Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mr Mephisto
However, there is NO EXCUSE for police to open fire on someone in these circumstances. Whilst I don't necessarily believe the figure of "300 shots fired", what on Earth were these people thinking when they fired at this man and his hostage?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pan6467
However, I have to ask how endangered these officers felt that they had to just blow the baby away to get to the man.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by qtpye4u84
Thats sad. They should of waited tell they had a clear shot, but I guess they did what they had to do.
|
If you're wondering what they were thinking or what they felt, the answer to the first was "Officer down" and the second, that they had to stop this guy before anyone else was killed. In a situation in which a suspect is firing at officers and civilians, the only clear shot is the immediate one that can take the suspect down
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Psycho Dad
Tasers. I saw one used across the street from me a while back. While I was sceptical of the amount that my small town city government spent on them at first, I was sold after seeing one in use. Given that the situation was put down without anyone in the neighborhood getting hurt or any property damage I can see their use now.
|
I've been hit with a police-issue stungun and pepper spray on a bet, and they did jack shit. the only way anyone found to drop me with the stungun (no head/groin shots allowed) was to position the electrodes on opposite sides of my spine. I said some nice, firendly things to accompany the shin kick when I finally stood back up.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Daniel_
Maybe if they armed the police with .22s they would have fewer fatalities?
|
It's possible that they would have fewer fatalities to armed suspects who shot first, and to armored targets, but we'd also have a lot more deaths among officers who had to sit back and watch their ammo do jack shit to a lightly armored target. If you're talking about the FN 5.7x28 round (5.7mm is almost identical to .22), it has superior performance to many 9mm rounds and wouldn't result in any lesss fatalities.
The issue that I have with your response is that it seems you're concerned with police killing people who pose an immediate threat to ther lives. That's the only situation in which they're allowed to shoot in the first place.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lindalove
I don't think anyone has said/implied that the police shouldn't have shot back at the man.. but surely they could have shot him in the leg or even the arm to basically shoot the gun out of his hand.. instead of shooting the child?
|
The only hits that can reliably incapacitate a human are center-of-mass (reflexive neurocirculatory shock reuslts in instant incapacitation ~95% of the time on first shots and ~98% if a second shot is required,) and the head. Limb shots, in addition to being nearly impossible to achieve, do nothing to incapacitate the suspect and also risk a shot missing or passing through. They
only work in movies and games.
If you want to learn more about how bullets actually kill/incapacitate, search the Weaponry forum for a thread entitled "Hydrostatic shock."