When not to believe what police are telling you...
- Thread starter alexmst
- Start date
Another nut like Hrper who thinks that only illegal guns are used to kill people...Just saying, he had a permit to own it - it wasn't an illegal gun.
Being drunk, in possession of a firearm legal or illegal and firing at your neighbours home is plenty of cause for the police to shoot you dead.
Care to guess how many innocent people are shot every year by drunks with guns? Better the drunk killed than an innocent person.
One very lucky sharpshooter.Exactly what I would expect from a specialist...
And that would be the danger - if it does ricochet it can go just about anywhere.... and you are suggesting firing 10 rounds with maybe one of them hitting the intended target? And I could be wrong on this as I'm not positive on the stats of the police weaponry used but if the shot did indeed go completely through the torso I would expect that it would no longer have enough energy to continue inflicting grievious harm.If you shoot at the legs, the round will go downward into the ground.. it may ricochet of course, but if you aim at the torso, the round can go right through and kill someone else... when people run they are normally running away (in which case WTF kill the guy..., not an imminent danger) or b) with a semi, you can easily squeeze of 10 rounds in about 3 sec.. if one of them does not hit him in the legs you are a spaz...
Depends what type of ammunition you load the gun with.If you shoot at the legs, the round will go downward into the ground.. it may ricochet of course, but if you aim at the torso, the round can go right through and kill someone else...
As a general rule the police are trained to aim for the chest. They are not meant to be shooting at someone unless that person presents an immediate threat to the lives of others, and once someone presents a threat to the lives of others you want them down on the ground and not moving ASAP.
Shoot someone in the legs and you might miss, and even if you hit them, you might not stop them.
Not sure where everyone is getting the idea that I think the police shouldn't have shot him. In that situation it was the best course of action. In the series of articles over the past days the dead guy's wife has been complaining that police should have let her talk to him on the phone and that she could have diffussed the situation and got him to put down the gun. She thinks police didn't need to let it get to the point where he had to be shot. She wanted to go in the house to reason with him...police wouldn't let her as it would in their opinion have given him a hostage and/or endangered her safety.
What I was poking fun at was how the negotiators say whatever they think the guy wants to hear even if it is BS to try to get him to surrender. Telling him he was a good guy, just had a bad day, they wouldn't hurt him, his shooting up the neighborhood wasn't that bad, etc. Police SWAT teams want to end the situation in their favour, which means the guy is either arrested or shot with no collateral damage. Everyone knows this (or should) so it is the height of stupidity to keep a gun in hand when surrounded by a SWAT team, and is either stupid in the extreme or suicidal to point the gun at police when you have to KNOW that after a five hour siege of you shooting up the neighborhood snipers will be trained on you from various angles/positions to ensure you don't shoot anybody. If your intent is to not put down your weapon and or point it at police, then that is one time when you shouldn't believe what the police negotiators are telling you (that you won't be shot and everything will be fine) because it won't (and wasn't).
What I was poking fun at was how the negotiators say whatever they think the guy wants to hear even if it is BS to try to get him to surrender. Telling him he was a good guy, just had a bad day, they wouldn't hurt him, his shooting up the neighborhood wasn't that bad, etc. Police SWAT teams want to end the situation in their favour, which means the guy is either arrested or shot with no collateral damage. Everyone knows this (or should) so it is the height of stupidity to keep a gun in hand when surrounded by a SWAT team, and is either stupid in the extreme or suicidal to point the gun at police when you have to KNOW that after a five hour siege of you shooting up the neighborhood snipers will be trained on you from various angles/positions to ensure you don't shoot anybody. If your intent is to not put down your weapon and or point it at police, then that is one time when you shouldn't believe what the police negotiators are telling you (that you won't be shot and everything will be fine) because it won't (and wasn't).
Luck had nothing to do with it. Even a half decent shot can make that shot from 150 yards 9/10 times.One very lucky sharpshooter.
I think their training needs to be changed. If a guy is not pointing a gun at you, keep a distance and the situation is not too dangerous.Depends what type of ammunition you load the gun with.
As a general rule the police are trained to aim for the chest. They are not meant to be shooting at someone unless that person presents an immediate threat to the lives of others, and once someone presents a threat to the lives of others you want them down on the ground and not moving ASAP.
Shoot someone in the legs and you might miss, and even if you hit them, you might not stop them.
No this is bad policy. How about "if you don't drop the gun now we will have to shoot to kill". Why deceive the guy into thinking things are ok when they are at a tipping point. especially in this case where he was just messed up and had no hostages,.Not sure where everyone is getting the idea that I think the police shouldn't have shot him. In that situation it was the best course of action. In the series of articles over the past days the dead guy's wife has been complaining that police should have let her talk to him on the phone and that she could have diffussed the situation and got him to put down the gun. She thinks police didn't need to let it get to the point where he had to be shot. She wanted to go in the house to reason with him...police wouldn't let her as it would in their opinion have given him a hostage and/or endangered her safety.
