shooting if absolutely necessary to disable which was the case before
I don’t think that was ever the case, because in reality it isn’t possible “to disable”. I used to fly with a guy who was on the Gatwick force. The John Wayne stuff requires a massive amount of skill, and practice.
If a police officer is going to shoot, he will shoot to kill, even at point blank range. They might pretend otherwise for the media, but that is the training.
Emir wrote:
Maybe but I remember Spanish student shot dead in London underground for carrying backpack and running away from police.
A Brazilian electrician. He wasn’t even running away from the police, he didn’t even know the police were after him till they tackled him and shot him dead on the train. From his point of view, it was a perfectly normal day until 5 seconds before he died – he was hurrying to get on a train that was about to leave, then suddenly taken by surprise by a couple of men who shot him in the head.
The police immediately went into full cover-up mode (the story about him running from them and leaping the ticket barrier turned out to be lies, made up by the police to try and get away with it) and it caused a huge stink. The Met Police also tried lobbying the enquiry into the shooting in an attempt to influence it. There was suppression of evidence by the police, including an order to let the electrician go as he had been identified as not the terrorist target they were after.
The Metropolitan Police commissioner was fined half a million pounds over the affair. An open verdict was returned over the killing (rather than unlawful killing). IMHO a miscarriage of justice, especially when the Met Police’s first instinct was to lie and cover up.
That’s the problem with plain clothes police. If I was being chased by those I would run like hell too. There is no easy solution to this.
alioth wrote:
IMHO a miscarriage of justice
There was a documentary about the Jean Charles de Menezes enquiry a few years ago. I believe the conclusion was that the judiciary will recommend on behalf of the policeman (even if the the shooting was unjustified or even unlawful) to not create a precedent. As with any argument for counter-terrorism or ‘the greater good’ the logical end is scary.
On the second amendment, I can understand the need for a militia to protect oneself from federal government, or individual ownership to protect oneself from other individuals. The argument used by one of my friends is that in rural (i.e. hillbilly) areas you can’t wait for the police, or trust the police, so you take the law into your own hands. Personally, I prefer a system where I don’t get shot, either by other people or law enforcement 
My grandparents didn’t know anyone who owned a gun, and probably wouldn’t have wanted to associate with them. My parents know one or two people, who don’t really talk about it. Probably half my friends (age late 20s to early 30s) have concealed carry. I can’t see they actually need guns, but they’re exercising their rights, and, well, it’s fun. Is this a changing attitude to gun ownership? Or social change? Or Murica ?
Stand your ground laws are just extreme.
A rifle for hunting: ok. A pistol for protection at home: probably. Outside the home: maybe. Full auto: psycho
The argument used by one of my friends is that in rural (i.e. hillbilly) areas you can’t wait for the police
That describes my area exactly, but I would not call myself or those who live here hillbillies Well, maybe some of the local pub regulars 
Peter wrote:
I don’t think that was ever the case, because in reality it isn’t possible “to disable”. I used to fly with a guy who was on the Gatwick force. The John Wayne stuff requires a massive amount of skill, and practice.If a police officer is going to shoot, he will shoot to kill, even at point blank range. They might pretend otherwise for the media, but that is the training.
You don’t have to believe me, but Swedish police used to be trained to shoot people in the leg first to disable them. (Not that this can’t be lethal as well if you’re unlucky.)
Anyway, do you have an alternative explanation to the sudden rise in people shot dead by police except new tactics? There hasn’t been any comparable difference in crime rates.
You don’t have to believe me, but Swedish police used to be trained to shoot people in the leg first to disable them
I don’t disbelieve that this is what the Swedish public is told, but I don’t believe you can train a normal police force to achieve say a 5cm group with a pistol (a “handgun”) at say 10m. Even if the guy stands with his legs perfectly still (arm movement permitted, so he can smoke a joint ). At 1m, probably it would work. So I bet you the success rate was awfully low, but in Sweden they could not reveal that. In the UK they are quite open about what they aim for.
Peter wrote:
I don’t disbelieve that this is what the Swedish public is told, but I don’t believe you can train a normal police force to achieve say a 5cm group with a pistol (a “handgun”) at say 10m. Even if the guy stands with his legs perfectly still (arm movement permitted, so he can smoke a joint ). At 1m, probably it would work. So I bet you the success rate was awfully low, but in Sweden they could not reveal that. In the UK they are quite open about what they aim for.
My question stands:
Airborne_Again wrote:
Anyway, do you have an alternative explanation to the sudden rise in people shot dead by police except new tactics? There hasn’t been any comparable difference in crime rates.
I don’t disbelieve that this is what the Swedish public is told, but I don’t believe you can train a normal police force to achieve say a 5cm group with a pistol (a “handgun”) at say 10m.
I disagree. I have actual experience with real firearms for 15 years now as a sports shooter in the German Army Reserve shooting federation. I own a Glock 17 9mm pistol which is also used in many police forces around the world. We train at 20 m and it is very well achievable to get a 10 cm group at that distance on a still target.
I have also taken part in shooting tournaments which involved active military personnel, reservists, police officers and civilians. The police officers always won the handgun competitions rather handily.
Granted, the actual skill level does vary a lot among the force, but those who bother with more than the mandatory minimum training can shoot quite well imho.
From here
I wish I understood why people do this crossing out thing. It seems to be a way of denying responsibility for what they write, like the person making a racial slur yesterday then crossing it out.
For goodness sake write what you want to write and leave out what you don’t want to write and be judged on that.
