Shooting at Atlanta Middle School Leaves 8th Grader Shot in the Head

[bradl]

Originally Posted by Technarchy

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.

[Dagless]

Originally Posted by anonymouslurker

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.

[TPadden]

Originally Posted by bradl

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.

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by bradl

...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.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

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.

[anonymouslurker]

Originally Posted by bradl

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...

[eric/]

Originally Posted by anonymouslurker

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.

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by bradl

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.

[jnpy!$4g3cwk]

Originally Posted by Menel

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.

Originally Posted by classicaliberal

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.

[Eraserhead]

Does anyone have any sources as to whether LEOs are supposed to shoot to kill?

[northernbaldy]

The problem with guns is that it's very very easy to kill a lot if people very quickly

[TPadden]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

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).

[bradl]

Originally Posted by TPadden

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.

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

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...

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by glocke12

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!

[TPadden]

Originally Posted by bradl

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.

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by bradl

...Lethal does not always mean deadly...

Are you serious? I mean, really, are you ****ing serious?

[Happybunny]

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"

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Happybunny

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.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by eric/

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.