Why do police marksmen always shoot to kill?
Discussion
Just reading this story, sent to me by my BIL who lives in Melbourne. I've wondered about it many times in the past and thought you chaps could possible shed some light on it.
Why would you shoot someone armed with a knife, from a distance, with the intention of killing them? What's the worst they can do if you shot them in the knee or ankle, throw a knife at you? Seems like judge, jury and executioner is going on here.
When you think about the Bulger case being discussed in full elsewhere, those young lads committed a horrific crime and are free to live their lives. In this case a 15yr old kid, obviously had some sort of breakdown, didn't hurt anyone and he is shot dead.
http://news.aol.co.uk/world-news/police-kill-boy-a...
Why would you shoot someone armed with a knife, from a distance, with the intention of killing them? What's the worst they can do if you shot them in the knee or ankle, throw a knife at you? Seems like judge, jury and executioner is going on here.
When you think about the Bulger case being discussed in full elsewhere, those young lads committed a horrific crime and are free to live their lives. In this case a 15yr old kid, obviously had some sort of breakdown, didn't hurt anyone and he is shot dead.
http://news.aol.co.uk/world-news/police-kill-boy-a...
I think it's more fun for them...
ETA: In reality, there are a number of good reasons. They are trained to shoot at the easisest-to-hit area of the body, where there is most chance of slowing down the assailant. The chest area contains heart, lungs, lots of important blood vessels. When someone is shot, they don't just fall-over like in the cowboy films, cluctching their chest. They tend to keep going for quite a while, infact if on drugs they can survive for some minutes even if fatally shot. And an angry man with a knife running at somebody can cover 30' in a couple of seconds...
ETA: In reality, there are a number of good reasons. They are trained to shoot at the easisest-to-hit area of the body, where there is most chance of slowing down the assailant. The chest area contains heart, lungs, lots of important blood vessels. When someone is shot, they don't just fall-over like in the cowboy films, cluctching their chest. They tend to keep going for quite a while, infact if on drugs they can survive for some minutes even if fatally shot. And an angry man with a knife running at somebody can cover 30' in a couple of seconds...
Edited by Ordinary Bloke on Friday 12th December 16:46
Munter said:
If you didn't want to kill em. You wouldn't fire the gun.... Or am I missing something. I dont believe theres a grey area when using a gun on a person. Either you want to kill them, or you have another option.
As a tool for subduing someone from a distance i'm guessing a gun is a very useful one. It doesn't HAVE to be used to kill. If the 15yr old had his ankle shot out I doubt he'd still be waving his knives around.Edited by BigBazza on Friday 12th December 16:14
Police marksmanship has always been about shoot to kill. Handguns usually fire reasonable calibre rounds, with a lovely copper jacket - just to ensure that you go down and stay down. Of course, that also helps discharge all of the energy into you, and helps to ensure the innocent bystander behind you doesn't get taken down as well.
Police snipers will always go for the headshot, as it's the absolute quickest way of putting a target down. The last thing you want is someone getting back up again...
Oddly, military sniping is a completely different ballgame, and headshots are not what it's all about. Ultimately fatal centre-mass wounds are the preferred method, as this tends lead to a few mates carting you off the field (they won't be firing back at this point which is nice) and a medical team going to work on you. That takes a lot of effort, making you job ultimately easier.
All this 'one shot one kill' crap is misleading, it's about causing the max disruption with a single round really...
Police snipers will always go for the headshot, as it's the absolute quickest way of putting a target down. The last thing you want is someone getting back up again...
Oddly, military sniping is a completely different ballgame, and headshots are not what it's all about. Ultimately fatal centre-mass wounds are the preferred method, as this tends lead to a few mates carting you off the field (they won't be firing back at this point which is nice) and a medical team going to work on you. That takes a lot of effort, making you job ultimately easier.
All this 'one shot one kill' crap is misleading, it's about causing the max disruption with a single round really...
The sky news/bbc reports say there was 4 police....the lad had two knoves and 1 copper trapped in a corner.....so they shot to kill.
As far as I see it if your a neo nazi carrying two knives and threatening the police with them saying, kill me or I'll kill you', then you should expect to be shot.
End of
As far as I see it if your a neo nazi carrying two knives and threatening the police with them saying, kill me or I'll kill you', then you should expect to be shot.
End of
BigBazza said:
Munter said:
If you didn't want to kill em. You wouldn't fire the gun.... Or am I missing something. I dont believe theres a grey area when using a gun on a person. Either you want to kill them, or you have another option.
As a tool for sudduing someone from a distance i'm guessing a gun is a very useful one. It doesn't HAVE to be used to kill. If the 15yr old had his ankle shot out I doubt he'd still be waving his knives around.BigBazza said:
Why would you shoot someone armed with a knife, from a distance, with the intention of killing them? What's the worst they can do if you shot them in the knee or ankle, throw a knife at you? Seems like judge, jury and executioner is going on here.
Because they are a threat to you and other and no one wants to get close to them and risk further injury probably.A thrown knife can still kill.
Kuroblack350 said:
Police marksmanship has always been about shoot to kill. Handguns usually fire reasonable calibre rounds, with a lovely copper jacket - just to ensure that you go down and stay down. Of course, that also helps discharge all of the energy into you, and helps to ensure the innocent bystander behind you doesn't get taken down as well.
Police snipers will always go for the headshot, as it's the absolute quickest way of putting a target down. The last thing you want is someone getting back up again...
Oddly, military sniping is a completely different ballgame, and headshots are not what it's all about. Ultimately fatal centre-mass wounds are the preferred method, as this tends lead to a few mates carting you off the field (they won't be firing back at this point which is nice) and a medical team going to work on you. That takes a lot of effort, making you job ultimately easier.
All this 'one shot one kill' crap is misleading, it's about causing the max disruption with a single round really...
Are you Andy McNab?Police snipers will always go for the headshot, as it's the absolute quickest way of putting a target down. The last thing you want is someone getting back up again...
Oddly, military sniping is a completely different ballgame, and headshots are not what it's all about. Ultimately fatal centre-mass wounds are the preferred method, as this tends lead to a few mates carting you off the field (they won't be firing back at this point which is nice) and a medical team going to work on you. That takes a lot of effort, making you job ultimately easier.
All this 'one shot one kill' crap is misleading, it's about causing the max disruption with a single round really...
d!tinman0 said:
BigBazza said:
Why would you shoot someone armed with a knife, from a distance, with the intention of killing them? What's the worst they can do if you shot them in the knee or ankle, throw a knife at you? Seems like judge, jury and executioner is going on here.
Because they are a threat to you and other and no one wants to get close to them and risk further injury probably.A thrown knife can still kill.
I understand the bit about aiming for the big bits but still don't see why they would have to kill the lad.
Kuroblack350 said:
Oddly, military sniping is a completely different ballgame, and headshots are not what it's all about. Ultimately fatal centre-mass wounds are the preferred method, as this tends lead to a few mates carting you off the field (they won't be firing back at this point which is nice) and a medical team going to work on you. That takes a lot of effort, making you job ultimately easier.
Is that why certain guns are designed to injury rather than kill? I was told (albeit by a guy in a Las Vegas gun range) that the AK47 was designed to injure rather then kill because if you injure one out of three guys shooting at you, then you take all 3 out of the fight as the 2 fit ones tend to look after the injured guy, rather then carry on the fight?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff