Would you shoot to kill?

[Carbonox]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Swedish-police-shoot-HEAD-armed-robbery.html

Quite simply, if you were a police officer facing a gang armed with heavy weapons robbing a store and potentially placing innocent civilians' lives in great danger, what would you do? If they weren't going to surrender, would you go in for a kill or attempt to incapacitate them any way you can?

I started this thread because I simply cannot understand how stupid some people can be when it comes to news like this. They're basically scolding the police officers for shooting this guy in the head, even though I see it as the only possible measure for a dangerous situation like this. If they only injured him with a leg shot, who knows what he could have done even if grounded, as long as he had access to his weapon?

I have always believed that it only takes armed people (preferably trained) to stop crazy armed people from doing all their heinous acts against the civilians. Thus, I would shoot to kill if there was a SPANKed up madman opening fire at people in a mall or train station. Who knows, maybe even the presence of armed people in most public places could scare away all those nutheads?

And last but not least, here's some news items which, oddly enough, didn't get much media attention because there was actually a heroic gunman involved, who prevented the perpetrator from succeeding in their attack. The person in the first link didn't even need to fire a shot to stop it, now that's asking for a lot of guts.

http://easybakegunclub.com/blog/1968/Concealed-Carry-Hero-at-Portland-Mall---The-Full-S.html
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-...th-one-bullet/

 

[sumbrownkid]

Tasers are for incapacitating. Guns are for taking down goons when the heat gets too hot.

Personally, I can't ever see myself in such a situation. But I won't blame the cops of any wrongdoing. Things happen quickly, and with the knowledge that bullets travel faster than any neurological synapses in our nervous system, I'd probably shoot the guy where I know he will go down.

An AK-47 in the hands of a masked robber is more than enough incentive to shoot first ask questions later. I'll probably get flamed for that though.

 

[Northstar]

Nope, I shoot to thrill.

Seriously though, I would because they probably would kill me if I was in their way.

 

[DK]

Thus, I would shoot to kill if there was a SPANKed up madman opening fire at people in a mall or train station.

I see your love of GTA 3 hasn't waned.

On-topic: if there was no alternative, and I was a properly trained marksman, then yes, I would try to kill the madman your example mentions.

 

[SirAlanClive]

No idea. Doubt it. I wouldn't know how.

 

[cjmpe]

Well, let's see... First, you go for the torso, not the head. The head is a pretty small target when you are hopped up on adrenaline in a situation like this and since you are the police, you only have a handgun at close range, not a scoped rifle from 100m. I suspect that the head shot was more accidental than anything since the difference in gun barrel elevation angle between center chest and center of the nose at 10m is less than 2 degrees for the average human - and that looked a lot more than 10m to me.

You would think that the New York City police would be well trained in gun handling given the crime problems in that city and in the aftermath of 9/11, but in the incident at the Empire State building last summer, all 9 people injured by bullets or bullet fragments were injured by the police and none by the gunman they were trying to kill (and did eventually).

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/25/justice/new-york-empire-state-shooting/index.html

Then there was this poor guy, unarmed, shot 19 times by police, but they fired 41 bullets in the process.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadou_Diallo_shooting

Now, I'm not saying that shooting someone isn't necessarily a bad thing in the right circumstances, but the situation is rarely as simple as a random web video or a video game might make it out to be. In fact the Swedish video shows a lot of shooting going on and only 1 person hit one time.

 

[Joel]

Police acted well here. Odds are they weren't shooting for the head though, most military or police training will instruct you to shoot for the torso, so it's doubtful they specifically went for the head.

 

[Omnis]

If you're a police officer going against guys with AKs, you call SWAT, set up a perimeter, and evacuate the premises. SWAT comes and ruins someone's day. That's their job. Violent criminals deserve a bullet in the brain. End of story.

If you're asking me as a civilian would I pull my gun out? No. Guns are for protecting your life, not for being a hero. The Oregon kid did the right thing, for example.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Depends on the Police officer really...

If I were this guy I would...

 

[Bopop4]

A gunman really should get the Six-Pack treatment, but yeah, kill'em dead.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

2 in the chest, 1 in the head.

 

[Nicksfix]

Criminals with AK47's ... it's not like they were looking to play a friendly little game of cops and robbers now does it ?

In a situation like this, it's not as if you can ask the criminal to stand still so you can fire a round into his leg or anywhere else to stop him. It is what it is, it's kill or be killed. Or in this case, a head shot to stop the perp.

 

[wfooshee]

There is no "incapacitate" in such a situation. If a leg shot makes it where he can't run, what keeps him from being able to shoot?

