Not even sure why the taser was making an appearance before Walter Scott allegedly grabbed it, it was a cracked light! Who wouldn't try not to be tasered, if that is indeed what happened.
Another black man shot dead in USA by police officer
10 of 25
It's also interesting that it's another case of a 80% white police service in a nearly 50% black area. Hardly representative.
Originally Posted by NathalieR:
“Not even sure why the taser was making an appearance before Walter Scott allegedly grabbed it, it was a cracked light! Who wouldn't try not to be tasered, if that is indeed what happened.”
“Not even sure why the taser was making an appearance before Walter Scott allegedly grabbed it, it was a cracked light! Who wouldn't try not to be tasered, if that is indeed what happened.”
Very true. And how many people would stand to attention to be tased?
Originally Posted by idlewilde:
“It's not been answered at all, because post #179, your post, makes this fatuous claim
The conversation then steered towards the idea you had that the officer should have aimed for his legs. Myself and other posters simply reminded you that this is a myth, and aiming at the torso to stop a person is what firearms personnel are trained to do.”
“It's not been answered at all, because post #179, your post, makes this fatuous claim
The conversation then steered towards the idea you had that the officer should have aimed for his legs. Myself and other posters simply reminded you that this is a myth, and aiming at the torso to stop a person is what firearms personnel are trained to do.”
That's absolute b*llox based on little else than assumption.
I'll simplify it for you.
What body parts does a person use to run with? His arms, head, torso or legs? The clue is in 'run'.
You got it....he uses his legs to run with. Shoot there and they will drop like a sack of spuds. In other words, you will stop them.
Want to kill somebody with a gun? Upper torso area or head shot.
Originally Posted by Bulletguy1:
“That's absolute b*llox based on little else than assumption.
I'll simplify it for you.
What body parts does a person use to run with? His arms, head, torso or legs? The clue is in 'run'.
You got it....he uses his legs to run with. Shoot there and they will drop like a sack of spuds. In other words, you will stop them.
Want to kill somebody with a gun? Upper torso area or head shot.”
“That's absolute b*llox based on little else than assumption.
I'll simplify it for you.
What body parts does a person use to run with? His arms, head, torso or legs? The clue is in 'run'.
You got it....he uses his legs to run with. Shoot there and they will drop like a sack of spuds. In other words, you will stop them.
Want to kill somebody with a gun? Upper torso area or head shot.”
More chance to miss the legs though. Irrelevant though, there was no cause to shoot him anywhere. No warning either. Murder pure and simple. He will get off with it though.
Originally Posted by Bulletguy1:
“That's absolute b*llox based on little else than assumption.
I'll simplify it for you.
What body parts does a person use to run with? His arms, head, torso or legs? The clue is in 'run'.
You got it....he uses his legs to run with. Shoot there and they will drop like a sack of spuds. In other words, you will stop them.
Want to kill somebody with a gun? Upper torso area or head shot.”
“That's absolute b*llox based on little else than assumption.
I'll simplify it for you.
What body parts does a person use to run with? His arms, head, torso or legs? The clue is in 'run'.
You got it....he uses his legs to run with. Shoot there and they will drop like a sack of spuds. In other words, you will stop them.
Want to kill somebody with a gun? Upper torso area or head shot.”
What is bollocks is the notion of aiming for the legs, and nobody will train their firearms personnel to do that. Not everybody is killed when they are shot in the midsection, but they sure as hell are stopped, as Michaels Adebolajo and Adebowale discovered. No aiming for the legs there.
Originally Posted by idlewilde:
“What is bollocks is the notion of aiming for the legs, and nobody will train their firearms personnel to do that. Not everybody is killed when they are shot in the midsection, but they sure as hell are stopped, as Michaels Adebolajo and Adebowale discovered. No aiming for the legs there.”
“What is bollocks is the notion of aiming for the legs, and nobody will train their firearms personnel to do that. Not everybody is killed when they are shot in the midsection, but they sure as hell are stopped, as Michaels Adebolajo and Adebowale discovered. No aiming for the legs there.”
