Ferguson Riots

#2,151
#2,151
Thanks guys for your knowledge. The only thing I could think of that they could be arguing against was perhaps me saying you keep sending rounds down range until the threat is dead.
 
#2,152
#2,152
Thats why its called "lethal" force. Think of it like this. If someone is shooting at me why or what good would it do to shoot them in the leg.

I may be way wrong, but I believe the military may have used rounds or other means that were intended to wound in order to effectively occupy more soldiers as they tend to the wounded in order to get them out of the fight. Again, I may be way off on this I think I read something about this subject once.
 
#2,153
#2,153
lawgator1 said:
That's because the police have managed this about as poorly as one can imagine.

There's a curfew. Nope, wait, there's no curfew. We will release the name tomorrow. Wait, no, we will wait a bit. You can march, but not stand still. No marching. How many different law enforcement agencies have been in charge so far, or at least been given some command duties?

Whoever is making the main decisions appears to be extremely impulsive and impatient.
Click to expand...

Or just plain inexperienced. This isnt NYC or LA.
 
#2,154
#2,154
Burhead said:
Okay military/LEO guys I need you're help. I've gotten hounded by people on Twitter for saying LEOs/Mil guys are not trained to shoot to wound but to shoot to kill and keep shooting until the threat is ended? Is that not true? They are saying that firing until the threat is ended is bad training.
Click to expand...

Other than a few VERY specific circumstances LEO (or civilians) are not supposed to specifically "shoot to kill" but rather "end the threat". If ending the threat inflicts mortal damage then, well...so be it. The idea is that "self defense" does not require lethal intent.

Intent in the military is another matter.
 
#2,157
#2,157
hndog609 said:
Other than a few VERY specific circumstances LEO (or civilians) are not supposed to specifically "shoot to kill" but rather "end the threat". If ending the threat inflicts mortal damage then, well...so be it. The idea is that "self defense" does not require lethal intent.

Intent in the military is another matter.
Click to expand...

Semantics really. Stopping the threat is something that involves perception. Perception is heavily skewed by ones level of involvment. It is widely understood that stopping the threat, where lethal force is concerned, infers one intends to murder. However, I can see where an officer could and has fired his weapon resulting in the suspect being incapacitated thus ending the threat, but officers are trained to shoot vital organs and head shots.
 
#2,158
#2,158
itscoming.jpg


It's coming right for us! Shoot !
 
#2,159
#2,159
CNN: "78 people were arrested last night and many of those were from out of state."

I even said last night that these people are traveling from around the country only to join the protesters to agitate the police.
 
#2,162
#2,162
coug said:
CNN: "78 people were arrested last night and many of those were from out of state."

I even said last night that these people are traveling from around the country only to join the protesters to agitate the police.
Click to expand...

They have nothing better to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,165
#2,165
tim said:
Semantics really. Stopping the threat is something that involves perception. Perception is heavily skewed by ones level of involvment. It is widely understood that stopping the threat, where lethal force is concerned, infers one intends to murder. However, I can see where an officer could and has fired his weapon resulting in the suspect being incapacitated thus ending the threat, but officers are trained to shoot vital organs and head shots.
Click to expand...

The problem is that it's often presented as a semantic argument. For instance if, for the sake of argument, every LEO/civilian (non-criminal) firearms use could be guaranteed to effectively stop a threat while being non-lethal don't you believe that would be the requirement? Otherwise you would, quite literally, be choosing to kill above and beyond what was required...right? Intent to kill is not a fundamental requirement to stop a threat.

Of course it doesn't work that way in real life. Stopping a threat, particularly with handguns, can be problematic at best. You shoot to cause damage that will best increase your chances of hitting the target and ending the threat, which means shooting for effect and doing so as often as it takes. If the threat is ended then lethality isn't really a concern. (And I've never met an instructor or lawyer that ever advised a client to use the word "kill" if questioned about their use of lethal force)
 
#2,167
#2,167
The suspect tried to rob a store (the 7-11 kind) and would not obey police demands & he yelled several times at police to "shoot me, shoot me now" as he went towards police w/the knife in a striking & threatening position.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top