Originally Posted by Si_Crewe:
“Always baffles me why people get the idea that firing multiple shots is especially excessive or gung-ho.
You don't get a bonus for every bullet you bring back at the end of a shift.
If you're working on the assumption that somebody needs shooting, for your own safety or (in the case of a cop) the safety of the public, then, at the risk of sounding callous, you might as well do the job properly.
A shooting is a high-stress situation, you don't know how long you'll have your target in your sights and even the best marksmen can't guarantee to hit their target exactly where they intend to so, with that in mind, you don't want to risk firing one shot and then discovering you've missed.
The real issue is simply why so many US cops seem to think that their gun is pretty-much the first and only tool to be employed whenever a situation goes awry.
In the UK, I've seen a cop-car pull out to pursue a speeding biker on a suburban street and then, within a few seconds, pull over and give up.
Clearly, the cop IS thinking about what's going on, there.
He's thinking that he hasn't got a chance of catching a speeding biker who doesn't want to be caught.
He's thinking that nicking somebody for speeding isn't worth the risk to members of the public which a high-speed chase through a suburban area will create and, finally, he's thinking that it isn't worth ending up with a biker splattered all over the road just for the sake of issuing a speeding ticket.
Yank cops just don't seem to think through what they're doing at times.
Instead of asking themselves if the situation actually warrants the possible use of deadly force they just seem to charge in and then, when the shit hits the fan, they use a gun to deal with the situation they've provoked.
The thing that really worries me is that this is actually some kind of deliberate, unofficial, tactic that US cops have decided to employ in response to the number of cops who've been shot while on duty.”
“Always baffles me why people get the idea that firing multiple shots is especially excessive or gung-ho.
You don't get a bonus for every bullet you bring back at the end of a shift.
If you're working on the assumption that somebody needs shooting, for your own safety or (in the case of a cop) the safety of the public, then, at the risk of sounding callous, you might as well do the job properly.
A shooting is a high-stress situation, you don't know how long you'll have your target in your sights and even the best marksmen can't guarantee to hit their target exactly where they intend to so, with that in mind, you don't want to risk firing one shot and then discovering you've missed.
The real issue is simply why so many US cops seem to think that their gun is pretty-much the first and only tool to be employed whenever a situation goes awry.
In the UK, I've seen a cop-car pull out to pursue a speeding biker on a suburban street and then, within a few seconds, pull over and give up.
Clearly, the cop IS thinking about what's going on, there.
He's thinking that he hasn't got a chance of catching a speeding biker who doesn't want to be caught.
He's thinking that nicking somebody for speeding isn't worth the risk to members of the public which a high-speed chase through a suburban area will create and, finally, he's thinking that it isn't worth ending up with a biker splattered all over the road just for the sake of issuing a speeding ticket.
Yank cops just don't seem to think through what they're doing at times.
Instead of asking themselves if the situation actually warrants the possible use of deadly force they just seem to charge in and then, when the shit hits the fan, they use a gun to deal with the situation they've provoked.
The thing that really worries me is that this is actually some kind of deliberate, unofficial, tactic that US cops have decided to employ in response to the number of cops who've been shot while on duty.”
You know about the firearm culture in America, excellent post Si