I agree. You also need to instill responsibility into your firearms equipped officers. They have no responsibility in the US. They seem to be given carte blanche and are never given any instruction in restraint. Gun 'em down, you won't be found guilty.
Very different ethos from what my grandfather had to abide by in Chicago.
Originally Posted by NathalieR:
“Not even sure why the taser was making an appearance before Walter Scott allegedly grabbed it, it was a cracked light! Who wouldn't try not to be tasered, if that is indeed what happened.”
“Not even sure why the taser was making an appearance before Walter Scott allegedly grabbed it, it was a cracked light! Who wouldn't try not to be tasered, if that is indeed what happened.”
I would fight with everything I had to avoid being tasered if I were ever in any sort of situation where I was at risk from having it done to me. I have heart problems I could easily die if I were tasered.
While there's very little chance of it actually happening to me as I like to keep my nose clean and don't tend to go to protests and such, there's ALWAYS the frightening chance of being in the wrong place with the wrong time and the wrong copper.
Originally Posted by MC_Satan:
“More chance to miss the legs though. Irrelevant though, there was no cause to shoot him anywhere. No warning either. Murder pure and simple. He will get off with it though.”
“More chance to miss the legs though. Irrelevant though, there was no cause to shoot him anywhere. No warning either. Murder pure and simple. He will get off with it though.”
He's firing from around 5yds. If he cannot hit one of two legs or both from that distance then he's a public menace, not to mention a piss poor shot!
Originally Posted by MC_Satan:
“I agree. You also need to instill responsibility into your firearms equipped officers. They have no responsibility in the US. They seem to be given carte blanche and are never given any instruction in restraint. Gun 'em down, you won't be found guilty.
Very different ethos from what my grandfather had to abide by in Chicago.”
“I agree. You also need to instill responsibility into your firearms equipped officers. They have no responsibility in the US. They seem to be given carte blanche and are never given any instruction in restraint. Gun 'em down, you won't be found guilty.
Very different ethos from what my grandfather had to abide by in Chicago.”
BIB i agree with.
Originally Posted by MC_Satan:
“I agree. You also need to instill responsibility into your firearms equipped officers. They have no responsibility in the US. They seem to be given carte blanche and are never given any instruction in restraint. Gun 'em down, you won't be found guilty.
Very different ethos from what my grandfather had to abide by in Chicago.”
“I agree. You also need to instill responsibility into your firearms equipped officers. They have no responsibility in the US. They seem to be given carte blanche and are never given any instruction in restraint. Gun 'em down, you won't be found guilty.
Very different ethos from what my grandfather had to abide by in Chicago.”
Indeed, it shows just how trigger happy cops are there that they are prepared to open fire on a suspect who is merely fleeing a scene and shoot him in the back.
You might expect something like that in a war zone when two armies are coming face to face, but armed police gunning down civilians in this manner seems appalling.
Originally Posted by Bulletguy1:
“He's firing from around 5yds. If he cannot hit one of two legs or both from that distance then he's a public menace, not to mention a piss poor shot!”
“He's firing from around 5yds. If he cannot hit one of two legs or both from that distance then he's a public menace, not to mention a piss poor shot!”
It is not what they are taught to do though. The guy keeps running after taking half a dozen rounds in the vital area, the body, which proves that aiming for the extremities runs a greater risk of not stopping the person.
Originally Posted by Sweetums:
“I would fight with everything I had to avoid being tasered if I were ever in any sort of situation where I was at risk from having it done to me. I have heart problems I could easily die if I were tasered.
While there's very little chance of it actually happening to me as I like to keep my nose clean and don't tend to go to protests and such, there's ALWAYS the frightening chance of being in the wrong place with the wrong time and the wrong copper.”
“I would fight with everything I had to avoid being tasered if I were ever in any sort of situation where I was at risk from having it done to me. I have heart problems I could easily die if I were tasered.