What I was poking fun at was how the negotiators say whatever they think the guy wants to hear even if it is BS to try to get him to surrender. Telling him he was a good guy, just had a bad day, they wouldn't hurt him, his shooting up the neighborhood wasn't that bad, etc. Police SWAT teams want to end the situation in their favour, which means the guy is either arrested or shot with no collateral damage. Everyone knows this (or should) so it is the height of stupidity to keep a gun in hand when surrounded by a SWAT team, and is either stupid in the extreme or suicidal to point the gun at police when you have to KNOW that after a five hour siege of you shooting up the neighborhood snipers will be trained on you from various angles/positions to ensure you don't shoot anybody. If your intent is to not put down your weapon and or point it at police, then that is one time when you shouldn't believe what the police negotiators are telling you (that you won't be shot and everything will be fine) because it won't (and wasn't).
I suppose they think saying "drop the gun or we will kill you" is too blunt and might cause him stress and make him do some drastic action or other. In this case the police knew he was suicidal and seemed to have two primary aims: to prevent him from continuing shooting up the neighborhood, and to try to talk him out of killing himself. However, police have g/fs, wives and kids too and don't want to get shot themselves, so the third primary aim is to protect themselves from getting killed. He had no hostages, so the snipers were there to take him out if he opened fire on other houses again like he did before the police showed up. From what I read elsewhere, they could have gotten a clear kill shot during the 5 hours but didn't take it becasue they weren't trying to kill him as he had no hostages in the house.No this is bad policy. How about "if you don't drop the gun now we will have to shoot to kill". Why deceive the guy into thinking things are ok when they are at a tipping point. especially in this case where he was just messed up and had no hostages,.
His wife wanted to be allowed to pass through police lines to enter the house and talk him down in person (as he had alcohol related issues in the past she talked him down from) but police physically prevented her from entering the house as they thought the situation would become more complicated if he had a hostage...and if he shot her the polce would be blamed for letting her in there in the first place. Whether they should have let her talk to him on the phone (as he requested at some point) is another issue - not sure why they didn't want her to...perhaps they thought if given a chance to say goodbye to her he might kill himself afterward. By keeping him from talking they thought he might surrender alive.
The moral of the story is: police don't want hostile guys with guns to shoot them - so if surrounded by police (esp SWAT, Special Branch, etc) do not retain a gun in hand... and do not point the gun at police as their instant reaction will be one of self-preservation. Sure, they don't want you dead, but they don't want to be dead themselves more.
That's what they did. They shot him when he pointed the gun at someone. At that point NOT shooting him would have put in danger the life of the person he was aiming at.I think their training needs to be changed. If a guy is not pointing a gun at you, keep a distance and the situation is not too dangerous.
If he has only a shotgun it would appear that the best plan of action would be to retreat and wait untill he falls asleep, runs out of ammo or gets sober and agree to drop the gun. Why the hurry to shoot him? A shotgun has a range of about 50 meters.That's what they did. They shot him when he pointed the gun at someone. At that point NOT shooting him would have put in danger the life of the person he was aiming at.
I am curious do you not think to become a sniper within the police force you need to be the best of the best. I would think that they do not just hire anyone that can shoot a rifle.One very lucky sharpshooter.
Considering they could have setup across the street i do not think a shot like that would have anything to do with luck.
How many times in the past have the "people who were there" fucked up?I love all this crap where people know better than the people who were there.
A shotgun is not a very dangrous weapon at long range... in many of these cases, the police seem to lack patience. He was drunk, maybe they should have sent him more booze laced with roofies. In either case, it is a pretty poor outcome.That's what they did. They shot him when he pointed the gun at someone. At that point NOT shooting him would have put in danger the life of the person he was aiming at.
From having reviewed just these sorts of scenarios. I think that some of you are making the frankly dangerous assumption that even excellent shots can always hit very small targets, that not infrequently are moving, every single time. Further that in situations justifying the use of deadly force - since otherwise oops now we are prosecuting the sharpshooter for manslaughter when he/she killed the suspect rather than shooting the weapon from their hand - instead of "neutralizing" the suspect who after all is pointing a firearm at the police now they are to try Annie Oakley shots. This as has been pointed out can lead to situations such as in the Philippines a few weeks ago where the suspect is now able to kill even more people.I am curious do you not think to become a sniper within the police force you need to be the best of the best. I would think that they do not just hire anyone that can shoot a rifle.
Considering they could have setup across the street i do not think a shot like that would have anything to do with luck.
did you get hit by lightening once or twice?I love all this crap where people know better than the people who were there.
How close was the nearest officer ?If he has only a shotgun it would appear that the best plan of action would be to retreat and wait untill he falls asleep, runs out of ammo or gets sober and agree to drop the gun. Why the hurry to shoot him? A shotgun has a range of about 50 meters.
Still easily capable of taking an eye out and you can't rule out that someone would die. Shooting him was correct and proper and in fact it would have been dereliction of duty not to shoot him.A shotgun is not a very dangrous weapon at long range...
Seriously you're an idiot if you are expecting the police to stand there and let this guy fire shotgun blasts in their direction. Unless they were half a kilometer away it's dangerous.
Also, how do you know the shotgun was loaded with buckshot? If he had it loaded with slugs it would take someone's head off. I wouldn't stand there waiting to find out, I'd shoot him.
