Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by dragafem, Feb 10, 2015.
Which could potentially leave an innocent bystander dead at the other end of the street.....
Exactly, I am sure the police have considered and discounted many of the things that we would put forward as alternatives.
I think they need a really good reason for aiming to kill instead aiming to disable a person with a knife.
I think that someone attempting to kill them with a knife is a good reason to aim to kill
especially when no police force/armed service in the world trains its officers to "aim to disable" a person
maybe they should give police heavy lead badges so they can throw them at people to disable them?
What better reason do you need than, someone is trying to kill me with a knife?
I haven't shot a gun and I am sure the cops get decent training but you would want to make really sure that you could hit a leg well enough to break it rather than just giving it a flesh wound or missing entirely.
From what I understand the chest is the biggest target and thus less likely to miss (and hit someone behind the target) in a stressful situation. Also more likely to have an immediate effect.
I suppose it also depends on how close they are or whether or not they are threatening to throw the knife.
that is all fine but you are not the one who needs to go to the funeral regardless what was her problem....yes I believe it could have been solved much smoother...
yes it could have gone smoother if she complied with police and put the knife down. she made the decision to end her life that day, not the police officer
I would expect a shot in the stomach would be only slightly more difficult to do than a chest shot and would slow the knife holder enough for people to avoid her. This is going to be difficult for the cop who shot her as well as the victim's family.
So maybe instead of only being trained to aim to kill, police should also be given the option to aim to disable if this can make the scene safe.
I am not a doctor but I imagine a shot into the stomach from close range would probably be fatal as well. Especially if it hit any arteries, organs or the spine.
The guy shot her in the centre mass as he is trained to do. stomach and chest is in such close proximity that I doubt he chose to shot her in a fatal zone. he got lucky/unlucky and hit her in a vital organ and it cost her her life.
people have been shot multiple times in the body and survived before because the human body is resilient but a bullet in the wrong place can be fatal including the leg i would like to point out that you have a very vulnerable femoral artery in your leg. a surfer over here recently died after a cut from a surfboard fin nicked his and he bleed out in seconds.
your body is both weak and strong at the same time which is why when someone is coming at you with a knife you shot them in a way that stops them from reaching you because i assure you that in the right hands a person with a knife is deadly when they are able to touch you.
Police (here at least) are trained not to draw their weapon unless they expect to have to use it. They don't pull it out to threaten suspects into compliance because drawing their weapon may preempt violence and their main goal is to deescalate the situation and keep things clam.
If they do have to fire their weapon, they aim for the Central Body Mass (torso).
Shots to the central body mass are (generally) the best way of stopping a person within a pretty small area. They might fall forward or backwards or a bit to the side, but they generally drop within a pretty tight space.
They don't shoot-to-wound because they have no idea what a wounded suspect is still capable of e.g. whether they still have enough momentum from running to still reach the police officer and stab them, or whether they can still squeeze the trigger if they're carrying a gun (or what they might hit if they start firing while they're falling to the ground and not aiming at anything in particular).
Police also don't shoot into the air to attract attention, try to shoot the gun out of the suspects hand or go for the headshot at 80m that would earn massive points in CoD multiplayer.
Long story short, if you run at a cop while wielding a knife, expect them to try their best to kill you.
If I was to fatally shoot a young lady who came at me with a knife, wouldn't it be considered unreasonable force by a jury of my peers?
At the very least I'd need a bloody good lawyer.
Seems that if you are wearing a uniform and are in a group and getting paid for it, then it's reasonable.
Unless your uniform has the word motorcycle on it.
We are equal in the eyes of the law, but some are more equal than others. This seems to also apply to the court of public opinion.
That said, regardless of the moral legitimacy of the event, I'd expect to be severely injured if not killed if I was running at either cops or bikies while wielding a blade.
I think a jury of your peers would probably say that you had a right to defend yourself.
They would probably want to know where you got the gun from though.
We put cops in uniform and then tell them to go out and stop armed criminals, we need to give them the means to protect themselves. If we then turned around and prosecuted every cop who shot someone they would refuse to carry or draw a gun and would be no use to us.
I have heard them described as the biggest street gang in America.
They likely had the option to back off and defuse the situation.
For all those that think shooting a pistol accurately at a MOVING target in a STRESSFUL situation is a piece of cake, please head out to your local gun range and attempt to shoot a totally NON MOVING target in a totally NON STRESSFUL situation. You might be surprised at how many times it takes you to hit the target anywhere, yet alone in a designated area such as a limb. Then see if you can locate a range with moving or pop up targets and see if you can actually hit any of them. Then have your mate stand behind you yelling and jumping about to add a bit of stress and see how you go.
Once you have done all that you will have a slightly better understanding of why telling an officer to shoot at an appendage whilst being rushed by a knife wielding person is a really stupid idea. And please remember that the police officer cannot just put up his hand and say "time out" like you could at the range. If he doesn't act it could well be him or his mates who end up badly hurt or dead. Oh, and the gender of the person is not an issue, just the willingness of the person to use the knife.
The perimeter was too close (mr expert). They should stay at a range where several officers shooting at lower limbs has a real probability of success. They obviously misjudged and precipitated the situation. Too close, too urgent to reach a resolution, too indoctrinated as to how precious they are in comparison to an emotionally deranged member of the public. She was a young girl of 22 and it's emerging was autistic. Couldn't the control freak buffoons assume something like that might be the case? What does being lunged at mean in this particular case? I doubt she looked all that formidable and capable. Someone advancing quickly on you from a good distance is very different to being at close quarters. Being at close quarters was the bully decision of the oinkers. They should have large prods in their cars, like on a ski rack or something, to deal with the nutters - herd them to the police stations. Instead they go in abruptly, aggravate the nutter then shoot the poor lunatic.
Police aren't trained to shoot at legs or give warning shots or any other shooting option. It simply doesn't exist. After they've done about 12 weeks of firearm training at Goulburn they'll do a reshoot once a year at a range using non moving paper targets. GDs police are not trained snipers. They are trained to shoot at the largest body mass which is the chest (or you could argue in some women's cases it's the arse).
At least they took down a women who was a potential breeder for a litter of welfare sucklings in years to come
well i dont think she wanted ,not even than if she was in an unstable mental status....
My post was intended to point out that pistols are not that accurate, especially when the shooter is under stress and the target is moving. I don't remember mentioning perimeter at all or saying the death of the girl was or was not a result of poor policing. As to moving back and shooting out a persons legs, well it might work if you had a rifle,competent shooter and preferably a spotter to make sure no one walks into his way whilst he is focused on the legs. But as far as pistols go the further away you are the less likely you are to hit your target.
Separate names with a comma.