walksalone Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 If they were aiming at me I'd probably shoot them unless maybe if I was trained not to. I don't see why it matters if this in a combat zone though. Because you are making a split second decision. Just like that officer did in that situation. the scenario you described and what we know of what happened in Scottsdale are nothing alike. Because you know all the facts of what happened, by reading it on the internet, not because you were actually there. Hence that makes you the expert on this situation. I understand, you're never going to be wrong because the internet told you exactly what happened, and that provides you undeniable evidence. You can continue making your cases based on wikipedia or google, books you've read and not on real world experience. This is the reason you can prattle on forums such as this, but not in the real world. Good day sir... Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 cactus, I'm not going to get into a huge argument with you again, but cops aren't trained to kill or injure. We are trained to stop the threat, we don't aim for arms or legs because in a stressful situation officers shooting abilites go down. It's the bodies natural reaction and only their training takes over. We are trained to shoot center mass or, depending on if we've been tactically trained, we will do headshots. So with all due respect your comment about shooting in the arm or leg is pretty short sighted. Also, just because an officer has been involved in 7 shootings doesn't mean he's a loose cannon. Do I agree that 7 shootings isn't the norm in an officer's career............yes. I already said that from what I found police are trained to shoot to kill and not stop. We aren't trained to kill dude...............what part of that don't you understand? We are trained to stop the threat................how do I know? I've been one for 10 years and I'm also a state firearms instructor. Whatever garbage you find off of wikipedia to back up your claims is just that. 1 Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 BIGREDIOWAN...is the Colorado protocol pretty standard? Does it differ from yours and if so how? I'll call Scottsdale PD Monday to see if I can get a copy of their protocol. Link to comment
walksalone Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 cactus, I'm not going to get into a huge argument with you again, but cops aren't trained to kill or injure. We are trained to stop the threat, we don't aim for arms or legs because in a stressful situation officers shooting abilites go down. It's the bodies natural reaction and only their training takes over. We are trained to shoot center mass or, depending on if we've been tactically trained, we will do headshots. So with all due respect your comment about shooting in the arm or leg is pretty short sighted. Also, just because an officer has been involved in 7 shootings doesn't mean he's a loose cannon. Do I agree that 7 shootings isn't the norm in an officer's career............yes. I already said that from what I found police are trained to shoot to kill and not stop. We aren't trained to kill dude...............what part of that don't you understand? We are trained to stop the threat................how do I know? I've been one for 10 years and I'm also a state firearms instructor. Whatever garbage you find off of wikipedia to back up your claims is just that. BRI, you're trying to communicate with a guy, that has never been in a situation that requires a split second decision. All your going to get is a book answer, and nothing dictated by real world experience. The best you'll get is, I know a guy, or I found this on the internet. Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 It looks like cops are trained to shoot to kill and not shoot to stop...from my quick googling. I found this too: The fact that the District Attorney may feel the shooting was avoidable or “does not like” aspects of the shooting, does not make it criminal. In these circumstances, remedies, if any are appropriate, may be in the administrative or civil arenas. http://www.denverda....%20Protocol.pdf I think it was avoidable and I strongly suspect it will go to civil court. Which has happened at least 1-2 times in the past and the city lost 75-150k as a result. I know you'll find some way to argue against this, but cities regularly settle out of situations instead of taking them to court due to the higher cost of going to court. Shocking I know...................and while it does make the "untrained eye" think that the officer did something wrong this is a matter of procedure as advised by their insurance companies. 1 Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 cactus, I'm not going to get into a huge argument with you again, but cops aren't trained to kill or injure. We are trained to stop the threat, we don't aim for arms or legs because in a stressful situation officers shooting abilites go down. It's the bodies natural reaction and only their training takes over. We are trained to shoot center mass or, depending on if we've been tactically trained, we will do headshots. So with all due respect your comment about shooting in the arm or leg is pretty short sighted. Also, just because an officer has been involved in 7 shootings doesn't mean he's a loose cannon. Do I agree that 7 shootings isn't the norm in an officer's career............yes. I already said that from what I found police are trained to shoot to kill and not stop. We aren't trained to kill dude...............what part of that don't you understand? We are trained to stop the threat................how do I know? I've been one for 10 years and I'm also a state firearms instructor. Whatever garbage you find off of wikipedia to back up your claims is just that. I don't know why you're taking such offense to this. I googled it and found this. police policy expert Dr. Maki Haberfeld says she knows of no law enforcement agency, domestic or foreign that employs a shoot to stop approach "The Polish police tried to train officers to shoot at body parts and there were casualties and they basically gave up. It's a very dangerous perspective," she said. http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local&id=7461450 So it's not shoot to stop or shoot to kill... I don't care...I don't know why you're making an argument out of this. My point is I found that they don't shoot to stop/shoot at legs, etc. Link to comment