While there's very little chance of it actually happening to me as I like to keep my nose clean and don't tend to go to protests and such, there's ALWAYS the frightening chance of being in the wrong place with the wrong time and the wrong copper.”
That can so easily happen and we've even had cases here in the UK.
Originally Posted by idlewilde:
“It is not what they are taught to do though. The guy keeps running after taking half a dozen rounds in the vital area, the body, which proves that aiming for the extremities runs a greater risk of not stopping the person.”
“It is not what they are taught to do though. The guy keeps running after taking half a dozen rounds in the vital area, the body, which proves that aiming for the extremities runs a greater risk of not stopping the person.”
What it proves is he was able to run because he had no rounds pumped through his legs!
Originally Posted by Bulletguy1:
“What it proves is he was able to run because he had no rounds pumped through his legs!”
“What it proves is he was able to run because he had no rounds pumped through his legs!”
Fast moving limbs don't make for good targets, and hence officers aren't taught to aim for them.
I'm right, you're not.
Interview with Feidin Santana who videoed the killing.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...ushpmg00000067
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...ushpmg00000067
Originally Posted by idlewilde:
“Fast moving limbs don't make for good targets, and hence officers aren't taught to aim for them.”
“Fast moving limbs don't make for good targets, and hence officers aren't taught to aim for them.”
PMSL @ bib. This wasn't Usain Bolt FGS.
Have you actually watched the video?
We are talking an overweight 50 year old man here who isn't exactly in prime athletic fitness and manages just five steps before the officer fires off the first round.
Originally Posted by idlewilde:
“I'm right, you're not.”
“I'm right, you're not.”
Arrogance beyond belief.
Originally Posted by idlewilde:
“Fast moving limbs don't make for good targets, and hence officers aren't taught to aim for them.
I'm right, you're not.”
“Fast moving limbs don't make for good targets, and hence officers aren't taught to aim for them.
I'm right, you're not.”
Admiring dem dere debating skills.
Originally Posted by Bulletguy1:
“Arrogance beyond belief.”
“Arrogance beyond belief.”
He's accurate though. You are objectively wrong, and everyone formally teaches the opposite of what you say. There's not much more to say when the experts overwhelmingly disagree.
Hitting the leg of a moving target in real time is not as easy as you suggest. And not just graze the leg anywhere, but hit a couple inches of bone in the center to make sure it stops them. The size of his leg may make it appear a larger target, but that just means more of it to graze without necessarily stopping him. Maybe in your fantasies it's simple, or in the television you watch. Perhaps when you're at the shooting range pointing at a stationary target and have all the time in the world and no distractions it is. But everyone who does that work professionally disagrees about how easy it is to stop someone by picking off their leg in a crisis situation. Under difficult circumstances, it's easy for even an experienced shooter to miss the body completely.
They simply do not teach any intermediate step of using a firearm with lethal rounds to stop someone non-lethally. If you aren't trying to kill them, you don't shoot them. If the situation is low risk enough to take extra time and reduce your odds of immediately incapacitating someone, then it's low risk enough to not even shoot someone in the first place. If you don't need to kill them, you use some method other than your gun to subdue them. This isn't a movie where people perform perfectly choreographed trick shots for exactly the result they want.
The problem here was not how he aimed, the problem was that he was using lethal force in a situation that did not at all merit it. An unarmed man that was wanted for a non-violent offense was fleeing with his back turned. Nothing about it made it a life or death situation for anyone, except for inexcusable judgement by the police officer who decided to murder him.
You point out that the suspect wasn't a very fast runner as evidence that his leg would be easier to hit. But that's really an argument for chasing him rather than shooting at him.
British soldiers in Ireland were always taught to aim for the chest or the back. It is pretty standard behavior with what are perceived as second class citizens.
Originally Posted by Dub2:
“British soldiers in Ireland were always taught to aim for the chest or the back. It is pretty standard behavior with what are perceived as second class citizens.”
