Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140821122659AARNUv1

http://www.inquisitr.com/1421915/dillon-taylor-shooting-camera/

obviously racist...

oh wait the people are protesting police brutality because they are not slowed in the head unlike some other people...

 Grundz wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I don't believe the "empty clip" is a policy per se. It's, you keep shooting until the target stops being a threat. (which may necessitate emptying your clip)

That is how it is, however even with a fatal shot, it takes about half a second to a second for someone to go down plus you know, a half second or so as they crumple, since its taught that you just keep on shooting until the target is down its extremely rare that the mag isn't empty, I remember ~15 years ago there was about 50 shots fired at one guy from 3 officers (one reloaded and kept firing because he was still standing), like in the video posted earlier the guy is slowly moving at me, he isn't going to stop, sure, one to the gut as I back away, not like nine to the chest even if the first one killed him, to observers it looks like a firing squad not a takedown (and it pretty much is).

Grundz... I think we're an agreement.

I'm arguing whether or not there's an official policy to "empty the clip/magazine" to stop the threat.

Those cops didn't empty gak. There were 12 total rounds fired by both of them. Their magazines most likely hold between 14-17 rounds, assuming they're carrying Glock 19s or Baretta 92s like many LEOs carry.

Whatever. In vast majority of cases a single shot would suffice.

 Crimson wrote:
Whatever. In vast majority of cases a single shot would suffice.

Incorrect.

There is a plethora of accounts where "just one shot" stopped the threat cold.

Just to be clear, I don't have a clue what US police police is. I was just giving details of UK police training as another European country against what Crimson said.

 whembly wrote:


I'm arguing whether or not there's an official policy to "empty the clip/magazine" to stop the threat.

Right, we're too lawsuit happy for that, there is an official policy that usually ends in an empty mag and/or a dead person, lots of rounds being fired is coincidental,

 Crimson wrote:
Whatever. In vast majority of cases a single shot would suffice.

There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that this is completely wrong.

 Steve steveson wrote:
Just to be clear, I don't have a clue what US police police is.

But almost everyone knows what the UK Police police are.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Just to be clear, I don't have a clue what US police police is.

But almost everyone knows what the UK Police police are.

Spoiler:

That joke stings.

Wow they look so young. That must be the early 80s.

 Crimson wrote:
Whatever. In vast majority of cases a single shot would suffice.

in all likely hood, the officer has no IDEA he has even hit his target until he crumples to the ground, which can take some time. Especially after a serious head injury.

even in your finnish examples, many were fatal (even leg shots) and it didnt actually stop the guy in many cases.
those are also very isolated incidents.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Just to be clear, I don't have a clue what US police police is.

But almost everyone knows what the UK Police police are.

Spoiler:

That joke stings.

you sir win an internets!

best laugh all day!

 Crimson wrote:
Whatever. In vast majority of cases a single shot would suffice.

Well that's pretty categorically untrue.

Crimson, have you ever fired a gun before? Or even held one?

You seem to be getting a lot of your info from Hollywood.

If.his face was really cracked, all bets are off. I would reasonably expect if anyone had their head busted, they would unload everything they had, if for no other reason then pure fear.

 Hordini wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Whatever. In vast majority of cases a single shot would suffice.

There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that this is completely wrong.

It is entirely a question of how valuable the shootee's life is in comparison to how much danger the shooter is in. since culture says "hey they only shot 6 times each they could have fired more so there!" the person getting shots life is basically worthless, as shown by handcuffing him (assuming he isn't dead in which case it seems stupid) and then not rendering aid as he dies (hopeless or not). I'm guessing you don't care a whole lot about these people.
Since arrest rates of minorities is much, much higher (for reasons and things), and you dont care/encourage excessive force against them, can you not see why they think this is a race issue?

 daedalus wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Steve steveson wrote:
Just to be clear, I don't have a clue what US police police is.

But almost everyone knows what the UK Police police are.

Spoiler:

That joke stings.

 Hordini wrote:
Hey Grundz, sorry, you might have missed my post earlier, but do you have a source for your claim that Germany trains its officers to take leg shots?

My time station in Germany.
If Polizi says "Halt!"
You become a statue

If not two things can happen

The spring loaded night stick they have if swung once it'll hit you 50-60 times
or
they shoot you

 Grundz wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Whatever. In vast majority of cases a single shot would suffice.

