The police didn't lie though. They said no one would die if the man surrendered and came out of the house without the gun. He got killed because he aimed a loaded shotgun at the police officers. Legal gun or not, its is NOT legal to aim and shoot at an unarmed civilian(his neighbors) or at the police. The officers were well within their rights to shoot the man.
When not to believe what police are telling you...
- Thread starter alexmst
- Start date
I have always wondered why snipers and police need to go for a headshot. Shotguns are not very effective at long range. A sniper can easily shoot a 2 inch grouping at 300 yards... so why not just take his arm off.. or shoot him in the thigh so he falls down and can be subdued? This is especially true when someone attacks with a knife from a distance.. why not shoot his legs out...
because you need to stop them 100% not just enough in most cases.I have always wondered why snipers and police need to go for a headshot. Shotguns are not very effective at long range. A sniper can easily shoot a 2 inch grouping at 300 yards... so why not just take his arm off.. or shoot him in the thigh so he falls down and can be subdued? This is especially true when someone attacks with a knife from a distance.. why not shoot his legs out...
The last thing an officer wants to do is bag um and tag um.
For snipers and special forces that holds true. For regular policemen with a handgun, they are no more likely to hit anything with any precision than you and I are.I have always wondered why snipers and police need to go for a headshot. Shotguns are not very effective at long range. A sniper can easily shoot a 2 inch grouping at 300 yards... so why not just take his arm off.. or shoot him in the thigh so he falls down and can be subdued? This is especially true when someone attacks with a knife from a distance.. why not shoot his legs out...
The marksmen are trained to take out terrorists, who may be rigged with body armour and/or secondary explosives. A body shot is more likely to hit. A head shot is more likely to kill. The marksmen went with both to be sure.I have always wondered why snipers and police need to go for a headshot. Shotguns are not very effective at long range. A sniper can easily shoot a 2 inch grouping at 300 yards... so why not just take his arm off.. or shoot him in the thigh so he falls down and can be subdued? This is especially true when someone attacks with a knife from a distance.. why not shoot his legs out...
If you don't shoot to kill, you end up with situations like what happened in the Philippines, where the cops thought the guy was dead but in reality he was just playing possum. Shooting to wound works better in the movies than in real-life. The cops get close, and all of a sudden the guy starts firing again, or sets off a grenade. Then what do you do?
Um, just because you shoot somebody 'in the thigh' he doesn't necessary fall down. And if you 'take his arm off' he still has another arm that works perfectly well. Bullets don't always work like they do on television...I have always wondered why snipers and police need to go for a headshot. Shotguns are not very effective at long range. A sniper can easily shoot a 2 inch grouping at 300 yards... so why not just take his arm off.. or shoot him in the thigh so he falls down and can be subdued? This is especially true when someone attacks with a knife from a distance.. why not shoot his legs out...
you can ALWAYS shoot again...besides I can understand the shoot to kill when someone has a bomb or a machine gun with hostages.. but a drunk guy with a shotgun or a nutbar with a knife running away from you...GET REAL...Um, just because you shoot somebody 'in the thigh' he doesn't necessary fall down. And if you 'take his arm off' he still has another arm that works perfectly well. Bullets don't always work like they do on television...
If the guy is running then his arms n' legs would make poor targets no? You'd have to allow for the time the bullet takes to get there and aim for the appendage that "should" be there - assuming he keeps moving the appendage in a predictable pattern... this is why they aim for the torso... much greater chance of hitting the target. And don't forget, this is not happening on a controlled firing range, if they miss the target, that bullet is still going somewhere and frankly given the choice between the cops shooting a perp or hitting an innocent I'd much rather they kill the perp. (Of course I'd really rather - as I'm sure the majority of cops do - the perp not put themselves in the position of needing to be shot in the first place)you can ALWAYS shoot again...besides I can understand the shoot to kill when someone has a bomb or a machine gun with hostages.. but a drunk guy with a shotgun or a nutbar with a knife running away from you...GET REAL...
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...
you never shot a man have you?If you shoot at the legs, the round will go downward into the ground.. it may ricochet of course, ..
Police are bunch of liers! A girl once texted me an "implied death threat" - something like: "I will have people at your door!", I went to police, after telling them what happened. It was clear from the context of conversation - I showed several texts before this line, I expressed my safety concern, and asked police to arrest her, but police simply told me "nothing is going to happen to you, just lock your door at night!"
If a man threatens a girl, police will for sure take the matter more seriously. Talking about double standard!
If a man threatens a girl, police will for sure take the matter more seriously. Talking about double standard!
And you were killed when????Police are bunch of liers! A girl once texted me an "implied death threat" - something like: "I will have people at your door!", I went to police, after telling them what happened. It was clear from the context of conversation - I showed several texts before this line, I expressed my safety concern, and asked police to arrest her, but police simply told me "nothing is going to happen to you, just lock your door at night!"
If a man threatens a girl, police will for sure take the matter more seriously. Talking about double standard!
I am lucky to be still alive. The bitch was a serious mental case. I made peace with her 3 months later. But at that time, anything could have happened. How the hell can police know I will be safe without even looking into the matter more? Of course they don't , they just lie their way out of having to work.And you were killed when????
of course not. i am just being sensational...Really ? All of them ?
In the case of most people a reason to have a personal protection firearm.I am lucky to be still alive. The bitch was a serious mental case.
Also do you believe if you had called in the hours of darkness and said there is someone outside pounding on my door and screaming, that the police would not have been there "tout suite."
I would just call my nephew. he just got into the force.In the case of most people a reason to have a personal protection firearm.
Also do you believe if you had called in the hours of darkness and said there is someone outside pounding on my door and screaming, that the police would not have been there "tout suite."
I'd put it even more strongly than that: As they MUST do.They defended themselves with deadly force, as they are entitled to do.
Any officer with a clear shot who failed to open fire under those circumstances would be putting the lives of others in danger through negligent dereliction of duty.
