Video emerges of Minneapolis police killing a citizen - - Riots

[Bilge_Rat]

well, anyone who has received actual gun training will let you know shooting someone in the leg or the shoulder or the hand to disarm is a hollywood fantasy.

A handgun is a very inaccurate weapon, especially when your adrenalin is sky high and the target is moving. Trying to shoot someone in the leg or the shoulder or the hand etc., will most likely result in a miss and you dead if the target has a firearm.

Add to that the fact that humans are difficult to incapacitate. Except for a lucky shot to say the brain or heart, a human will become incapacitated by passing out from loss of blood which usually require putting a lot of bullets in your target to speed up the blood loss.

So standard firearm training dictates that you should only fire if your life is in danger and then you have to put your target down quickly, which means firing center mass continuously until the target is down and no longer a threat.

oh and by the way, you shoot someone in the thigh and hit the femoral artery, he or she will bleed out and die as efficiently as if you cut their throat, so no, there is no safe zone.

[Platapus]

I am surprised that any fire arm training recommends shooting someone in the leg. Legs are hard to hit, especially when they moving, which legs tend to do a lot.



Shoot for center of mass and only in the gravest extreme after all other options have been tried.



The shoot first- establish probable cause later attitude needs to change with some police officers.

[mapuc]

The have been a case here in Denmark, where a person was shot in his leg.
This happened on June 5.

A Danish and a Swedish police main target on a person is his or her thigh/leg.

Furthermore before a police have to take such a move a warning shot shall be given.

According to statistic from the Danish Police they had used their handguns in 394 cases. Shot was fired in 33 of these cases and in 16 of these cases a warning shots was fired. This was in 2017.

There have been cases where the police have shot another person in the head or in other vital areas of the body.

Markus

[Bilge_Rat]

I don't pretend to be an expert on Sweden, but if I read this article, the Swedish police seems to follow the same protocol we use here:

Sweden grapples with fatal police shooting of man with Down's syndrome


Holgersson’s point of view appears to be supported by statements such one from an officer commenting on Eric Torell’s death. “If we encounter something we believe is a firearm, then we will shoot to eliminate the threat,” the officer told Swedish media. “You do not do this by hitting someone in the leg. We aim for the chest; that’s how we’ve practised.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...downs-syndrome

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

I don't pretend to be an expert on Sweden, but if I read this article, the Swedish police seems to follow the same protocol we use here:



https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...downs-syndrome

I remember this case, it made the Swedish people very angry and they got even more angry, when the police authorities freed the cop who shot this young man with downs syndrome.
There wasn't any riot if you wonder.

As I wrote in my last post
"There have been cases where the police have shot another person in the head or in other vital areas of the body."
And this goes for both the Danish and the Swedish police.

Markus

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Same here in Finland. Just yesterday a police officer had to take a shot at someone who was armed (turned out to be a BB gun later); one bullet to thigh was enough to subdue him.

the Atlanta cop was aiming for the suspects right buttock but, well you know, missed

[Jimbuna]

Perhaps firearms training in the UK was different back in the day but we were told to aim for the largest area which was the torso.

[August]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

the Atlanta cop was aiming for the suspects right buttock but, well you know, missed

Yeah he didn't have Hollywood movie aiming skills.

[em2nought]

I've never had any firearms training where you aimed for anything other than center mass. Do they sell targets with legs? It's starting to sound like we're gonna take advice from people who are talking out of their ar$e. Pretty soon the cops will be driving florist trucks instead of Police cars.


There is absolutely no way I would want to be a cop now. I guess the left got education, Hollywood, and the media, and now they'll get the police.


The right's biggest mistake was in not putting more of their people in the field of education.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by em2nought

I've never had any firearms training where you aimed for anything other than center mass. Do they sell targets with legs? It's starting to sound like we're gonna take advice from people who are talking out of their ar$e. Pretty soon the cops will be driving florist trucks instead of Police cars.


There is absolutely no way I would want to be a cop now. I guess the left got education, Hollywood, and the media, and now they'll get the police.


The right's biggest mistake was in not putting more of their people in the field of education.

And you're are correct sir, aiming after a suspects legs is not as easy as I thought it was.
My former comments was based on several hours of tv-documentaries about the Danish police in education, work in the field and the latest 5 years event-where three or was it four suspect had been hit in the leg Thigh I think it was.

I also changed the search criteria and asked how many people have been killed by the Danish police and I found a report, where I copied what I think would be the best part.

"The number of reports on the use of firearms during the whole period 1985-2002 fluctuated between 196 (in 1998) and 304 (1992), often with very large fluctuations from year to year.
On average, made 247 reports per. year. In 2002, the figure was 269, roughly the same number as in 1985. There is no clear trend in the use of firearms by the police during the investigation period. This is remarkable because
Danish policemen do not therefore often feel the need to protect themselves with firearms at the beginning of the new millennium when compared with the latter half of the 1980s.
- Police have throughout the period shot and hit a total of 90 people, of whom 78 were injured and 12 died as a result of the shots.

Markus

[iambecomelife]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

well, anyone who has received actual gun training will let you know shooting someone in the leg or the shoulder or the hand to disarm is a hollywood fantasy.

A handgun is a very inaccurate weapon, especially when your adrenalin is sky high and the target is moving. Trying to shoot someone in the leg or the shoulder or the hand etc., will most likely result in a miss and you dead if the target has a firearm.

