Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 2, 2013, 02:07 PM   #151
bradl
Thread Starter
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Technarchy View Post
Might even be illegal in some states. My last LEO CCW instructor was pretty clear. You shoot to stop. Never give warning shots or shoot to wound or you could have legal problems.

And it's pretty clear that the only way to stop someone with certainty is to hit the brain, or sever the spinal cord, but under stress, aiming center mass is the best bang for your buck.
And that is flat out wrong. You have never seen a local LEO or anyone shoot someone directly in the head, nor have they ever attempted to. They have regulations they have to follow, whether you know them or not, like them or not.

Perfect example. a LEO is investigating a drug dealer, and a known one. He wants to stop the dealer, and the supply of drugs coming into his precinct. He finds the dealer in the middle of a deal, and the dealer fires at him. Following your logic, the LEO shoots and kills the dealer. His investigation is now over, because he has now lost his link in the chain to capture the supplier and stop the supply of drugs. The supplier can now walk and find another dealer to deal through, perpetuating the problem further.

If the LEO shoots and wounds him, he still has his suspect and with enough work, can use him to get straight up to the supplier and deal with him.

Your way does nothing and risks exacerbating the problem, which is not how LEOs in the 4 different major metro cities I've lived in and have friends/family on the force conduct their operations.

I seriously think you need to re-examine the training you have received, as it does nothing but fuel the problems even more.

EDIT: Another example: Amadou Diallo. The guy was unarmed, was coming down after being asked to see his hands, pulled out his wallet, and instead of perceiving the threat and shoot to disable, NYPD fired 41 shots into him. They could have diffused the situation much easier by disabling him, armed or not, instead of blasting 40 rounds into him, killing him.

That, as well as the mentality you are showing, is what fuels the string of wrongful death lawsuits against various police departments. No LEO wants a shooting death on their file. No LEO does.

BL.

Last edited by bradl; Feb 2, 2013 at 02:15 PM.
bradl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 03:57 PM   #152
Dagless
macrumors Core
 
Dagless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouslurker View Post
Are you ****ing kidding me?

Image

You consider that a weapon and uncivilized?

You've got issues.
The brother of my secondary school headmaster was stabbed and killed from a 2" blade. If a knife is long and sharp enough to hit an artery or an organ; you've got a weapon.
I don't remember knife crime laws when I was a kid, but the school had a zero tolerance policy on knives. I imagine that's in line with every other school though.
__________________
Maybe if everyone who'd ever been close to you had died, you'd be sarcastic, too.
Macrumors Steam Group
Dagless is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 04:11 PM   #153
TPadden
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradl View Post
And that is flat out wrong. You have never seen a local LEO or anyone shoot someone directly in the head, nor have they ever attempted to. They have regulations they have to follow, whether you know them or not, like them or not.......
That, as well as the mentality you are showing, is what fuels the string of wrongful death lawsuits against various police departments. No LEO wants a shooting death on their file. No LEO does.

BL.
California retired LEO here. You are the one who is flat out wrong. There is deadly force, and less than lethal force, all they way down to verbal command. If any LEO discharges their weapon, make no mistake, they are USING deadly force and aiming to kill. No LEO wants ANY wrongful use of force in their file.
TPadden is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 04:18 PM   #154
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradl View Post
...If the LEO shoots and wounds him, he still has his suspect and with enough work, can use him to get straight up to the supplier and deal with him.

Your way does nothing and risks exacerbating the problem, which is not how LEOs in the 4 different major metro cities I've lived in and have friends/family on the force conduct their operations.

I seriously think you need to re-examine the training you have received, as it does nothing but fuel the problems even more...
I think that you are living in the land of make believe, where the hero shoots the gun out of the bad guys hand.

In concealed carry training that I have received, and everyone else with whom I am familiar with, the use of a firearm is a last resort, and if it gets to that, as many have already stated, you shoot to stop the threat.

