Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Busa, 4 Oct 2009.
Come on fellas...shoot to kill...surely!
It's not as easy as "shoot to kill"!
A friend of mine had five 7.62 rounds through his neck, chest and abdomen during the 1st Gulf War, and he's still going strong today. People have also survived a self inflicted shotgun blast to the face.
On the contrary, I'd say that's fine work by the police. They successfully captured a gunman without actually killing him or anyone else in the process. You wouldn't get that standard of service from our mentally challenged cousins over the pond.
+1 to the boys in blue, I say.
I thought they are only normally authorised to "Shoot to disable"?
I bet they didn't see that coming.
It's actually amazing what you can live through... depends if you are "lucky" though,
I thought that was in films...wing him
Depends on the situation and threat, they would prefer not to have to kill, its all down to threat asesment by the officer on scene.
What like shoot him in the kneecap?...i dont think so.
Once the order has been recieved and the go ahead to shoot is given the last thing on the firearms officer's mind is "Ooh, shall I shoot him in the legs"! The only thought is to put the person down and prevent any harm coming to themselves and members of the public, and if that means the person dies then so be it.
That's just in the movies. In real life they aim for the centre mass since that's the biggest and easiest part of the body to hit, and it's also the best place to hit to stop the person from being a threat.
Ahh right So really they aren't really that bad at shooting The guy isn't shooting anyone anymore and they are safe themselves - all round good job if you ask me
Kurt Cobain would disagree. Then again, so would Courtney Love
Did they shoot the right person? I suppose thats an improvement anyway.
The pigs need better firearms.
The filth need to stop abusing anti-terrorism laws.
the police arent exactly an elite fighting force are they, but that's not their role. i'm sure they receive extensive training and are sufficiently equipped - both in terms of knowledge and kit - to do the job.
Back in ye-olde days a chap working on laying railways had a blasting charge of some sort explode near him which impaled his head with a thick steel rod.
Believe one hole was through an eye.
He survived. But subsequently had a really crap life because of its appearance and its effects on his personality.
I've had a lot of experience shooting from my time playing such simulators as Call of Duty and Counterstrike. It must be so easy to shoot a criminal and put him out of action. I could probably incapacitate a hostile with one shot from a deagle at over 100 metres with ease!
Dunno how these police miss to be honest.
Bait prepared, trap laid ...
"disable" usually means shoot to remove the threat as quickly as possible.
Usually that means shooting in a manner that is also very likely to kill, as except for action movies it's very hard to shoot to just "disable" someone, without the high risk of killing them (as the best spots to aim for to quickly, and effectively disable someone are also sort of vital to continued life).
As has been mentioned with regards to the number of shots fired, people can/do survive multiple gunshots if nothing instantly vital is hit or even if something vital is hit but not enough damage is done instantly (a surprising number of people survive shots to the head long enough to reach hospital), which is also the reason why with suspected suicide bombers multiple head shots may be used (when you want instant disablement the only way is to destroy the brain, and a single shot isn't guaranteed to do it).
IIRC it's also one of the reasons there is a lot of discussion over which gun/ammo combinations are best for different jobs (some will go straight through leaving a small wound, which unless you hit something vital might not do much, others will leave much larger holes so even if miss vital organs the blood loss may quickly incapacitate them),
Separate names with a comma.