Violent protest erupts in Ferguson, MO over deadly police shooting

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.

**Crimson**

As apparently people are still interested, here is an article related to the leg shot policy. It is an article relating to the practice in Czech Republic. Now, you may question the wisdom of the practice, but there actually are countries where the police officers are trained to do this.

http://www.policeone.com/international/articles/3468104-Shooting-center-mass-Im-told-we-kill-everyone/

(I don't think the practice is exactly the same in Finland as in Czech Republic, but there are a lot of similarities.)
This whole tangent reminds me of discussions of healthcare or criminal corrections system with Americans; there are always a lot of people who absolutely refuse to believe that things are done differently in other places, and sometimes it could even work better.

**Dreadclaw69**

Crimson wrote:
As apparently people are still interested, here is an article related to the leg shot policy. It is an article relating to the practice in Czech Republic. Now, you may question the wisdom of the practice, but there actually are countries where the police officers are trained to do this.

http://www.policeone.com/international/articles/3468104-Shooting-center-mass-Im-told-we-kill-everyone/

(I don't think the practice is exactly the same in Finland as in Czech Republic, but there are a lot of similarities.)
This whole tangent reminds me of discussions of healthcare or criminal corrections system with Americans; there are always a lot of people who absolutely refuse to believe that things are done differently in other places, and sometimes it could even work better.

We'll leave aside the irony of you decrying the US's gun culture because it doesn't match the Finnish experience. I'm still not seeing where it says that's the policy in Finland.

It isn't that people refuse to believe things are done differently elsewhere. But when someone makes a huge unsubstantiated claim expect to have people ask you to provide evidence.

**Crimson**

Of for FFS, this place is worse than YMDC, I said earlier 'So either, the Finnish police are amazingly bad shots (and try to conserve the bullets by usually shooting a single shot) and fail to hit the centre of the mass and accidentally hit a leg instead, or they're trained differently.' The former option was actually a joke, it is not a logical conclusion based on the evidence.

Tomi Kataja, use of force teacher in the Finnish Police Academy comments on a certain recent shooting case, where a gun man was shot in the leg by the police, explaining why that was done: "The law does not specify at what part of the body the officer should aim, however a shot in a limb is much less likely to be fatal. If the danger is especially serious, a shot in the torso may be used."

So yes, it is perfectly intentional. Are we finally done?

**CptJake**

So the take away is the Czechs do use guns to kill bad guys (the two to the head one to the chest comment) but rather than have their cops use actual non-lethal means as they go up the escalation of force scale, they have them shoot lethal weapons in an attempt to wound. That would not work here, and part three of that series explains why (I've pasted a section below).

"Yeah, the only tool I'm gonna give you is a hammer, but you can use it on these screws if you are really careful".

And I again submit, if non-lethal force is what the situation calls for, a gun was the wrong tool. At least a handgun loaded with regular bullets was the wrong tool.

At 2-3 meters, stun guns, baton, pepper and CS sprays, bean bag rounds from a shotgun, and other tools are much better if the goal is really just to wound/stop.

After Thoughts
The purpose of sharing this experience is not to push an agenda but rather to present an opportunity to think once again about our policing methodologies. By thinking about it again we will either see a need to change, or gain stronger resolve in our current commitment. There are so many things that we have stopped thinking about in police work because we have grown comfortable in our methods and manners. But like everything in history, yesterday’s certainties usually become tomorrow’s superstitions.

The argument has been made that we don’t shoot to kill, because if we did, we would continue firing even after the threat has stopped. Time and again officers empty their magazines into suspects, firing until the weapon runs dry. It’s common where suspects are filled with dozens of bullets when the smoke clears. We are aware that “over-shoot” is a survival instinct bought on by high arousal and extreme stress — it is something that we can explain but also something that invariably casts doubt on our training methods.

America is a strange place. Police officers and their agencies are constantly under the threat of lawsuits and this is different than in most other parts of the world. Adopting more difficult policies raises the level of responsibility and ultimately the officer’s accountability. Where the civil courts allow failed responsibilities to be paid out in monetary premiums, no one is eager to lay down their own minefield. Damned if you do — damned if you don’t as the saying goes.