And that, my friend, is the point of using deadly force. Shooting to wound is a Hollywood fantasy. It is not real life.
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 05:44 PM   #155
bradl
Thread Starter
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by CalWizrd View Post
I think that you are living in the land of make believe, where the hero shoots the gun out of the bad guys hand.

In concealed carry training that I have received, and everyone else with whom I am familiar with, the use of a firearm is a last resort, and if it gets to that, as many have already stated, you shoot to stop the threat.

And that, my friend, is the point of using deadly force. Shooting to wound is a Hollywood fantasy. It is not real life.
If I hadn't seen and heard the stories myself, I would agree. But since this is coming from my father, I beg to differ. I'd believe his actual experience as a retired LEO, as I've seen the work that he's done, as well as the results of his actions in court.

And you saying that you learned this from a concealed carry class disqualifies you from the point of my debate. I never mentioned anything about learning from concealed/carry class. I'm talking about Armed Forces or Law Enforcement training; neither of which the concealed/carry classes qualify as. You may want to re-read my original post that started this debate.

BL.

Last edited by bradl; Feb 2, 2013 at 05:51 PM.
bradl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 06:06 PM   #156
anonymouslurker
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradl View Post
And you saying that you learned this from a concealed carry class disqualifies you from the point of my debate. I never mentioned anything about learning from concealed/carry class. I'm talking about Armed Forces or Law Enforcement training; neither of which the concealed/carry classes qualify as. You may want to re-read my original post that started this debate.

BL.
And you're still wrong.

When I was in the military, I went through training on a number of different weapons, and was never, ever, EVER taught to fire for any purpose other than to "stop the threat."

Just my personal experience, but seeing as my personal experience exists, and yours doesn't, regardless of what your father told you...
anonymouslurker is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 06:19 PM   #157
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouslurker View Post
And you're still wrong.

When I was in the military, I went through training on a number of different weapons, and was never, ever, EVER taught to fire for any purpose other than to "stop the threat."

Just my personal experience, but seeing as my personal experience exists, and yours doesn't, regardless of what your father told you...
Same. If you aim the weapon, you aim to kill.
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 07:04 PM   #158
glocke12
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradl View Post
And that is flat out wrong. You have never seen a local LEO or anyone shoot someone directly in the head, nor have they ever attempted to. They have regulations they have to follow, whether you know them or not, like them or not.

Perfect example. a LEO is investigating a drug dealer, and a known one. He wants to stop the dealer, and the supply of drugs coming into his precinct. He finds the dealer in the middle of a deal, and the dealer fires at him. Following your logic, the LEO shoots and kills the dealer. His investigation is now over, because he has now lost his link in the chain to capture the supplier and stop the supply of drugs. The supplier can now walk and find another dealer to deal through, perpetuating the problem further.

If the LEO shoots and wounds him, he still has his suspect and with enough work, can use him to get straight up to the supplier and deal with him.

Your way does nothing and risks exacerbating the problem, which is not how LEOs in the 4 different major metro cities I've lived in and have friends/family on the force conduct their operations.

I seriously think you need to re-examine the training you have received, as it does nothing but fuel the problems even more.

EDIT: Another example: Amadou Diallo. The guy was unarmed, was coming down after being asked to see his hands, pulled out his wallet, and instead of perceiving the threat and shoot to disable, NYPD fired 41 shots into him. They could have diffused the situation much easier by disabling him, armed or not, instead of blasting 40 rounds into him, killing him.

That, as well as the mentality you are showing, is what fuels the string of wrongful death lawsuits against various police departments. No LEO wants a shooting death on their file. No LEO does.