walksalone Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 BIGREDIOWAN...is the Colorado protocol pretty standard? Does it differ from yours and if so how? I'll call Scottsdale PD Monday to see if I can get a copy of their protocol. Murphy's Laws of Combat #16 - No plan survives the first contact intact. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 If they were aiming at me I'd probably shoot them unless maybe if I was trained not to. I don't see why it matters if this in a combat zone though. Because you are making a split second decision. Just like that officer did in that situation. the scenario you described and what we know of what happened in Scottsdale are nothing alike. Because you know all the facts of what happened, by reading it on the internet, not because you were actually there. Hence that makes you the expert on this situation. I understand, you're never going to be wrong because the internet told you exactly what happened, and that provides you undeniable evidence. You can continue making your cases based on wikipedia or google, books you've read and not on real world experience. This is the reason you can prattle on forums such as this, but not in the real world. Good day sir... fence and I have both made it clear we are going by and only going by what was reported in the article posted. I don't know what else to tell you...looks like you're just itching to argue. Link to comment
walksalone Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 cactus, I'm not going to get into a huge argument with you again, but cops aren't trained to kill or injure. We are trained to stop the threat, we don't aim for arms or legs because in a stressful situation officers shooting abilites go down. It's the bodies natural reaction and only their training takes over. We are trained to shoot center mass or, depending on if we've been tactically trained, we will do headshots. So with all due respect your comment about shooting in the arm or leg is pretty short sighted. Also, just because an officer has been involved in 7 shootings doesn't mean he's a loose cannon. Do I agree that 7 shootings isn't the norm in an officer's career............yes. I already said that from what I found police are trained to shoot to kill and not stop. We aren't trained to kill dude...............what part of that don't you understand? We are trained to stop the threat................how do I know? I've been one for 10 years and I'm also a state firearms instructor. Whatever garbage you find off of wikipedia to back up your claims is just that. I don't know why you're taking such offense to this. I googled it and found this. police policy expert Dr. Maki Haberfeld says she knows of no law enforcement agency, domestic or foreign that employs a shoot to stop approach "The Polish police tried to train officers to shoot at body parts and there were casualties and they basically gave up. It's a very dangerous perspective," she said. http://abclocal.go.c...ocal&id=7461450 So it's not shoot to stop or shoot to kill... I don't care...I don't know why you're making an argument out of this. My point is I found that they don't shoot to stop/shoot at legs, etc. Because any military or law enforcement agency is trained to aim center mass (i.e., the torso) because it is easier to hit. Link to comment
walksalone Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 If they were aiming at me I'd probably shoot them unless maybe if I was trained not to. I don't see why it matters if this in a combat zone though. Because you are making a split second decision. Just like that officer did in that situation. the scenario you described and what we know of what happened in Scottsdale are nothing alike. Because you know all the facts of what happened, by reading it on the internet, not because you were actually there. Hence that makes you the expert on this situation. I understand, you're never going to be wrong because the internet told you exactly what happened, and that provides you undeniable evidence. You can continue making your cases based on wikipedia or google, books you've read and not on real world experience. This is the reason you can prattle on forums such as this, but not in the real world. Good day sir... fence and I have both made it clear we are going by and only going by what was reported in the article posted. I don't know what else to tell you...looks like you're just itching to argue. not itching dude, just calling you out... Not at any point have you shown any hands on knowledge of this subject, just what the internet tells you. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 BIGREDIOWAN...is the Colorado protocol pretty standard? Does it differ from yours and if so how? I'll call Scottsdale PD Monday to see if I can get a copy of their protocol. Murphy's Laws of Combat #16 - No plan survives the first contact intact. THis isn't Nam Walter... Link to comment