“British soldiers in Ireland were always taught to aim for the chest or the back. It is pretty standard behavior with what are perceived as second class citizens.”
I think you'll find it's standard no matter what class what you are.
If you are going to shoot someone,the body is the area you aim for.
Originally Posted by Anachrony:
“They simply do not teach any intermediate step of using a firearm with lethal rounds to stop someone non-lethally. If you aren't trying to kill them, you don't shoot them.”
“They simply do not teach any intermediate step of using a firearm with lethal rounds to stop someone non-lethally. If you aren't trying to kill them, you don't shoot them.”
For anyone trained in firearms it's quite simple to shoot to maim or disable and most certainly well within the capabilities of UK Police SFO's, but then these are very highly trained professionals. How a street patrol US officer compares i've no idea but i suspect nowhere near the standard of a UK SFO.
Originally Posted by Dub2:
“British soldiers in Ireland were always taught to aim for the chest or the back. It is pretty standard behavior with what are perceived as second class citizens.”
“British soldiers in Ireland were always taught to aim for the chest or the back. It is pretty standard behavior with what are perceived as second class citizens.”
Because the purpose of an infantryman is to kill and not maim/disable.
Originally Posted by Bulletguy1:
“For anyone trained in firearms it's quite simple to shoot to maim or disable and most certainly well within the capabilities of UK Police SFO's, but then these are very highly trained professionals.”
“For anyone trained in firearms it's quite simple to shoot to maim or disable and most certainly well within the capabilities of UK Police SFO's, but then these are very highly trained professionals.”
That's not what the UK Police seem to think.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2100...Ian-Blair.html
https://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound
If shooting someone in the leg is a viable option, you should probably not be shooting them at all. They can still shoot back if you hit their leg. And if they can't shoot at you, you shouldn't need to shoot them.
You don't know what you're talking about and seem to think you're more of an expert than the actual experts. This isn't open to debate, it's a settled matter. Since you are immune to reason, it's fair of the earlier poster to just call you wrong and leave it at that.
Originally Posted by dee123:
“$$$$$$ is your answer. Getting those contracts is big money for the companies that make that equipment. Plus with Iraq & Afghanistan winding down, you have to make that money somewhere. Why not at home?”
“$$$$$$ is your answer. Getting those contracts is big money for the companies that make that equipment. Plus with Iraq & Afghanistan winding down, you have to make that money somewhere. Why not at home?”
They're going to need it, when the backlash from those countries arrives.
Originally Posted by Anachrony:
“That's not what the UK Police seem to think.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2100...Ian-Blair.html
https://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound
If shooting someone in the leg is a viable option, you should probably not be shooting them at all. They can still shoot back if you hit their leg. And if they can't shoot at you, you shouldn't need to shoot them.
You don't know what you're talking about and seem to think you're more of an expert than the actual experts. This isn't open to debate, it's a settled matter. Since you are immune to reason, it's fair of the earlier poster to just call you wrong and leave it at that.”
“That's not what the UK Police seem to think.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2100...Ian-Blair.html
https://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound
If shooting someone in the leg is a viable option, you should probably not be shooting them at all. They can still shoot back if you hit their leg. And if they can't shoot at you, you shouldn't need to shoot them.
You don't know what you're talking about and seem to think you're more of an expert than the actual experts. This isn't open to debate, it's a settled matter. Since you are immune to reason, it's fair of the earlier poster to just call you wrong and leave it at that.”
This is a moderated forum. The decision of what is and what isn't 'open to debate' is a matter for the board moderators....not you.
https://www.app.college.police.uk/ap...ethal-weapons/
Originally Posted by idlewilde:
“Fast moving limbs don't make for good targets, and hence officers aren't taught to aim for them.
I'm right, you're not.”
“Fast moving limbs don't make for good targets, and hence officers aren't taught to aim for them.
I'm right, you're not.”
and this is common sense at a really basic level.
10 of 25