BL.
dude...once again no LEO is trained to wound. they are trained to stop the threat which means shooting at center of mass until they are down and not moving..

now an individual LEO may decide as an individual to shoot to wound someone, but I am betting it is rare and there is no way they are trained to do that.

reference the link I posted a few posts back that has responses from current LEO/military on this...they ALL backup what I have been saying all along.
glocke12 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 2, 2013, 09:51 PM   #159
jnpy!$4g3cwk
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Menel View Post
Places that ban guns, evil people attack with baseball bats, crowbars, etc. evil finds a way.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...of-Europe.html

And it finds a way when the innocent cant defend themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by classicaliberal View Post
This is because you place far too much value on media sensationalism, and not near enough on cold, hard, statistics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate
So, my hypothesis is that countries that restrict guns not only have lower homicide rates via guns, but, lower overall homicide rates. I look at the chart of overall homicide rates that classicaliberal posted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

and what I see is confirmation of that. Every large mostly industrialized country, whether European/U.S. culture, or, Asian, that has effective gun control, has a lower overall homicide rate than the U.S. and one, Japan, has a rate less than 1/10 that of the U.S. In fact, a number of large countries are now lower than was generally believed possible 40 years ago.

The above quote from The Telegraph implies that the homicide rate is bad the U.K.; that, in fact, that the U.K. has "one of the highest rates of violence in the world, worse even than America". Well, the statistics say that the homicide rate is 1/4 that of the U.S., far down on the chart, and far below the U.S. and many other countries. Australia, which other postings assert as a failure of gun control, is even better than the U.K. In fact, the U.S. is somewhere near the median on the homicide chart, keeping company with mostly second and third-world countries. Kind of surprising if guns are actually making U.S. citizens "safer" as frequently been asserted.

Also, I have to add that the (2009) Telegraph article posted is particularly bad. It jumps back and forth between absolute numbers (guess what -- the U.K. has a large population) and rates (comparing countries that report "violent crime" very differently from each other), suggesting that the U.K. is the most dangerous country in the world when the most objective measure that there is, the homicide rate, shows just the opposite.
jnpy!$4g3cwk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2013, 12:16 AM   #160
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Does anyone have any sources as to whether LEOs are supposed to shoot to kill?
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2013, 12:29 AM   #161
northernbaldy
macrumors 6502a
 
northernbaldy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: the north, UK
The problem with guns is that it's very very easy to kill a lot if people very quickly
__________________
17" MacBook pro, MacMini Server, iPhone 5 64gb, AppleTV, iPad 32gb wifi, 11" MacBook Air
northernbaldy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2013, 12:50 AM   #162
TPadden
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
Does anyone have any sources as to whether LEOs are supposed to shoot to kill?
Go to any departmental (your local Sheriff or PD) range and ask to look at the targets. Any holes not center of chest or head are misses . Heck, the targets don't even have arms or legs to aim at !

What departmental directives state and regional academies teach is there is a hirearchal ladder of force used to meet the threat. The use of a firearm is always considered lethal or deadly force (unless loaded with non-standard less than lethal ammunition).

Last edited by TPadden; Feb 3, 2013 at 01:20 AM.
TPadden is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2013, 01:48 AM   #163
bradl
Thread Starter
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by TPadden View Post
Go to any departmental (your local Sheriff or PD) range and ask to look at the targets. Any holes not center of chest or head are misses . Heck, the targets don't even have arms or legs to aim at !

What departmental directives state and regional academies teach is there is a hirearchal ladder of force used to meet the threat. The use of a firearm is always considered lethal or deadly force (unless loaded with non-standard less than lethal ammunition).
Emphasis on the bold, and extreme emphasis on the underlined, which goes back to my point. LEOs also have the ability to differentiate between the two, and know when to use one or the other. Lethal does not always mean deadly. You can shoot to incapacitate, not kill, and that is the difference I've been trying to get across, that you and others seem to think that I'm living in a fantasy world to see. As I said before, some here seem too trigger happy to go straight to deadly instead of acting on which may be better for the situation when it arises. There is a difference, and that was what LEOs were taught where I was raised. If that has changed in the past 39 years, then I wonder if there may be problems in trusting a LEO's or CO's judgment on which may be beneficial.