There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that this is completely wrong.

It is entirely a question of how valuable the shootee's life

Spoiler:

is in comparison to how much danger the shooter is in. since culture says "hey they only shot 6 times each they could have fired more so there!" the person getting shots life is basically worthless, as shown by handcuffing him (assuming he isn't dead in which case it seems stupid) and then not rendering aid as he dies (hopeless or not). I'm guessing you don't care a whole lot about these people.
Since arrest rates of minorities is much, much higher (for reasons and things), and you dont care/encourage excessive force against them, can you not see why they think this is a race issue?

right, im sure the first thing that is supposed to be going through the cops head is "I wonder how valuable this person, who just broke my face, life is. 4 bullets? ten? six? yeah, six sounds good, I think on the manual black guys get six bullets"

Being shot isn't like the movies where a guy takes one bullet and goes flying 10ft from the impact. There are plenty of cases where people are shot and don't even realize it at the time. Often it takes being hit several times before the damage registers with the body. Add in the influence of drugs or adrenaline and people can often sustain a lot of injury and not feel a thing even if they are fatally wounded at the time.

During a fire fight one of my friends was shot a total of five times while serving in Iraq, not only did he survive but he managed to keep returning fire for a bit. (An AK-47 is significantly more damaging than a 9mm pistol btw) That obviously doesn't happen in every case, but people have been known to survive being repeatedly shot and just one round doesn't always immobilize the target, particularly when it's coming from a pistol.

 Grundz wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Whatever. In vast majority of cases a single shot would suffice.

There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that this is completely wrong.

It is entirely a question of how valuable the shootee's life is in comparison to how much danger the shooter is in.

Erm... wut?

If you're attacked and you're packing heat, who the feth cares "how valuable the shootee's life is".

since culture says "hey they only shot 6 times each they could have fired more so there!"

Culture?!? You're not making sense.

the person getting shots life is basically worthless, as shown by handcuffing him (assuming he isn't dead in which case it seems stupid) and then not rendering aid as he dies (hopeless or not).

I guess you don't understand the SOP in law enforcement.

I'm guessing you don't care a whole lot about these people.

How do you come to this conclusion?

Since arrest rates of minorities is much, much higher (for reasons and things), and you dont care/encourage excessive force against them, can you not see why they think this is a race issue?

Its many, many things... and race may not be it.

 stanman wrote:
Being shot isn't like the movies where a guy takes one bullet and goes flying 10ft from the impact. There are plenty of cases where people are shot and don't even realize it at the time. Often it takes being hit several times before the damage registers with the body. Add in the influence of drugs or adrenaline and people can often sustain a lot of injury and not feel a thing even if they are fatally wounded at the time.

During a fire fight one of my friends was shot a total of five times while serving in Iraq, not only did he survive but he managed to keep returning fire for a bit. (An AK-47 is significantly more damaging than a 9mm pistol btw) That obviously doesn't happen in every case, but people have been known to survive being repeatedly shot and just one round doesn't always immobilize the target, particularly when it's coming from a pistol.

not to detract from the fact that your friend was shot but aren't police ammo usually hollow points? from what i understand those are designed to just do massive amount of damage to soft targets vs Aks which i dont even know if they come in hollow points (goes straight through rather than explode within the target. (honest question)

 whembly wrote:

since culture says "hey they only shot 6 times each they could have fired more so there!"

Culture?!? You're not making sense.

Yeah, you can disassemble what was said, but you're just un-contexting it.
Yes culture, in other countries the law enforcement may/may not believe the public is the enemy, the US law has for quite a while, with exceptions. If you'd like a definition of culture google may be able to help you, but looking at people who break the law as subhuman is pretty normal as well in the US.

 Grundz wrote:

 whembly wrote:

since culture says "hey they only shot 6 times each they could have fired more so there!"

Culture?!? You're not making sense.

Yeah, you can disassemble what was said, but you're just un-contexting it.
Yes culture, in other countries the law enforcement may/may not believe the public is the enemy, the US law has for quite a while, with exceptions. If you'd like a definition of culture google may be able to help you, but looking at people who break the law as subhuman is pretty normal as well in the US.

Well... imo, some people who break the law are subhuman. Ie, rapist, murder, ect...

"Us vs Them" is alive and thriving in the USA.