This is probably why American police are reluctant to adopt policies that suggest that shooting in certain scenarios might be intended only to wound, for fear that a wounding shot might accidentally kill. No, it is better for a killing shot to accidentally wound. American police routinely adopt policies that plan for the worst, and hope for the best.

Center mass shots will likely remain the only target area taught and supported by training in the United States. If we don’t have a justification to kill, then we simply teach to not shoot. We prefer a model where we aren’t forced to account so much for accuracy, rather our mission is to describe the elements of using deadly force. We prefer that our accountability virtually end at the squeeze of the trigger.

If the bullet hits and kills, that’s OK — if it doesn’t kill, perhaps that’s better?

http://www.policeone.com/Officer-Safety/articles/3468102-Shooting-center-mass-The-dangers-of-denial/

**Dreadclaw69**

Imagine the nerve of asking someone to back up their position. The gall.

You haven't shown any evidence whatsoever that this alleged practice is common place in Finland, showing that it exists in the Czech Republic does not prove your point. Now you've posted a quote from someone with no context and no verifiable source. One person's alleged, unsubstantiated opinion does not prove that any sort of policy exists. Given your own bias I hope you'll forgive us in being skeptical of your claims, especially when you are unable to substantiate them.

I'm loathe to repost this, but in case it was missed the first time; http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/08/mike-mcdaniel/shooting-wound-selling-popcorn/

Robert recently posted an article on a question posed to a guest by CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer:

“On Thursday, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer asked guest [lawyer] Jeffrey Toobin why police weren’t instructed to ‘shoot to injure, instead of kill,’ talkingpointsmemo.com reports. “Blitzer’s questions arose during a discussion on the unfurling conflict in Ferguson, Mo. over the fatal police shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown. ‘They often shoot to kill,’ Blitzer said of police. ‘Why do they have to shoot to kill? Why can’t they shoot a warning shot in the air, scare someone off if they think they’re in danger. Why can’t they shoot to, injure, shall we say? Why do they have to shoot to kill?’”

Blitzer’s question is, sadly, all too common . . .

Americans are treated to a steady stream of good guys purposely and casually wounding bad guys, usually in the shoulder. On TV and in the movies, such beyond-Olympic-level shooting always disarms and incapacitates the bad guy, and when the good guy is similarly wounded, they are barely inconvenienced and heal with amazing speed.

Not only is this sort of shooting incredibly dangerous to good guys and innocent bystanders, it’s almost always legally disastrous. In addition, any survivable gunshot wound may have life-long health implications. As regular readers may remember from an earlier article, one shoots to stop an attacker, to immediately–to whatever degree that is possible–cause them to cease the hostile actions that made the use of deadly force legally permissible. For the purposes of this article, we’ll assume that all legal burdens have been met. The good guy, under the laws in force when and where he has to shoot, is legally in the right when he pulls the trigger. But how is he going to accomplish his purpose: stopping the bad guy?

There are three primary means of stopping a human being:

Neural damage
Breaking the skeleton
Exsanguination
There are, however, many other considerations.

1) Neural Damage: causing trauma to the brain usually causes immediate cessation of hostile action. In fact, SWAT marksmen try for a brain stem shot whenever possible. They try to hit a hostage-taker exactly where the brain and brain stem meet, at the base of the rear of the skull. If properly placed, a bullet to this spot will cause the potential killer to drop as though a light switch had been thrown. Even if they have their finger on the trigger of a gun, they will not be able to pull it.

Unfortunately, this area is a very small target. In fact, relatively speaking, the human head is also a small target, particularly if it’s moving at all. Notice too that I’m talking about a highly trained marksman making the shot with a scoped, highly accurate rifle, almost always with the benefit of a spotter and from a supported position. Accurately shooting a handgun at the same target, even at close range, is much more demanding.

In addition, the target will seldom present the back of his skull to the shooter and stand still long enough for a perfect shot to be made. Marksmen commonly have to estimate where that tiny spot is while shooting from the front, side, above or below, or various angles of the same.

2) Breaking the skeleton: while breaking a femur or the pelvis, for example, will cause most people to drop to the ground, they may very well still be capable of pulling a trigger. And if so, have merely been rendered less mobile, not stopped. Making such shots with any degree of reliability with a handgun is exceedingly difficult, not only because such targets are small, but also because people move more or less constantly and the precise location of a major, load-bearing bone in a given person’s leg may be difficult, at best, to determine. It’s also particularly difficult because, compared with rifle ammunition, most handgun ammunition lacks the power to reliably break large bones.

