cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 4 Feb, 2016 06:40 pm
@ossobuco,
I've often wondered why they just don't shoot their lower leg rather than shoot to kill.
BillRM
 
  0  
Thu 4 Feb, 2016 06:41 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Because that does not stop a deadly attack.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Thu 4 Feb, 2016 06:47 pm
@BillRM,
How about shoot the gun out of his hand?
BillRM
 
  0  
Thu 4 Feb, 2016 06:57 pm
@cicerone imposter,
https://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound

Here are the reasons why shooting to wound is not a good idea in the real world.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Thu 4 Feb, 2016 06:59 pm
@roger,
Quote:
How about shoot the gun out of his hand?


Have you ever fired a handgun in your life to think you could under life and death pressure you could shoot out a gun from someone hands?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 4 Feb, 2016 07:15 pm
@roger,
From wiki:
Quote:
Within the limits set by the U.S. Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner, authority to use deadly force in the line of duty is granted by state law to state and local law enforcement agencies. Individual agencies set policies and procedures regarding when and how to use deadly force.[6] The ruling in Tennessee v. Garner determined that deadly force is not justifiable simply to prevent a fleeing suspect's escape if the suspect does not pose a significant threat of death or serious harm to others.[7]

When deadly force is used within the prescribed manner, the killing is deemed a justifiable homicide. Some law enforcement agencies routinely investigate all uses of deadly force, while others investigate only cases involving extenuating circumstances. Other causes of death to suspects include accidents and police brutality. When circumstances surrounding a death are questionable, the death may be investigated by a state or federal agency or both.[8] Of the thousands of fatal police shootings in 2005 through 2015, 54 police officers were criminally charged as a result, and most of those officers were cleared or acquitted. According to a Washington Post report by Alice Crites and Steven Rich, officers who are convicted or plead guilty tend to get an average of four years of jail time, and sometimes only weeks.[7]

According to Amnesty International, U.S. laws do not meet international human rights standards for use-of-force standards by law enforcement. Only eight states in the United States require a verbal warning by police officers before shooting.[9]
ossobuco
 
  1  
Thu 4 Feb, 2016 07:29 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Geez. really? I need to read more.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Thu 4 Feb, 2016 07:31 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Me too, me too.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Thu 4 Feb, 2016 07:38 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
According to Amnesty International, U.S. laws do not meet international human rights standards for use-of-force standards by law enforcement. Only eight states in the United States require a verbal warning by police officers before shooting.[9]


So cops should give a criminal with a gun in his hand a 'fair' chance to killed the cop or others!!!!!!!!!

Sorry but I can only hope that you and others will be willing to come forward when the majority of the cops retired so they will have a chance to raised their children.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Thu 4 Feb, 2016 07:39 pm
@roger,
Actually the shooting targeting thing matters to me, the whole shoot to kill ethos.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Thu 4 Feb, 2016 07:41 pm
@roger,
Actually the shooting targeting thing matters to me, the whole shoot to kill ethos.

A zillion, or at least millions, lives have been lost.

Ok, a bullet in leg may take time in the ER ward.

Is this somehow about money?
BillRM
 
  0  
Thu 4 Feb, 2016 08:02 pm
@ossobuco,
First a bullet in the leg could result in someone bleeding to death in minutes it is not a for sure non-fatal hit.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Thu 4 Feb, 2016 08:04 pm
@ossobuco,
Quote:
Actually the shooting targeting thing matters to me, the whole shoot to kill ethos.


I love target shooting but targets does no shoot back trying to kill you with every round.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Thu 4 Feb, 2016 08:12 pm
@ossobuco,
Quote:


http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OnlyAFleshWound

On television, as well as in movies, there seems to be this general idea that if someone is shot in the shoulder, or in the leg, then the worst that happens will be that the person will grimace and go on with what he was doing before he was shot. Getting shot in the leg may cause him to hobble around a bit, but no worse than a knee sprain. A "good guy" will sometimes shoot someone in the leg or shoulder, "just to stop him," and in television and movies, this is almost always nonlethal.
However, a bullet wound to the left shoulder will usually prove to be lethal while a character will survive the same wound to the right shoulder or even the right chest, presumably because the heart (allegedly) is on the left side.
In reality, there's no "safe" place to shoot a person, not even in a seemingly non-vital extremity like a leg or arm. There are huge blood vessels in a human being's shoulder as well as lots of very delicate nerves and a very complex ball-and-socket joint that no surgeon on Earth can put back together once it's smashed by a bullet. The legs also contain large blood vessels; a shot that nicks the femoral artery will cause a fatal loss of blood in only a few minutes. And this is all assuming a "clean" through-and-through wound, disregarding the possibility of the bullet glancing off a bone or joint and deflecting or fragmenting into pieces, of which each can then hit something else more important inside. In short, there's no way for anyone, good or bad, to shoot someone and know that they will survive the wound. As they say, if you're shooting at all, you're shooting to kill.
But this trope is so widespread that it's caused people to assume that it's an accurate reflection of reality. In truth, since there isn't any safe place to shoot at, police and soldiers usually aim for the center of mass (i.e. the torso) simply to increase the odds of hitting the person in the first place. Trying to intentionally wing a target increases the odds that you'll miss entirely or end up hitting someone else. When dealing with dangerous criminals and where innocent lives are on the line, presumably, hitting the target, and only the target, should be top priority.
Insofar as this trope has any truth to it at all, it comes from the fact that the largest muscle pads on the human body — about the only type of tissue which can take a wound of impressive visual nastiness that isn't necessarily incapacitating or life-threatening — are in the thighs and the outside (not the center) of the shoulder. The gluteus maximi also suffice, but that particular target zone is often felt to lack dramatic gravitas. This is despite it being a relatively common wound among retired soldiers - because of its size, and because getting hit there is (comparatively) less lethal. Hitting someone on the other side of their body, in the groin, on the other hand, pretty much guarantees they will bleed out very quickly.
When the character insists on this, regardless of evidence to the contrary, he is saying I Can Still Fight (which he does not, in fact, have to survive).
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 4 Feb, 2016 08:56 pm
@BillRM,
I didn't read the whole shmeer, but shooting a person in the leg means they have a chance at life.
BillRM
 
  0  
Thu 4 Feb, 2016 10:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
LOL and you will have a far less chance of surviving as a leg wound even if it will cause the person to bleed out in five minutes will not stop him from killing you in return during that time.