BIGREDIOWAN Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 cactus, I'm not going to get into a huge argument with you again, but cops aren't trained to kill or injure. We are trained to stop the threat, we don't aim for arms or legs because in a stressful situation officers shooting abilites go down. It's the bodies natural reaction and only their training takes over. We are trained to shoot center mass or, depending on if we've been tactically trained, we will do headshots. So with all due respect your comment about shooting in the arm or leg is pretty short sighted. Also, just because an officer has been involved in 7 shootings doesn't mean he's a loose cannon. Do I agree that 7 shootings isn't the norm in an officer's career............yes. I already said that from what I found police are trained to shoot to kill and not stop. We aren't trained to kill dude...............what part of that don't you understand? We are trained to stop the threat................how do I know? I've been one for 10 years and I'm also a state firearms instructor. Whatever garbage you find off of wikipedia to back up your claims is just that. I don't know why you're taking such offense to this. I googled it and found this. police policy expert Dr. Maki Haberfeld says she knows of no law enforcement agency, domestic or foreign that employs a shoot to stop approach "The Polish police tried to train officers to shoot at body parts and there were casualties and they basically gave up. It's a very dangerous perspective," she said. http://abclocal.go.c...ocal&id=7461450 So it's not shoot to stop or shoot to kill... I don't care...I don't know why you're making an argument out of this. My point is I found that they don't shoot to stop/shoot at legs, etc. The reason I'm taking offense to it is folks like yourself, spread bad things about the police by inferring that we basically "shoot to kill." I'm trained to shoot center mass in a situation where I fear my life or the life of another. If by shooting that individual center mass it results in them dying then that's unfortunately the way the situation goes. Now, if they don't die from me shooting them, but instead fall to the ground thus dropping the weapon and no longer are a threat to myself or the life of another I will place them under arrest, administer first aid, and wait for medical help for this individual. However; if I was in fact taught to, "shoot to kill" I wouldn't stop there, I would advance forward, place two precisely aimed shots into the soft palate area of the head thus successfully disconnecting this individuals central nervous system from the rest of his body not allowing him to exist on this planet any further. Also, the words aren't clear from this doctor you quoted. Police today are trained to "shoot to stop the threat" she is implying that in her mind the "shoot to stop the threat" situation is when you shoot the legs or arms. That couldn't be farther from the way police officers are trained today. You are trained to shoot center mass because in a critical situation your shooting percentages will drop substantially due to the stress your body goes through. Then you'll have the luxury of going through several court proceedings and investigations where individuals, like yourself, have months if not years to tear apart what you did with your decision making in less than a second. 1 Link to comment
walksalone Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 BIGREDIOWAN...is the Colorado protocol pretty standard? Does it differ from yours and if so how? I'll call Scottsdale PD Monday to see if I can get a copy of their protocol. Murphy's Laws of Combat #16 - No plan survives the first contact intact. THis isn't Nam Walter... Because all situations like that, are completely predictable, and you can refer to the internet on how the situation is going to play out. People are unpredictable, and if you don't take that into account, then more people are going to get hurt and/or killed. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 Because any military or law enforcement agency is trained to aim center mass (i.e., the torso) because it is easier to hit. yes...I know this and it's been covered. You're arguing where there is no disagreement. If you just want to release energy you should go run around the block or pull some weeds. It'd be much more productive. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted February 18, 2012 Author Share Posted February 18, 2012 The reason I'm taking offense to it is folks like yourself, spread bad things about the police by inferring that we basically "shoot to kill." I'm trained to shoot center mass in a situation where I fear my life or the life of another. If by shooting that individual center mass it results in them dying then that's unfortunately the way the situation goes. Now, if they don't die from me shooting them, but instead fall to the ground thus dropping the weapon and no longer are a threat to myself or the life of another I will place them under arrest, administer first aid, and wait for medical help for this individual. However; if I was in fact taught to, "shoot to kill" I wouldn't stop there, I would advance forward, place two precisely aimed shots into the soft palate area of the head thus successfully disconnecting this individuals central nervous system from the rest of his body not allowing him to exist on this planet any further. Also, the words aren't clear from this doctor you quoted. Police today are trained to "shoot to stop the threat" she is implying that in her mind the "shoot to stop the threat" situation is when you shoot the legs or arms. That couldn't be farther from the way police officers are trained today. You are trained to shoot center mass because in a critical situation your shooting percentages will drop substantially due to the stress your body goes through. Then you'll have the luxury of going through several court proceedings and investigations where individuals, like yourself, have months if not years to tear apart what you did with your decision making in less than a second. Well whatever it is...getting overly defensive and overreacting doesn't do you any favors on perception. Link to comment
Recommended Posts