Add to that the fact that humans are difficult to incapacitate. Except for a lucky shot to say the brain or heart, a human will become incapacitated by passing out from loss of blood which usually require putting a lot of bullets in your target to speed up the blood loss.

So standard firearm training dictates that you should only fire if your life is in danger and then you have to put your target down quickly, which means firing center mass continuously until the target is down and no longer a threat.

oh and by the way, you shoot someone in the thigh and hit the femoral artery, he or she will bleed out and die as efficiently as if you cut their throat, so no, there is no safe zone.

Originally Posted by Platapus

I am surprised that any fire arm training recommends shooting someone in the leg. Legs are hard to hit, especially when they moving, which legs tend to do a lot.



Shoot for center of mass and only in the gravest extreme after all other options have been tried.



The shoot first- establish probable cause later attitude needs to change with some police officers.

I remember one incident (can't find the link) where a man was getting a warrant served by a cop, and immediately started shooting at the cop from his front door. The guy's young daughter was behind him. The officer returned fire, did not make a center mass shot, and shot him in the arm - with the result that the bullet passed through him and killed the little girl. A tragic situation all around (and depending on the laws, the father may have been charged with Felony Murder). Of course, in the movies the good guys wing someone in the arm or leg with no consequences.

[Bilge_Rat]

The other problem with trying to compare the experience of police in Europe with the USA is the gun ownership issue.

In the USA, any prudent cop that makes a routine traffic stop has to assume the suspect probably has a weapon on him.

In most European countries where gun ownership is restricted, I would guess police officers do not have the same concern. I know many police officers in the UK do not even carry firearms.

Obviously, the interaction with a potential suspect is not the same when you go in assuming he/she has a handgun.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

I know many police officers in the UK do not even carry firearms.

A little under 10,000 but training is arguably a lot longer than most other countries and arguably second to none imho.

[Cybermat47]

Originally Posted by Bilge_Rat

The other problem with trying to compare the experience of police in Europe with the USA is the gun ownership issue.

In the USA, any prudent cop that makes a routine traffic stop has to assume the suspect probably has a weapon on him.

In most European countries where gun ownership is restricted, I would guess police officers do not have the same concern. I know many police officers in the UK do not even carry firearms.

Obviously, the interaction with a potential suspect is not the same when you go in assuming he/she has a handgun.

Yep, very good points. One more dangerous factor to go into the mix.

With the increased public mistrust and fear of the police since cases such as George Floyd’s murder, we could be seeing more and more people carrying firearms with the idea of not having to rely on the police anymore, or out of fear of police brutality. So then you’ll have traffic stops turn into a situation where two armed people are wary of the other and looking for signs of danger, and one wrong move by either party could potentially result in a shooting that just amplifies the “us vs them” mentality.

Given that I believe that the police should have the ability to defend themselves if necessary, and that ordinary citizens should be able to own firearms for self defence if they are of sound mind and have no criminal record, a reformation of the police in the USA in order to combat police brutality seems to be the only real resolution, and one that is long overdue.

The executive order issued by Trump seems to be a good move (yes, I can appreciate when he does the right thing, but I still don’t like him), so hopefully police brutality will start to decrease until it’s nothing but a painful memory.

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Yep, very good points. One more dangerous factor to go into the mix.

With the increased public mistrust and fear of the police since cases such as George Floyd’s murder, we could be seeing more and more people carrying firearms with the idea of not having to rely on the police anymore, or out of fear of police brutality. So then you’ll have traffic stops turn into a situation where two armed people are wary of the other and looking for signs of danger, and one wrong move by either party could potentially result in a shooting that just amplifies the “us vs them” mentality.

Given that I believe that the police should have the ability to defend themselves if necessary, and that ordinary citizens should be able to own firearms for self defence if they are of sound mind and have no criminal record, a reformation of the police in the USA in order to combat police brutality seems to be the only real resolution, and one that is long overdue.

The executive order issued by Trump seems to be a good move (yes, I can appreciate when he does the right thing, but I still don’t like him), so hopefully police brutality will start to decrease until it’s nothing but a painful memory.

All good points. The problem with the executive orders by Trump is they don't go far enough. After reviewing these Executive Orders, they don't mention criminal sanctions with regards to police officers who also violate the law.

Atlanta Police officer Garrett Rolfe has been charged with felony murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, in the shooting death of Rayshard Brooks. Rolfe can be seen in the video kicking Rayshard Brooks after he had been shot twice in the back. Devin Brosnan, who has indicated he will testify against Rolfe can be seen standing on Rayshard Brooks, as well.

Quote: Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard announced 11 charges against former officer Garrett Rolfe, including felony murder and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, in the shooting death of Rayshard Brooks. The felony murder charge carries the possible sentence of life without parole or the death penalty. Brosnan faces one to 20 years for the aggravated assault charge.


https://www.wabe.org/atlanta-awaits-...rooks-killing/


https://www.npr.org/sections/live-up...h-felony-murde

While Rayshard Brooks was initially cooperative, He may well have experienced what you mentioned, a severe case of mistrust of the police. The Police chief has resigned and a number of officers have had " sick outs " in protest of the filed charges. This is an indication that officers will not follow any executive orders or legislation regarding their policing. Legislation needs to be enacted to clear the way for police officers to more easily be prosecuted for any criminal actions.