3) Exsanguination: someone shot in an artery, or even the heart, may have up to three minutes of useful consciousness if they are truly determined to kill you regardless of the damage they suffer in the attempt. However, once sufficient blood is lost, the resulting drop in blood pressure will inevitably lead to unconsciousness and ultimately death.

Of course, a combination of these three primary effects may be more effective and faster in stopping hostile action.

Fortunately, such matters are not only physical, but psychological. Many people, upon receiving even an easily survivable gunshot wound, immediately drop and cease hostile action due to the “OMG! I’ve been shot!” response. Others–thankfully relatively few–may absorb ridiculous numbers of bullets which might slow, but not stop them, as they try to continue their deadly attacks. This is frequently assisted by drugs present in their system. Such people eventually succumb to one or more of these effects, but “eventually” is not helpful or comforting if they are attacking you.

The best course of action is to aim for “center mass,” or the part of the torso at or around the sternum, and fire enough rounds to force the attacker to stop. It’s the cumulative affect of blood vessel damage, neural shock, and psychological shock that will have the greatest effect, therefore more than one round may be necessary.

Keep in mind that it is always a good idea, even if you cannot avoid or escape a potential deadly force situation, to do your best to avoid shooting. Always remember that when the justification to shoot ends, the shooting immediately ends.

You must never think about “shooting to wound,” let alone try to do it. The law doesn’t require it, and it will be highly likely to backfire for several significant reasons. Obtaining the desired stopping effect with a shot that inflicts only a non-mortal wound is highly unlikely and could conceivably enrage an attacker who will then press an attack he might have otherwise abandoned. The necessary physical damage and psychological effect is simply not there, and making such a shot accurately is highly unlikely.

In fight-or-flight situations, among the first abilities human beings lose–which accompany time distortion, tunneling and hearing loss–is fine muscle control. This makes it very difficult, perhaps even impossible, to formulate the intention to shoot someone effectively in a small portion of the body so as to immediately disable them, to say nothing of actually carrying out that intention. For most people, it’s simply physically impossible. There are many documented incidents of police officers–people supposedly highly trained in marksmanship and the use of deadly force–emptying their handguns at criminals doing the same from ridiculously close range. When the gunsmoke cleared, both weren’t touched; every round missed. Hitting center mass will be more than hard enough, but with proper training and practice, attainable.

An additional concern is that in the heat of battle, many people suffer serious wounds, but are unaware of it until the danger has passed. Despite suffering multiple gunshot wounds that might eventually kill them, they didn’t so much as feel the bullets hit them. Some people may be so high on drugs they’re incapable of feeing anything. Shooting an arm or leg will likely do nothing more than make a dangerous felon who’s intent on killing you somewhat less mobile, but no less deadly. Hitting center mass will maximize the probability of quickly stopping a dangerous attacker—whether they feel it or not.

Also, substantial legal liability may attach. If you were so cool and detached that you could shoot someone in the knee, did you really have sufficient reason to shoot them in the first place? If you really thought that you were in mortal danger, why did you take the time to shoot them someplace that any reasonable person should know wouldn’t reliably stop them?

Yes, stopping them will likely result in their death, but you didn’t intend to cause their death. You intended only to stop them from causing yours. That they subsequently died is regrettable, but they made that choice and forced it upon you. You aren’t the attacker, but an innocent victim who will be affected for the rest of your life by the action they brutally forced on you.

In all cases, if you shoot at all, you shoot to stop, and you accomplish this by delivering a sufficient volume of accurate fire to that part of the body most likely to cause them to stop. When the threat has stopped, you immediately stop.

At this point, you may find yourself experiencing some degree of revulsion. If so, good for you. You have a conscience. I can’t say often enough that no moral, rational human being wants to harm or kill another. Violence is cruel, nasty, hateful and bloody, but the choice is simple and stark: do you prefer to be alive and unharmed, or bleeding, perhaps dying on the ground, at the mercy of someone cruel and inhuman enough to attack you? Which alternative would you prefer for those you love? Which of these outcomes is morally superior?

Deadly force encounters aren’t scripted scenes in movies. They’re as deadly serious as any human interaction can be, and the loser frequently winds up assuming ambient temperature. Leave shooting to wound to the movies. An action hero’s job is to sell popcorn, and they don’t have to aim and shoot under pressure. They can afford the luxury of shooting to wound. You can’t, regardless of what Wolf Blitzer thinks.

**cincydooley**

I'm sorry, but shooting someone in the leg is not only ineffective at stopping an assailant, but anyone who says it's less dangerous must have far better aim than me. If you're "aiming" for the meat of the leg it would be VERY easy to hit the femoral. Also known as one of the largest arteries in the body. Hit that and the bleed out is pretty quick. Like less than a minute before you pass out quick.

**Ensis Ferrae**

MrDwhitey wrote:
What, they don't?

Isn't that why they all join the police force? That's what people keeping telling me.

I thought they joined for the mustaches

**hotsauceman1**

Ok, so. He has a gun pointed at him. rather then get one the ground he walks over a wall, to me that looks stupid. I think he is holding a knife backwards(with the bade facing to his back) But I may be seeing something. If I was an officer, I would think he was trying to flank me or something like that.

**Dreadclaw69**

cincydooley wrote:
I'm sorry, but shooting someone in the leg is not only ineffective at stopping an assailant, but anyone who says it's less dangerous must have far better aim than me. If you're "aiming" for the meat of the leg it would be VERY easy to hit the femoral. Also known as one of the largest arteries in the body. Hit that and the bleed out is pretty quick. Like less than a minute before you pass out quick.

Out of Crimson's own list of 13;
- 4 deaths from officer shootings (30.8%)
- 1 assailant shot in leg, no indication of number of shots fired, attempted to get up, shot in leg by a second officer, assailant later dies, second officer convicted of negligent homicide (7.7%)
- 1 suicide after being shot (7.7%)
- 5 assailants stopped after being shot in limb, but no indication of number of shots fired (38.5%)
- 1 inconclusive example where the officer fired two shots at assailant while being carried along on his vehicle, officer suspected of using unreasonable force (7.7%)
- 1 assailant was shot at, no indication of number of shots fired, no hits, and assailant surrendered (7.7%)
[all % rounded to one decimal place]

So we have as many killed by the police shooting as we do people being incapacitated by shooting at limbs, excluding the suicide.

Reading the synopsis of the negligent homicide and excessive force it seems that the Finnish legal system has extremely strict limits on the application of force, especially as it seems that the assailant in both cases still posed a risk after the first shot.

**Jihadin**

Crimson step up to take the place of Ronin?

**jasper76**

Derp... http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/08/22/tsr-lemon-officer-relieved-of-duty-in-ferguson.cnn.html?c=homepage-t

Starting to wonder about that police force there, St. Louis.

**Jihadin**

Two words.

"Bone Head"

**jasper76**

yup

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Wrong shooting dogma. This did not happen in Ferguson.

Ah, my mistake then. I saw "St. Louis" and assumed it was directly connected to Ferguson due to the the nature of this thread.

**Eilif**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Imagine the nerve of asking someone to back up their position. The gall.

You haven't shown any evidence whatsoever that this alleged practice is common place in Finland, showing that it exists in the Czech Republic does not prove your point. Now you've posted a quote from someone with no context and no verifiable source. One person's alleged, unsubstantiated opinion does not prove that any sort of policy exists. Given your own bias I hope you'll forgive us in being skeptical of your claims, especially when you are unable to substantiate them.

To be fair, Crimson said it was practice in Finland and then a bunch of us said "this isn't the practice anywhere". Then he showed us where it is the practice. I'm not convinced of his side regarding the value of the practice, but I don't think his evidence regarding the existance of the practice as invalid as some would like it to be. His point is at least half made.

You can't always expect full verification of every government's policy on the internet because it's not always there.

**Jihadin**

Difference between practice and Standard Operating Procedure. Gave the vibe that Fin LEO are trained to limb a suspect

**Dreadclaw69**

Eilif wrote:
To be fair, Crimson said it was practice in Finland and then a bunch of us said "this isn't the practice anywhere". Then he showed us where it is the practice. I'm not convinced of his side regarding the value of the practice, but I don't think his evidence regarding the existance of the practice as invalid as some would like it to be. His point is at least half made.

You can't always expect full verification of every government's policy on the internet because it's not always there.

