioned isn't really usable in the situation. Even a pogo stick (pepper spray, handcuffs, tazer etc.) would render you vulnerable to a knife wielding maniac. Don't get me wrong. I hate guns but if it can keep people like him behind bars then I'm okay with our police force using it.
mAcOdIn said:I think this guys response to me sorta sums up our disagreements here.
There's essentially three weights all of us are using to determine what our ideal protocol would be.
Safety of the officer.
Safety of the public.
Safety of the suspect.
You basically rank these 3 into which you think is the most important and from there determine what the best method for gun use would be.
Shooting to wound as a rule benefits the suspect the most and places their safety highest, the officers safety second and the public's safety third. Fair enough, I disagree with it but it's a choice that has to be made. Shooting to stop the target places the safety of the officers first, public second and suspect last, that's my preferred ratio myself.
bjaelke mentioned that expecting police officers to rely on a stun gun or some other non lethal method would place the police at a higher risk than using a gun. This is 100% true. What he fails to mention however is that expecting an officer to attempt to wound and not to merely stop also places the officer at an elevated chance of risk. It's all basically a risk slider.
mAcOdIn said:It's true that Denmark has lower violent crime than the US and they seem to have done a good job up to this point but I do feel it's completely realistic and probable that if they continue to use the concept of shoot to wound and warning shots that an innocent person will be hit more likely than had they not used either of those two. Seeing how rarely they have to use their firearms over there it could be quite some time before I'm proven correct but I feel justified in saying that I am correct.
If people are ok with that choice, placing the extended public and police at greater risk in an effort to protect criminals, fine, but I will always find that stance funny.
blame space said:
arab said:where do u live