If a man was unarmed why wouldn't police shoot him in the leg instead of the chest?

Yes, we should purposely look at disarming the police. That way the drug dealers and thugs can kill police officers even easier.

 

You don't value your life too?

 

If they absolutely "know" the person is not armed, they will not shoot unless the suspect goes for their gun or they are in immediate danger.

You do realize that someone can be unarmed and still kill you with their hands right?

 

How do they know he is unarmed?
What if he is going for their weapon?
What if they know the person could overpower them?

 

Why not call for backup and wait? That's one of the problems now. If you'll recall, police sat in the parking lot at Columbine High and listened to gunshots as they waited for the SWAT team. Or, the unarmed man is beating the crap out of his wife while you sit in your patrol car waiting for backup.

I had one incident where I was prepared to shoot an unarmed man. It was a family fight. I knew the unarmed man quite well. He had never actually fought with a police officer. He was about 6'4", 275 pounds, and had fists roughly the side of my face. He was very angry at his wife and said, "I can't hit my wife but I have to hit somebody. What will happen if I hit you?" I explained it was a hypothetical question because he could kill me hitting me and I'd shoot him before I'd let that happen." He nodded and said, "Okay."

A was speaking to a psychology class at the university and got the expected, "Police in England don't carry guns. Why do cops here carry guns?" I asked for a show of hands in the room of people who had guns at home. Almost all the hands went up. "There's part of your answer."

When I first became a police officer I wore a belt with a holster and revolver, twelve extra bullets in little cases, a belt ring to hold the baton, and a pair of handcuffs. That was it. Then we added a walkie-talkie--called a pack set--and then we added mace, later replaced by pepper spray. Officers started carrying pistols with high-capacity magazines so they had 30 or so cartridges. The handcuff case increased in size to carry two handcuffs. Contact tazers were added and for some they had the longer-range tasers that shot darts. The basic straight baton was replaced with the bulkier PR-29 and our old Ray-O-Vac flashlights were replaced with heavy Streamlight flashlights in a holder on your belt. Now, officers also have cell phones, wear video cameras, and have a pouch for rubber gloves.

And, keep in mind, all of this is carried on the same 34 inch waist that I had when I started in police work but now we're hiring women with a 27" waist. They'll be equipped with a little cart they can pull along behind them to carry their gear.

It all gets incredibly silly.

 

not on the Walking Dead where an 11 year-old. with a handgn, has 1 shot accuracy to the head every time. And that is even with zombies wanting to kill him

how often must police re-qualify with their handguns? I know that some forces require a gawd-awful trigger with 10-12 pounds so it really challenges accuracy.

 

Those are ancillary questions not asked in the original post.

 

Idealism is by definition a fantasy. When reality conflicts with the ideal, the only prescription is more fantasy.

 

Cops voluntarily accept a job to "serve and protect" other people. They volunteer to put their life between society and the criminal, they accept additional risk to their own life in order to protect the innocent.

Instead, cops shoot first and ask questions later, and if they kill one of the innocents they are sworn to protect, then they aren't concerned - they go home at the end of the day, that's what's important to them, and if they have to renege on their oath and some innocents have to die to protect the cop, then that's what happens.

The military understands their oath, they take it seriously, which is why they scare "progressives" and cops.

 

If a policeman has justification to shoot, he has justification to shoot to kill. It's irresponsible to try to shoot someone in the legs--the chances of missing are greater than shooting to the chest, and the chance of not stopping the danger is even greater.

 

Quote Originally Posted by Battle3 View Post
"Because cops value their life over every other life. "Officer safety" is drilled into their heads like a religion, they know they will be protected if they kill someone."

Even bigots have their say. I knew many police officers who risked their lives to protect or save innocent people. It was a common occurrence. Of course, some have no interest in innocents. It's the criminals who must be protected at all cost. Liberals have no sympathy for or interest in the victims of crime.

Consider Normal Mailer. He was a good New York liberal who campaigned to get Jack Abbott released from prison. Mr. Abbott was released and within two months killed a college student working part-time as a waiter and Mr. Abbott returned to prison. Norman Mailer's liberal position was, "Culture is worth a little risk." That's true for liberals as long as the risk isn't theirs.

 

If the person is a threat to the life of the officer or other people. Unarmed people can kill other people.

 

agreed, they know the risks.... nowhere is it said or expected that they are just supposed to sit by and accept the beatings, assualts, or possible death. They are still allowed to prevent any attack, despite knowing they are at higher risk than your average citizen.

 

Cops are trained to shoot a charging subject at center mass until forward motion stops. In case the far left forgot, COP LIVES MATTER TOO !

 

Who said it is normal?

 

How about shooting them in the crotch. 1) it gets the criminals attention. 2) after being nuetered by a .45 they are less belligerent in the future. 3) It improves the gene pool since their kind cant reproduce.

 

Double tap, center of mass. Shooting for an extremity is a Hollywood movie stuntman fictional event.

 

Political correctness and affirmative action has pitted 5'2" 130lb cops against 6'8" 275lb. bad guys. That's the recipe for 6'8" 275lb. bad guys to get shot. The answer is simple, comply with the arrest, if the cops did something wrong there's no shortage of lawyers that will take the case.

 

Okay.

Try putting handcuffs on Chuck Norris if he doesn't want you to. Or Mister T for that matter.

Some people are very dangerous people even if they don't have a firearm or a blade in their hands.

 

O.K., I haven't read the whole thread, but I've read enough. Reality check:
1-Once a month for 15 years I had to qualify with my duty weapon. On every silhouette target the "X" ring was center mass.
2-If you draw your weapon, be prepared to use it.
3-I have witnessed unarmed subjects under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs take 3 or 4 hits in vital areas and still be
able to inflict injury/death on the officer.
4-Almost every handgun round has the potential to go through a limb and maybe end up killing someone else.
5-And yes, if you wound, you will be sued-it's called deadly force for a reason and the defense will, and has, used that
argument successfully many times.
6-Unarmed doesn't necessarily mean not dangerous. There are some really big guys out there that firmly believe that their
physical stature trumps everything else, for instance the 5'2" female officer trying to arrest them for DUI (you do realize
that there ARE female officers, right?).
Enjoy!

 

Amen, brother. I started out the same way. I see officers now wearing belts that have zero empty space, and I think to myself, what if they grab at the wrong pouch and try to cuff someone with a rubber glove? We carried a hell of a lot less, and were still able to put away our share of bad guys.
FOP103
Enjoy!

 

Libs blather about the fact the police should use a taser. Ok I challenge any lib here to a duel. You can be the cop and I will be the criminal. You can have a taser and I will use a police issue pistol. Lets see how it come out.

 

Why does the criminal have a police-issue pistol?

 

If the police are such crack shots that they can hit a waving arm or a running leg then why are they shooting for the chest? Why not all head shots?

As for no free space on the belt, we're seeing more back injuries from simply wearing the belt full of gear.

 

hate is the reason