Many of us voiced skepticism because it seemed to be a practice that flies directly in the face of conventional wisdom, and because it was such a bold claim we asked him to substantiate it. Instead of that we got insults hurled at us, a temporary rage quit from the thread, a list of incidents were there was the same number of deaths as incapacitations, an article about the Czech Republic, unverified comments from an alleged police trainer, and not a single verifiable fact.

To say that his point is half made would be generous in the extreme.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jihadin wrote:
Difference between practice and Standard Operating Procedure. Gave the vibe that Fin LEO are trained to limb a suspect

Maybe it's just me but I'm interested in what the Finnish legal system has to say on this matter. Shooting a suspect in the head who posed a risk was fine, shooting someone a second time after he was shot in the leg and attempted to get up (still posed a threat) was negligent homicide, and firing two shots to wound someone driving along with the officer still on the hood of his vehicle (officer in serious risk of injury/death) was excessive force.

**d-usa**

Germany hardly ever shoots anyone, why can't the US learn?

(No idea if it's true. But the PEW PEW PEW always makes me giggle...)

**Crimson**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

To say that his point is half made would be generous in the extreme.

Police risk assessment and use of force practices are complicated matters. If you expect some clear 'always shoot in the leg' rule, I cannot find one for you as such doesn't exist. You must also understand that Finland is a tiny country no one cares about, so online resources and studies on these matters will be much more limited than those pertaining America. I found couple of studies on the matter, but I am not going to start translating them for you. Couple of points from those though: in training it is stressed that when firing a gun intent should never be to kill, but neutralise the threat (and apparently unlike in America, these are not seen as one and the same thing.) Now in practice sometimes neutralising the threat means killing, and the police has the legal right to do so.
(Please not the at my earlier examples contain more shooting that end in death than the statistics would suggest. those were high profile cases I could find info on, and death of a suspect makes a case automatically big new. Real number for shootings that end up killing the suspect is something like 10%.)

Frankly, while I knew American police operates differently, I was not prepared to level of incredulousness the idea of the police shooting intentionally in a leg would cause. To me it is obvious that it is an option, and I was not aware how ingrained the shoot-to-kill dogma was. Well, at least this thread has been educational on that regard.

Maybe it's just me but I'm interested in what the Finnish legal system has to say on this matter. Shooting a suspect in the head who posed a risk was fine, shooting someone a second time after he was shot in the leg and attempted to get up (still posed a threat) was negligent homicide, and firing two shots to wound someone driving along with the officer still on the hood of his vehicle (officer in serious risk of injury/death) was excessive force.

In the first case the suspect was already hit and down, and it was not seen as a reasonable threat that he would actually get up, and catch the police officers while hopping on one leg. In the second case the police officer was in a patrol vehicle (a big, sturdy van), which was dragged in front of the truck, But I researched that one more, the officer was suspected of excessive use of force, but apparently was never charged (I might have said earlier he was charged, I blame tabloids), so in the end the shooting was deemed legal.

This whole tangent started with the video of Kajieme Powell shooting, as there to me the police use of force seemed absolutely excessive. It seems questionable to me if any shots were needed at all (why the officers didn't have a taser, mace or even a baton?) But if the guy needed to be shot at all, that was exactly the sot of situation where a single leg shot would have likely solved the situation, and with less risk to the bystanders too (it seems really dangerous to me to shoot several shots at the chest level, when there are people standing behind the target.)

**Dreadclaw69**

So you still have absolutely nothing whatsoever to back up your claims?

**Shadow Captain Edithae**

Crimson wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:

To say that his point is half made would be generous in the extreme.

Police risk assessment and use of force practices are complicated matters. If you expect some clear 'always shoot in the leg' rule, I cannot find one for you as such doesn't exist.

You made the claim.
And now you're backtracking and pretending that there is no such policy, contradicting your previous comments.

Perhaps you should stop digging, before you reach China.

**Crimson**

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
You made the claim.
And now you're backtracking and pretending that there is no such policy, contradicting your previous comments.

I'm not backtracking. It is not any single rule, it is the whole risk assessment and use of force procedure that leads to limb shots taken in certain situations.

To my claim to be false, it would require the Finnish police to be absolutely terrible shots, and failing to kill their intended targets most of the time, and the person who is responsible in training new police officers to lie in a newspaper about the procedure.

