Police shot driver in self-defence

[beyond_ban]

Originally posted by tobslau
^ +1

I highly doubt that cops will ever shoot to kill, usually they just shoot in self defence and by some chance the person is killed.

What he meant is that they do not shoot to injure. Sure, they shoot for body mass, but they dont try to hit the less vital areas such as the stomach or shoulders. They shoot for the vitals such as the heart or lungs to make sure that they drop their man.

Dayglow? Philz?

[revelations]

I'm going to back peddle a bit.... The police shoot to bring down a threat (eg. person coming at you with a knife) at the centre of mass, but the heart/lungs also are in the same area which normally cause a fatal injury.

Less chance of stray bullets as well this way (instead of aiming for the head for eg.).

[Redlyne_mr2]

Originally posted by beyond_ban


What he meant is that they do not shoot to injure. Sure, they shoot for body mass, but they dont try to hit the less vital areas such as the stomach or shoulders. They shoot for the vitals such as the heart or lungs to make sure that they drop their man.

Dayglow? Philz?

It's very very rare that an officer has to draw his gun and although they have experience on a firing range nothing prepares you for shooting a live moving target under a stressful situation. They basically shoot for wherever they can and I can't imagine any of them would ever want to actually kill someone unless of course it meant life or death for them.

[CUG]

I would have gone for the non-responsive zone, and painted the interior with this fellows brain matter. /armchair cop

Even at the range there's a bit of stress while practicing this type of thing, and from what I hear, no it's not even remotely as close to drawing down on a live target.

[beyond_ban]

I have a fairly decent shot from 50 yards, as i have shot my fair share of guns ( gotta love family from the eastern states), but i could not imagine how much harder it would be to aim in real life situations. Not only is there the stress of the dangerous situation at hand, but then there are so many variables such as innocent civilians and the such. Does anyone have any kind of link to a study showing the differences between range and real time firing scenarios?

[broken_legs]

This time I will not wear the police hater shirt:

I think the cops were justified in shooting this kid from the way the article makes it sound.


I will try a different angle:

Too bad normal people aren't justified in protecting their own lives like police are...

[chkolny541]

Originally posted by Redlyne_mr2

It's very very rare that an officer has to draw his gun and although they have experience on a firing range nothing prepares you for shooting a live moving target under a stressful situation. They basically shoot for wherever they can and I can't imagine any of them would ever want to actually kill someone unless of course it meant life or death for them.

exactly what i was going to say, they shoot to HIT

[IRL]

Originally posted by chkolny541


exactly what i was going to say, they shoot to INCAPACITATE

fixed.

[beyond_ban]

Originally posted by IRL

Originally posted by chkolny541


exactly what i was going to say, they shoot to DECAPITATE

fixed.

FIXED (?)

[DayGlow]

We are trained to shoot to stop the threat. Now the very nature of the threat is life threatening, so it needs to be stopped immediately. The most effective way to stop it quickly is to shut down the cardiovascular or nervous system. The side effect of this unfortunately usually means death. Death isn't the goal, but a likely outcome because of the nature of the trauma inflicted.

The idea of center mass means the largest target area available at the time. Usually means the torso, which also is tightly packed with organs. Damage to the organs means that the body shuts down faster, which is the goal. At the same time center mass could be anything. It was last year that the aggressor was fighting a cop hand to hand with a knife. His partner shot him in the leg because that was the largest clear target he had. That was 'center mass' for that incident.

As for effective shots on a car, as someone else stated, hollow point bullets do not react well to paneling, windshields, etc. Also the human head itself with it's curved skull will more often than not deflect rounds. Simply put handguns are defensive weapons, not offensive.

[nrt_vw]

Good job to the cops.

[szw]

Originally posted by Redlyne_mr2
Totally justifiable if it's legit. What I don't understand is this whole revving the engine part. Did the suspect drop the car into neutral, rev the engine, then put it back into drive? The whole revving the engine sounds a bit melodramatic.

It says "revved the engine and accelerated", "revved the engine, and then began to accelerate".

A bit unclear obviously, but I took it to mean he was accelerating as fast as he could (as evidenced by the revving) rather than slowly or even briskly accelerating.

[dandia89]

Originally posted by szw

It says "revved the engine and accelerated", "revved the engine, and then began to accelerate".

A bit unclear obviously, but I took it to mean he was accelerating as fast as he could (as evidenced by the revving) rather than slowly or even briskly accelerating.

he shoulda watched his rpm, coulda saved his life

[beyond_ban]

Originally posted by dandia89

he shoulda watched his rpm, coulda saved his life

First of all, he didn't die so there would have been no "life saving." Secondly, that wasn't funny if that's what you were going for.

[InLoveWitRSX]

what shocks me the most is that this happened in such a nice neighbourhood