Not quoting exactly, but from the Florida class to obtain a concealed carry permit:
Never draw your weapon without the intent to use it.
Do not then threaten to use it, but use it immediately.
Shoot to kill.

 

[terminator363]

Skip to 4:20



If they put my life in risk I wouldn't mind putting theirs in risk. It seems fair.

 

[Pako]

With the mood I am in right now, I would rather just maim them. Killing would be too humane.

 

[niky]

As said... there's no such thing as incapacitate. You aim center mass. If you get a lucky headshot because you pulled up like a newb... lucky. If not, you've taken him down and he may or may not live.

 

[BobK]

This:

An AK-47 in the hands of a masked robber is more than enough incentive to shoot first ask questions later.

and this:

Violent criminals deserve a bullet in the brain. End of story.

👍 👍


However, this too:

If you're asking me as a civilian would I pull my gun out? No. Guns are for protecting your life, not for being a hero. The Oregon kid did the right thing, for example.

As mentioned above, don't attempt to use your firearm to attempt to threaten or intimidate the assailant. At the point where you draw your weapon, you should already have decided it's necessary to shoot to kill. So do so. If you don't intend to kill, don't draw.

 

[Zenith]

Firearm technology is not at a place yet where stopping the target can be guaranteed. There are too many variables when shooting a human to know how many shots it will take incapacitate them. The target's clothes, mental state, build, range, and most importantly shot placement can make one round seemingly ineffective and another "lights out."

Often times a threat is so hyped up on anger, drugs, or adrenaline that the only way to make them stop being a threat is to kill them. How do you know? You don't. That's the point.

Simply put, trying to hit that "sweet spot" where you incapacitate the target, but not kill it is too risky and downright irresponsible if others are at risk. Shoot until they are unable to cause you harm.

 

[sesselpupser]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257875/Robber-left-fighting-life-Swedish-police-shoot-HEAD-armed-robbery.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk

Daily Mail

Be sensible, kids, disregard anything and everything you read in the Daily Mail. I don't even use it as hutch lining for my guinea pigs on the off-chance they learn to read and become tiny furry, gullible bundles of sexism, racism, homophobia, xenophobia, omniphobia and general hate and fear of everything including themselves and their family, oh except for the Royal Family and underaged girls.


On topic, I personally wouldn't shoot to kill unless a gun was actually being fired, but I wouldn't ever judge anyone who has shot and killed an armed person who is yet to do anything worth shooting them for. I just feel much better if a criminal can be made to face up to what they did, though in this country that doesn't happen all that often... But then gun crime isn't all that common, and would you shoot a man armed with anything less than a gun to kill him? Unless, I suppose, he's in the middle of attacking someone, so it's sort of irrelevant.

But yeah. I wouldn't shoot to kill (unless ordered to) because of what happened to John Charles de Menezes. Even if the people I was supposed to be shooting were armed, until they start shooting you never can tell. What if they were carrying unloaded weapons or replicas just for the scare factor? Then again, if you're told 'stop or we will shoot you' and you don't, you kind of deserve to face the consequence.

In summary: I have no idea.

 

[hogger129]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Swedish-police-shoot-HEAD-armed-robbery.html

Quite simply, if you were a police officer facing a gang armed with heavy weapons robbing a store and potentially placing innocent civilians' lives in great danger, what would you do? If they weren't going to surrender, would you go in for a kill or attempt to incapacitate them any way you can?

I started this thread because I simply cannot understand how stupid some people can be when it comes to news like this. They're basically scolding the police officers for shooting this guy in the head, even though I see it as the only possible measure for a dangerous situation like this. If they only injured him with a leg shot, who knows what he could have done even if grounded, as long as he had access to his weapon?

I have always believed that it only takes armed people (preferably trained) to stop crazy armed people from doing all their heinous acts against the civilians. Thus, I would shoot to kill if there was a SPANKed up madman opening fire at people in a mall or train station. Who knows, maybe even the presence of armed people in most public places could scare away all those nutheads?

And last but not least, here's some news items which, oddly enough, didn't get much media attention because there was actually a heroic gunman involved, who prevented the perpetrator from succeeding in their attack. The person in the first link didn't even need to fire a shot to stop it, now that's asking for a lot of guts.

http://easybakegunclub.com/blog/1968/Concealed-Carry-Hero-at-Portland-Mall---The-Full-S.html
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-...th-one-bullet/

Well I know that for those of us with CC licenses, you never shoot to kill. You use the amount of force necessary to stop the threat against you and that's it.

I'm not a police officer, but in this situation, I think the first thing I'd do is call for backup.