Can imagine when LEO implements military "Risk Assessment" and if the risk is to high they do not go in

Well then...

Via twittah:

Reports that Ofc Darren Wilson had a bruised or fractured eye socket are false. #ferguson A source close to the investigation tells CNN

— Julian Cummings CNN (@JulianCummings) August 21, 2014

Wilson was taken to the hospital after the shooting. He had xrays which came back negative. He was treated for a swollen face. #ferguson

— Julian Cummings CNN (@JulianCummings) August 21, 2014

The extent of the injury on his face matters because it provides a stronger defense that he reasonably feared serious injury from Brown when he allegedly charged at him.

But, then again... who the feth knows at this point. Hopefully we'll hear the facts after the Grand Jury wraps up.

 Desubot wrote:

 stanman wrote:
Being shot isn't like the movies where a guy takes one bullet and goes flying 10ft from the impact. There are plenty of cases where people are shot and don't even realize it at the time. Often it takes being hit several times before the damage registers with the body. Add in the influence of drugs or adrenaline and people can often sustain a lot of injury and not feel a thing even if they are fatally wounded at the time.

During a fire fight one of my friends was shot a total of five times while serving in Iraq, not only did he survive but he managed to keep returning fire for a bit. (An AK-47 is significantly more damaging than a 9mm pistol btw) That obviously doesn't happen in every case, but people have been known to survive being repeatedly shot and just one round doesn't always immobilize the target, particularly when it's coming from a pistol.

not to detract from the fact that your friend was shot but aren't police ammo usually hollow points? from what i understand those are designed to just do massive amount of damage to soft targets vs Aks which i dont even know if they come in hollow points (goes straight through rather than explode within the target. (honest question)

Hollow points are a pretty common ammo type now days (for both pistols and rifles). A rifle bullet is far worse then a pistol (even firing a hollow point) because it has a much greater velocity. Due to physics the damage that a bullet inflicts depends on the amount of energy it transfers, the more energy the more damage. The ways that you generate that energy is the mass of the bullet (size) and the speed at which it's traveling. Rifle bullets not only tend to be larger and heavier but also travel much faster, thats why depending on the caliber they will penetrate body armor where most pistols will be stopped even at point blank range. A 9mm bullet will be stopped by most body armor, while a bullet from an AK can often penetrate through both the front and back of that armor. (as well as the person in between that armor)

The type of wounds that are inflicted will also vary a lot, both with the type of ammo being used but also dependent on if it hits flesh or it impacts bone. Smaller and lighter rounds striking a bone are often stopped or ricochet, a heavier faster round will completely shatter the bone which leads to massive internal injuries that are much more difficult to treat then a standard bullet wound (hitting flesh).

Because of the way rifle bullets are shaped and their heavier mass they have a natural deformation when striking a target that causes them to mushroom, pistol bullets are lighter and on a standard round don't deform in the same way; so hollow points are used to help replicate a similar mushroom effect like what happens on rifle ammo. Rifle rounds are typically much more damaging as they have a built in mushroom effect along with the extra mass and velocity.

 whembly wrote:
Via twittah:

News over twitter is bad and should feel bad.

 pretre wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Via twittah:

News over twitter is bad and should feel bad.

Yeah... but CNN.

Right?

<hangs head in shame>

The interesting thing though... is that this is a different third source that clained that Wilson was in fact beaten badly before the shooting.

 easysauce wrote:

right, im sure the first thing that is supposed to be going through the cops head is "I wonder how valuable this person, who just broke my face, life is. 4 bullets? ten? six? yeah, six sounds good, I think on the manual black guys get six bullets"

So let me understand, either

A: The diet of McDonalds and American reality TV has bred a form of SUPER CRIMINAL, faster, stronger, feeling less pain than anywhere else in the world, america is under siege these monsters that absolutely will never stop until they are dead, however once(if) they leave the country they have been removed from the source of their power and become normal again, so they exist nowhere else and these actions are completely justified.

or

B: The rest of the civilized world have found a way of dealing with their criminals that does not involve gunning them down in the street regularly

Which is it?

I am done arguing with Dakka gun brigade why shooting people dead is bad. It is possible to have a different kind of gun culture, it is possible to have different kind of police force. And it saves lives, you just don't seem to want that. Good day and enjoy the blood bath, I guess.