The whole idea of a gun fight as far a cop is concern is to stop the bad guy
from killing him and keeping him from going home to his family.

I almost hope you well get your way and we then end up with no police force so we all are on our own and then you can perhaps then understand the need is to stop the bullets headed in your direction and that the welfare of the person trying to kill you is secondary.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Thu 4 Feb, 2016 10:31 pm
Quote:


http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/police-officers-shot-york-public-housing-complex-36725678

2 Police Officers Shot in New York Public Housing Complex
By JONATHAN LEMIRE AND COLLEEN LONG, ASSOCIATED PRESS
NEW YORK — Feb 4, 2016, 11:15 PM ET
Email
Two police officers patrolling a housing project were shot and wounded by a gunman who apparently later killed himself with the same weapon a few miles from where Mayor Bill de Blasio was delivering his State of the City address on Thursday.

The officers were on the sixth floor of an apartment building in the Melrose Houses complex in the Bronx when they encountered two people in a stairwell, police said. One of the people pulled a gun and opened fire, and both officers were struck, one in the face and the other in the abdomen, police said.

The gunman fled into an apartment on the seventh floor, New York Police Department First Deputy Commissioner Ben Tucker said.

Officers responding to the scene found the gunman in the apartment dead of an apparently self-inflicted gunshot wound. A handgun and a shotgun were found inside the apartment, police said.

The second person who encountered the officers in the stairwell was in custody, and three people in the apartment were being questioned, Tucker said.

De Blasio, a Democrat, was told about the shooting as he finished his speech and left the stage. He met with the family of one of the officers at the hospital where they were being treated.

"Our brave officers were doing their jobs tonight in our public housing on patrol keeping residents safe," de Blasio said. "Both officers are alert and communicating, and we are praying for the best here."

The shooting happened about 5 miles from where de Blasio was delivering his speech, much of which was dedicated to praising the work of police officers.

One of the officers is a 29-year-old man, and the other is a 24-year-old woman, said Robert Boyce, the police department's chief of detectives. The officers, who are assigned to the Housing Bureau, have been on the force for about two years. Police would not provide the names of the officers or the suspect.

The head of the police officers' union, Patrick Lynch, said the shooting shows the dangerous nature of the job.

"We need your support to teach our young folks that pulling a gun on a police officer works for no one," he said. "This goes to show the dangers police officers face each and every day."

He said the shooting shows the difficulty and danger of vertical patrols, on which pairs of officers start in the lobby of a public housing project and walk the stairwells up to the roof and back down.

A police officer is on trial for manslaughter in Brooklyn after shooting an unarmed man during a similar patrol in November 2014. Rookie officer Peter Liang had his gun drawn in a pitch-black stairwell at the Louis Pink Houses in Brooklyn when he accidentally fired a shot. Akai Gurley was on a lower floor walking to the lobby and was struck and killed. Prosecutors say Liang was reckless and shouldn't have had his finger on the gun's trigger. Liang has pleaded not guilty, and his defense has suggested he had his gun drawn because of the dangerous nature of the assignment.

In January, a police officer responding to a large street fight in the Bronx was shot in an ankle. And in October, a police officer responding to a report of shots fired and a bicycle stolen at gunpoint in Manhattan's East Harlem neighborhood was killed.

———

This story has been corrected to show an officer was shot in the abdomen, not in an arm.
Lash
 
  0  
Fri 5 Feb, 2016 05:08 pm
@BillRM,
Presidential candidate creates and capitalizes on the Ne Jim Crow.
http://www.thestranger.com/blogs/slog/2016/01/29/23497407/new-jim-crow-author-michelle-alexander-on-hillary-clintons-embrace-of-mass-incarceration
BillRM
 
  1  
Fri 5 Feb, 2016 05:28 pm
@Lash,
Re-writing history as I remember Reagan get tough on crime platform with special note of drug crimes and how he outdid anyone who came before him.

Even those Nixon was not all that far behind him.

Sorry but it was the republican party for decades before the Clintons enter the whitehouse who was locking blacks up for decades for minor drug crimes.

It hell trying to rewrite history when there are people who was alive at the time.
Lash
 
  0  
Fri 5 Feb, 2016 05:51 pm
@BillRM,
Then you haven't forgotten three strikes rule....and Clinton setting up the prison for profit scheme.

Nice try, Bill. I do like Republicans getting credit for their part, but the Clintons deserve a lot of credit too.

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-08-20/news/mn-37177_1_federal-crime-bill

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/06/politics/bill-clinton-crime-prisons-hillary-clinton/
 

Related Topics

2016 moving to #1 spot - Discussion by gungasnake
Is 'colored people' offensive? - Question by SMickey
Obama, a Joke - Discussion by coldjoint
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
The ECHR and muslims - Discussion by Arend
Atlanta Race Riot 1906 - Discussion by kobereal24
Quote of the Day - Discussion by Tabludama
The Confederacy was About Slavery - Discussion by snood
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Black Lives Matter
  3. » Page 79
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/08/2024 at 04:30:11