Perhaps you should stop digging, before you reach China.

I'm in Finland, I'd reach New Zealand (I hear it is a lovely place.)

**sparkywtf**

You can think it all you want, American Police are not trained to shoot to kill. They are trained to shoot to end the threat. The best way to do that is multiple rounds to center mass (and there is plenty of research showing this is the best and most effective). It just so happens you are fairly likely to die from that.

In the US, an officer willfully taking a shot to wound would probably be charged with excessive force.

I will find the article, but according to the article it said that in less than 1% of cases, arrestees claim that police used force against them with most reporting they escalated in some way.

Actually the article is pretty good and worth reading. Answers 6 questions.

http://www.policeone.com/use-of-force/articles/7489476-Fergusons-6-top-use-of-force-questions-A-cops-response/

Of course I am sure some of you will just find it bias and blow the whole thing off and just listen to some reporter who doesn't know the first thing about ear plugs.

**Tactical_Genius**

cincydooley wrote:
I'm sorry, but shooting someone in the leg is not only ineffective at stopping an assailant, but anyone who says it's less dangerous must have far better aim than me. If you're "aiming" for the meat of the leg it would be VERY easy to hit the femoral. Also known as one of the largest arteries in the body. Hit that and the bleed out is pretty quick. Like less than a minute before you pass out quick.

See: Black Hawk Down.

Also:-
ITT: Every logical fallacy known to man

**Relapse**

Now the White House is sending representitives to the funeral:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/24/us/missouri-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

I'll be expecting them to send representitives to the funeral of the unarmed teen recently gunned down by the black cop here in Salt Lake

http://kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_13131.shtml

or the funeral of the police chief in Texas who was gunned down as he served a warrent for graphiti

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/23/us/texas-police-chief-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

**Eilif**

Relapse wrote:
Now the White House is sending representitives to the funeral:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/24/us/missouri-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

I'll be expecting them to send representitives to the funeral of the unarmed teen recently gunned down by the black cop here in Salt Lake

http://kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_13131.shtml

or the funeral of the police chief in Texas who was gunned down as he served a warrent for graphiti

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/23/us/texas-police-chief-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

The President can't send reps to every funeral, and folks (especially his critics) are always going to say "why that , but not this" but this death has caused such national uproar and become the focus of so many issues even beyond the shooting, that he has to send someone.

**Inquisitor Gonzo**

Crimson wrote:

This whole tangent started with the video of Kajieme Powell shooting, as there to me the police use of force seemed absolutely excessive. It seems questionable to me if any shots were needed at all (why the officers didn't have a taser, mace or even a baton?) But if the guy needed to be shot at all, that was exactly the sot of situation where a single leg shot would have likely solved the situation, and with less risk to the bystanders too (it seems really dangerous to me to shoot several shots at the chest level, when there are people standing behind the target.)

I've made this point before in another thread - you don't muck around with knives.

In Scotland we only carry incapacitant spray and extendable batons. If we encounter someone with a knife - or even a substantial blunt weapon like a baseball bat - I would be looking to back off and contain the threat and wait for better-equipped officers to deal with him (firearms/public order/dogs). Spray and batons are not reliable enough and require you to be too close to the threat. Similar issue with Taser - if even one prong misses or they fail to penetrate clothing then the Taser won't discharge and you are left with a threat at very close range.

Don't be blaise about the threat posed by a person with a knife. Edged weapons were the weapon of choice for humanity for centuries and at point blank range a knife has several advantages over even a semi-automatic pistol - a knife cannot jam (well, it could jam inside the targets body I suppose but that's not particularly desirable), it doesn't need to reload, and you can cut and stab with it.

I think folks also have to realise that beat or response officers are not SFO/SWAT officers - they don't spend most of their time training and putting thousands of rounds downrange a year as practise. The standard is to aim for the centre mass because that's not only where rounds that hit will have good effect, it's also because it's the biggest and least mobile part of the human body. Limbs and the head are not only smaller targets but they also jerk around a fair bit.

It's also worth bearing in mind the debilitating effects of adrenaline on marksmanship. I've read a few comments here and on various other forums about the 'shockingly poor' accuracy of police officers in the US.

Shooting at a cardboard target on a firing range is not even remotely similar to engaging a hostile, moving, human target who you believe is a threat to your life and to the lives of others.

For those who have not been in a violent and possibly life-threatening situation - especially one that is spontaneous - here are some of the effects of adrenalin (from my experience at least):

- you get a really strange numb and cold feeling throughout your body, particularly your extremities;
- you tend to become quite clumsy, to the point where doing simple things like taking off a seat-belt or drawing a weapon can be difficult;
- you get tunnel-vision, and in my case tunnel-hearing (can't hear anything on the radio even with an ear-piece in);
- you tend to find yourself reacting out of instinct/training whilst your brain chugs along a few seconds behind it as a kind of detached observer('Oh I should really draw my baton now and rack it - oh look I've already done that and I can't even remember doing it');
- everything seems to happen really really quickly and really really slowly at the same time

Once the adrenalin wears off, the fun doesn't end! You'll probably find that:

- your hands will shake quite badly;
- you think the incident has been going on for minutes when in reality it's only been seconds;
- you get quite out-of-breath;
- you'll generally feel tired;
- when you get home/finish your shift you generally feel completely wrung out and exhausted but at the same time your mind will be replaying everything that's happened and under no circumstances will it want you to go to sleep

Now unless you have a significant amount of training and/or experience which allows you to still be able to function calmly under the effects of adrenaline or you have a sufficiently good 'auto-pilot' - it's going to be a lot harder for you to engage a target with a firearm, especially if it involves targeting a limb.

Remember also that you have to stop your target and you have to stop him right now - I've read of far too many incidents where individuals are shot and fatally wounded, and yet keep on going. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout is the classic example.

I sometimes think that policing and society in the west has become too successful in a way - we have sufficiently shielded the majority of the population from having direct experience of violence, however now folks have a very distorted idea of violence, how it is carried out, how it feels when you get involved in a violent situation, and how to deal with it. For anyone who is interested there is a very good book called 'Into the Kill Zone' by a guy called David Klinger which has many different accounts of incidents where police officers shoot someone, where they could have shot and didn't, where they themselves were injured - goes into the thought processes of it and it's absolutely fascinating.

**Relapse**

Eilif wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Now the White House is sending representitives to the funeral:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/24/us/missouri-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

I'll be expecting them to send representitives to the funeral of the unarmed teen recently gunned down by the black cop here in Salt Lake

http://kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_13131.shtml

or the funeral of the police chief in Texas who was gunned down as he served a warrent for graphiti

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/23/us/texas-police-chief-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

The President can't send reps to every funeral, and folks (especially his critics) are always going to say "why that , but not this" but this death has caused such national uproar and become the focus of so many issues even beyond the shooting, that he has to send someone.

But the case that just happened in Salt Lake involved a Black Cop shooting an unarmed teen. Surely the media and the president should have the same amount of outrage.

**SlaveToDorkness**

Eilif wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Now the White House is sending representitives to the funeral:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/24/us/missouri-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

I'll be expecting them to send representitives to the funeral of the unarmed teen recently gunned down by the black cop here in Salt Lake

http://kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_13131.shtml

or the funeral of the police chief in Texas who was gunned down as he served a warrent for graphiti

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/23/us/texas-police-chief-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

The President can't send reps to every funeral, and folks (especially his critics) are always going to say "why that , but not this" but this death has caused such national uproar and become the focus of so many issues even beyond the shooting, that he has to send someone.

So the solution is to cause more of an uproar when it happens.

OK, I'm off to loot burn & down my local Old Navy.

**Relapse**

SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Eilif wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Now the White House is sending representitives to the funeral:

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/24/us/missouri-teen-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

I'll be expecting them to send representitives to the funeral of the unarmed teen recently gunned down by the black cop here in Salt Lake

http://kutv.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_13131.shtml

or the funeral of the police chief in Texas who was gunned down as he served a warrent for graphiti

http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/23/us/texas-police-chief-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

The President can't send reps to every funeral, and folks (especially his critics) are always going to say "why that , but not this" but this death has caused such national uproar and become the focus of so many issues even beyond the shooting, that he has to send someone.

So the solution is to cause more of an uproar when it happens.

OK, I'm off to loot burn & down my local Old Navy.

The only reason I heard about the shooting in Salt Lake is because I live nearby. It wasn't even a blip in the major news carriers articles for the day.