The presence of armed people DOES scare away the nutjobs. Notice how all these shootings and acts of violence take place in areas where people are not allowed to be armed?

 

[Northstar]

you never shoot to kill.

If you pull the trigger while aimed at someone, you are shooting to kill. All that "just enough to stop them" is just pure BS along the lines of the propaganda anti-gun people use.

 

[hogger129]

Tasers are for incapacitating. Guns are for taking down goons when the heat gets too hot.

Personally, I can't ever see myself in such a situation. But I won't blame the cops of any wrongdoing. Things happen quickly, and with the knowledge that bullets travel faster than any neurological synapses in our nervous system, I'd probably shoot the guy where I know he will go down.

An AK-47 in the hands of a masked robber is more than enough incentive to shoot first ask questions later. I'll probably get flamed for that though.

Tasers are for incapacitating? You could very easily kill somebody with an electronic weapon like that. I think electronic weapons are dangerous, personally, as their effects on people aren't fully understood. Also, if a Taser will only incapacitate, why carry one at all? What if your attacker gets back up and kills you? Gun = better. Also, if you shoot first and ask questions later, you will get sued or go to prison.

Well, let's see... First, you go for the torso, not the head.

👍 I agree. You always aim for a center mass as its a larger area and your chances of hitting it are higher.

2 in the chest, 1 in the head.

The old Mozambique Drill huh?

Firearm technology is not at a place yet where stopping the target can be guaranteed. There are too many variables when shooting a human to know how many shots it will take incapacitate them. The target's clothes, mental state, build, range, and most importantly shot placement can make one round seemingly ineffective and another "lights out."

Often times a threat is so hyped up on anger, drugs, or adrenaline that the only way to make them stop being a threat is to kill them. How do you know? You don't. That's the point.

Simply put, trying to hit that "sweet spot" where you incapacitate the target, but not kill it is too risky and downright irresponsible if others are at risk. Shoot until they are unable to cause you harm.

That is why you carry a big boomer like a 10mm, .45, .357 or .44.

 

[DK]

Be sensible, kids, disregard anything and everything you read in the Daily Mail.

Especially when they claim Daniel Day-Lewis is British.

 

[hogger129]

If you pull the trigger while aimed at someone, you are shooting to kill. All that "just enough to stop them" is just pure BS along the lines of the propaganda anti-gun people use.

The laws on self-defense vary from state to state, but in general you're allowed to use reasonable physical force to protect yourself from imminent or immediate physical injury. You can only use that amount of force that's necessary to stop the threat of harm.

 

[Northstar]

Think about it. If someone attacks you, you shoot them, they fall down, and you walk up and plug em, you're going to jail for murder.

I never said anything related to that.

you can only use the amount of force necessary to stop an attack.

So why not use a knife or your hands? Why resort to such a deadly weapon?

(I'm fine with guns by the way, I just hate lame propaganda)

At least this is what was taught in my concealed carry class that I was required to take to get my permit.

Odd, in hunting classes they teach to only aim at things you want dead...

 

[hogger129]

I never said anything related to that.



So why not use a knife or your hands? Why resort to such a deadly weapon?

(I'm fine with guns by the way, I just hate lame propaganda)



Odd, in hunting classes they teach to only aim at things you want dead...

A knife or hand-to-hand combat is actually probably a better alternative inside 21 feet. Study up on the "21 Foot Rule."

You shoot to STOP the threat. That is what you do and that is what you say you did when the police arrive. Any other language can get you in hot water later -- the words "shoot to kill" ever come out of your mouth and they can make it look very bad for you like you were itching to kill something. "I was afraid for my life and I shot to stop the threat."

As far as actual tactics, double- or triple-tap center mass is a good plan (and practice it!). In reality if you haven't been in a life-or-death situation you probably won't remember any such tactical plans, you shoot center mass until the target hits the ground and you're good.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You are a criminal, you have a military assault rifle and you are in the midst of committing a crime. So long as you have that weapon in your hand, whatever happens to you, you deserve it, even death. I think the cops should shoot and continue shooting until the criminal is completely incapacitated, to the point where they feel there definitely, 100%, is no possible threat. If he's lying on the ground for example, bleeding profusely, his weapon is 20 feet away, he's obviously still alive but they spot grenades or other explosives on his body, continue shooting until he's dead. I would not risk the life of someone in a bombsquad for any kind of scum like this.

 

[Minty]

With the mood I am in right now, I would rather just maim them. Killing would be too humane.

This is the way I think no matter what mood I'm in.

 

[Tornado]

.

 

[II-zOoLoGy-II]

The old Mozambique Drill huh?

Mozambique or failure to stop (which is what I have always called it); done it too many times to count.