BL.
bradl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2013, 06:40 AM   #164
glocke12
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
Does anyone have any sources as to whether LEOs are supposed to shoot to kill?
I started a thread on another forum asking that question where 80% of the replies are by LEO/military.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/143...or_kill__.html

take it anyway you like it...
glocke12 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2013, 07:30 AM   #165
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by glocke12 View Post
I started a thread on another forum asking that question where 80% of the replies are by LEO/military.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/143...or_kill__.html

take it anyway you like it...
Thanks, very helpful!
__________________
If they have to tell you every day they are fair you can bet they arent, if they tell you they are balanced then you should know they are not - Don't Hurt me
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2013, 07:52 AM   #166
TPadden
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradl View Post
Emphasis on the bold, and extreme emphasis on the underlined, which goes back to my point. LEOs also have the ability to differentiate between the two, and know when to use one or the other. Lethal does not always mean deadly. You can shoot to incapacitate, not kill, and that is the difference I've been trying to get across, that you and others seem to think that I'm living in a fantasy world to see.......

BL.
Define Lethal
of, pertaining to, or causing death; deadly; fatal: a lethal weapon; a lethal dose. 2. made to cause death: a lethal chamber; a lethal attack. 3. causing great harm ...
dictionary.reference.com

le∑thal [lee-thuhl]
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or causing death; deadly; fatal: a lethal weapon; a lethal dose.

dead∑ly [ded-lee] adjective, dead∑li∑er, dead∑li∑est, adverb
adjective
1.
causing or tending to cause death; fatal; lethal: a deadly poison.

Last edited by balamw; Feb 3, 2013 at 08:04 AM. Reason: Insult removed
TPadden is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2013, 08:01 AM   #167
CalWizrd
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NYC/Raleigh, NC
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradl View Post
...Lethal does not always mean deadly...
Are you serious? I mean, really, are you ****ing serious?
__________________
"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." -- H.L.Mencken
CalWizrd is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2013, 08:15 AM   #168
Happybunny
macrumors 65816
 
Happybunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 's-Hertogenbosch Netherlands
When you are in a shooting situation, the only correct action is to keep shooting until the target is incapacitated. You aim for the largest body mass, mostly with a double tap. That is how you are taught.

The idea that you can aim just to wound, or shoot the gun out of the perps hand, is ridicules. That's for TV movies like " Hopalong Cassidy or the Lone Ranger"
__________________
'You cannot undo history, but you can learn from it'
Happybunny is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2013, 08:24 AM   #169
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happybunny View Post
When you are in a shooting situation, the only correct action is to keep shooting until the target is incapacitated. You aim for the largest body mass, mostly with a double tap. That is how you are taught.

The idea that you can aim just to wound, or shoot the gun out of the perps hand, is ridicules. That's for TV movies like " Hopalong Cassidy or the Lone Ranger"
I agree. Shooting to wound means you shouldn't be shooting.
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 3, 2013, 09:03 AM   #170
Technarchy
macrumors 68040
 
Technarchy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
I agree. Shooting to wound means you shouldn't be shooting.
The very notion of shooting to wound is absurd, and pretty much impossible under a high stress situation.

Go running at a LEO with a butcher knife and they are going to be dumping rounds at your chest till you stop, not meticulously aiming for my hand to disarm you.

Anyone that thinks otherwise has seen to many movies.

Also, shooting someone just about anywhere can produce a life threatening injuring.

And one fact remains. If you want lights out, you want to destroy the brain or CNS.
__________________
Steve Jobs, January 9th 2007, 10:44am: "We filed for over 200 patents for all the inventions in iPhone and we intend to protect them."
Technarchy is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
When I'm shooting rap videos with my 70d, I wanna get a lot of bokeh within the shot. Viantef Digital Video 12 Jun 28, 2014 01:06 PM
Middle School Shooting - Reno/Sparks, Nevada bradl Politics, Religion, Social Issues 258 Oct 26, 2013 04:02 PM
Bidenís Gun Violence Event Interrupted By News Of Another School Shooting rdowns Politics, Religion, Social Issues 113 Jan 13, 2013 12:38 PM
Children shot and killed at Connecticut school likemyorbs Politics, Religion, Social Issues 1234 Dec 21, 2012 08:08 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:10 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC