And people wonder why they're called "Gun Nuts"

[Uberpod]

You "shoot to stop", which often means shoot to kill.

Shoot to stall if you shoot at all should be the new motto. We all have cell phone and can dial on voice command.

If someone has a gun or a knife, the person can still use the gun or knife if he is shot in the leg or arm.

And, we can be ready with a second shot if indicated.

Also shooting a moving target in potentially low light conditions under high stress is extremely difficult. If you are shooting it means your life or someone else's life is in imminent danger.

Whether there is imminent danger or not is often unclear.

You shoot to stop, and you don't place your life and/or someone else's life in jeopardy with some trick hand shot. That's for the movies.

Placing our lives at a chance of danger to avoid a lethal mistake is sometimes an acceptable risk as opposed to actually killing another human.

 

[CMike]

Well if you shoot to stop, you are shooting to stall.

Once again if you are shooting it means your life is in imminent danger. If it is you "shoot to stop".

Any other way of shooting the threat to your life still exists.

 

[Uberpod]

Well if you shoot to stop, you are shooting to stall.

Once again if you are shooting it means your life is in imminent danger. If it is you "shoot to stop".

Any other way of shooting the threat to your life still exists.

A certain level of threat is quite acceptable. There is threat when I drive or fly.

I, myself, will never own a gun - that poses it's own level of threat.

 

[oldbadger]

Police Captain's Manslaughter Trial Begins Today | Law Blog

Hello again.......... Here are some of your examples of Police being convicted after trying to defend themselves..... ready?

Captain Harrison shot Scott in March 2012 as the suspect in a drug deal was attempting to flee. Although typically an officer is allowed to use deadly force to protect his or her own safety or to protect public safety, prosecutors say that Scott was unarmed and fleeing when he was shot in the back, and that his shooting was outside the bounds of acceptable use of lethal force by a police officer.


According to officials, Wendell Allen, the victim, was standing at the top of the stairs in his New Orleans home when police began a drug raid. Allen, who was shirtless and entirely unarmed, was quickly shot to death by then-officer Colclough. Colclough’s attorney says that he made a split-second decision that he’ll have to live with “until the day he dies”.

As they approached him, Ferrell allegedly charged at the officers, one of whom stunned him with a Taser.
Ferrell allegedly continued to run toward the officers — and that’s when Kerrick fired his gun, striking Ferrell multiple times, according to police. He was pronounced dead at the scene.

Uberpod........ these police were not defending themselves...... any of them.

Plx could you produce an example of any police officer being convicted for killing an attacker? You can include police who have killed persons running at them with fake guns, ok? Does that help you?

Now........ I believe that the report about the attacked 60yr old woman was false, but how would you decide about her case? This one is slightly easier for you because some of her five shots were probably taken as the group of seven youths turned to run away. Do you think she was wrong? Would you like to convict her? If so, what sentence would you like to impose upon her?

What do you think? What would you have done?

 

[oldbadger]

'Shoot to stall if you shoot at all' should be the new motto. We all have cell phone and can dial on voice command.

Who would you like to call on that cell-phone? What would you like the called person to do?

Whether there is imminent danger or not is often unclear.

Placing our lives at a chance of danger to avoid a lethal mistake is sometimes an acceptable risk as opposed to actually killing another human.

You write 'placing our lives at a chance of danger.....'
Are you a police officer? If not, could you tell us what you do for a living? This would help immensely.

 

[psychoslice]

A certain level of threat is quite acceptable. There is threat when I drive or fly.

I, myself, will never own a gun - that poses it's own level of threat.

What if you were in the police force ?.

 

[oldbadger]

Of course there are legitimate circumstances when a perp must be killed like when he is sniping at a crowd.
And, there are others that a thinking officer could use a range of nonlethal options.

Oh dear..... Uberpod.....
There's only one big difference between the sniper and attacker scenarios, , Uberpod..... did you see yourself in that crowd when you wrote that? Did you want to be certainly saved from that sniper? Is that it?

I've got to tell you this. If I was a serving police officer in a locality where you were the police commissioner, I would have no choice but to hand in my immediate resignation and apply for another job. Any job. That's all I can say, now.

 

[Riverwolf]

There are knife disarming techniques; heck, there's SWORD disarming techniques that go back hundreds of years. If it's possible to disarm someone who has a sword, it's possible to do likewise with a knife. I'm not talking about Kung Fu, either, although there's certainly disarming techniques in actual Chinese CQC; I'm talking about medieval European CQC.

These can be learned and applied. With that in mind, it's tempting to call guns the lazy man's self-defense, although I know that's unfair and untrue, since learning CQC can take a lot of time which not everyone has, and not everyone has a body type that's suited to the physical strain required.

Shooting to kill when there's no other immediate alternative (and searching for one will definitely get you killed) is acceptable, although I would personally perform some sort of ritual in addition to reporting to the police to stand trial. The best solution, then, is to determine alternatives in advance.

 

[Revoltingest]

There are knife disarming techniques; heck, there's SWORD disarming techniques that go back hundreds of years. If it's possible to disarm someone who has a sword, it's possible to do likewise with a knife. I'm not talking about Kung Fu, either, although there's certainly disarming techniques in actual Chinese CQC; I'm talking about medieval European CQC.

I'm sure that its "possible" to survive a hand-to-knife fight without spilling a lot of blood.
But I sure wouldn't use the word "likely".
I once met a guy who was very advanced in Aikido (& perhaps other fancy martial arts). He explained that bad guys in the real world carry very sharp thingies (not his word), & that they can be quite fell with them. So he carried a weapon he could legally take everywhere....a couple wrenches with the ends tied together, ie, a grease monkey's nunchucks.
It has been said: In a knife fight, expect to be cut.

These can be learned and applied. With that in mind, it's tempting to call guns the lazy man's self-defense, although I know that's unfair and untrue, since learning CQC can take a lot of time which not everyone has, and not everyone has a body type that's suited to the physical strain required.

I like the idea of the "lazy man's self-defense"....& the "lazy gal's self-defense" too.
Survive by minimum risk & effort.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It's ironic when you consider that if these guys had tried something similar in Baghdad, the U.S. military may have filmed their deaths from the cockpit of an Apache gunship. What one is to make of this irony, I'm not sure ... except to say that there seem to exist sacred, inviolable rights that only Americans deserve.

In any event I just want to add my voice to the chorus of those who say what the gun-group did was in bad taste. Also, according to the USA Today article, at some point they went to a nearby Hooters. Perhaps that was just a coincidence, but it would confirm their total lack of class if it wasn't.

 

[metis]

My neighbor when growing up was stabbed 17 times during his job as a police officer, and yet he lived to become chief of police. Needless to say, if he had been shot 17 times, he probably wouldn't have made chief.

 

[BSM1]

My neighbor when growing up was stabbed 17 times during his job as a police officer, and yet he lived to become chief of police. Needless to say, if he had been shot 17 times, he probably wouldn't have made chief.

While we're speculating, if he had access to a firearm he may have only been stabbed once. Why don't we ask the chief what his preference may have been at the time.

 

[metis]

While we're speculating, if he had access to a firearm he may have only been stabbed once. Why don't we ask the chief what his preference may have been at the time.

He did have access to a firearm since all of these occurred when he was on duty. Now, don't ask me how he responded because I don't know, but I do gotta feeling.

 

[BSM1]

He did have access to a firearm since all of these occurred when he was on duty. Now, don't ask me how he responded because I don't know, but I do gotta feeling.

Sorry but the way your post read I thought the neighbor was 17. Let's rephrase it then: if he could have drawn his firearm do you think he would have shot to wound?

 

[metis]

Sorry but the way your post read I thought the neighbor was 17. Let's rephrase it then: if he could have drawn his firearm do you think he would have shot to wound?

No. Shooting to wound puts others at risk, and police are trained to go for body shots.

 

[BSM1]

[

quote=metis;3578958]No. Shooting to wound puts others at risk, and police are trained to go for body shots.

[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

 

[psychoslice]

No. Shooting to wound puts others at risk, and police are trained to go for body shots.

Yep and its the only way to go.