I have a question for you police lovers: why do cops always shoot to kill? Why can’t they just shoot arms, hands...

I have a question for you police lovers: why do cops always shoot to kill? Why can’t they just shoot arms, hands, legs, or any place that won’t kill them? Why not shoot to stop the danger and save the life? Why shoot to kill?

Other urls found in this thread:

napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Because it leads to dead cops. They are supposed to revert to trained behavior in high stress situations, like shooting center of mass. You're not going to shoot a leg, on purpose, even if you wanted to unless you trained that way.

What are tasers and mace?


Not an endorsement of cops just saying this retarded idea will never work.

...

Shoot to stop. Stop shooting when perp is stopped.

> be cop
> see hoodrat dealing drugs
> "YOU'RE FUCKED"
> he pulls knife
> shoot him in hand
> he loses hand and wins six gorillion dollars in lawsuit
> you lose your job, your wife leaves you for your cousin, and you live in a cardboard box

Pasta.

Ok here why anybody with half a brain always shoots to kill:

When faced with danger, the human body starts pumping you full of adrenalin, this causes blurred vision, loss of fine motor control and makes it very difficult to process complex situations which makes precision shooting nearly impossible even for somebody with decades of experience behind a gun. This is the reason why people are trained to always shoot center mass (the largest target) and keep shooting until the bed guy is down, it is a training system built to compensate for failures of the human body.

Shooting anyone anywhere has the potential to kill them. You aren't supposed to aim your gun at anyone unless yours or another persons life is in danger. Once the gun is out the person on the shit end of it either submits peacefully or dies. If he gets to the officer he will surely take the gun and the officer will die so if any threatening move is made, it's assumed the idiot who is supposed to be on the ground is trying to kill the officer or someone else. There is no such thing as aiming at non lethal body parts. That's why they dont make targets shaped like legs. You shoot for the head or anywhere along the spinal column to end the dude's life. Guns aren't something you shoot just to make someone think about what a bad boy they've been.
TLDR, you always shoot to kill because you only shoot when it's you or him. If he doesn't die, you or someone else will.

Because that's a LOT fucking harder than you think, despite what TV and games tell you.

Adrenaline is a motherfucker. You can literally not register that you have been shot until you brush your hand against your shirt and it comes back bloody. Not only is it extremely hard to hit a quickly moving limb without spraying your shots and potentially endangering others, you can never guarantee hitting said limb will incapacitate the person. Even if it shatters their bone, for instance, they can still hit the ground, reach for a concealed pistol or some shit in desperation, and shoot you with it.

Effectively the only way to stop someone without using a large caliber/otherwise shock-inducing firearm is to shoot to kill.

Mostly because they want to live rather than take a chance. A lot of it has to do with training and conditioning. It's a reflective cycle between them and the society they serve.

A person can be shot in the hand or the arm and still be combative. It is a fallacy to believe that shooting someone in the arm, Their aggressive combative behavior will stop. Look at our military medal of honor recipients for proof

Because if you're using a gun, you're accepting that you are going to kill someone.

Additionally. is fully correct- bodycam videos giving a flat replay of the events are no substitute for being there physically, your perception distorted by adrenaline and panic. It's damn near impossible to aim in an engagement the same way you do at a firing range. It takes 2k+ bullets fired on average to kill one soldier in a war, and this has been true since the days of arquebuses and pikes.

>It takes 2k+ bullets fired on average to kill one soldier in a war, and this has been true since the days of arquebuses and pikes.

Subconsciously, most don't want to kill, too. It plays an effect, though you can't really quantify it.

>why do cops always shoot to kill?
to save money

>2k+ bullets
that includes indirect fire though.

>It takes 2k+ bullets
>this has been true since the days of arquebuses and pikes.
I highly doubt it, when you have two very dense blobs of people flinging lead balls at each other, a lot of them are going to get hit, simply by virtue of there being so many possible targets to hit.

Hell, why don't they just shoot the gun out of his hand?

t.never shot a gun before

See this is complete shit the majority of the time. Cops often are justified in these types of killings under these situations. You ever heard of condition black? Happens to everyone under stressful situations. Whats more stressful a cop trained and armed with a weapon aimed in center mass or some fucking kid who is a year away from being able to legally drink on his knees?

I am thinking of the recent situation of course. numerous times the officers could have moved forward and take them as culprits in what ever was to play out, but as many of this stories are becoming true and growing the much needed hatred towards our domestic little army. Cops outright killing dogs, you tell a judge you feared for you life and shot the dog. Now put a person in the place of the dog. Do what the officer in the video did. Say you were a civilian the next door over and responded this way as they did in the video word for word. Jail is the only thing waiting for you.

>
In the Napoleonic age, at least, it was complained that it took a man's weight in lead balls to actually kill him.

I know napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/ has a fuckton of info on Napoleon, his armies, enemies, etc- including statistics taken at the time on musket shots to casualties.

Fewer civil suits.

>why don't cops shoot some smaller portion of the target that's way harder to hit when their own lives are on the line and fractions of a second matter?
Because they're not retarded.

Remember: all fields.

>Why can’t they just shoot arms, hands, legs, or any place that won’t kill them?
I submit to you that this is exactly what they were doing. People miss their intended target when under duress. Instead, perhaps OP is indeed a faggot who watches to many jew movies.

The real question is, why don't they shoot nets that pull tight?

Easier said than done, user.

Because that's fucking dumb

In the US and even much of Canada, the only reason people call the police is because they need a guy with a gun, if the cops didn't have guns we would just use our own.

This thread is exactly why /k/ denies any association with Sup Forums.

Real life isn't like cowboy movies. Accurately firing a pistol at an erratic, moving target isn't an easy skill to learn. Police are barely required to be proficient with firearms. They are taught to use their weapons only when necessary (and yes, that means to kill) and to aim for center mass to maximize hits on target.

It's more accurate to say police are taught to shoot to hit and shoot when killing is warranted.

Also, if you have at least a high school graduate's understanding of anatomy, you could answer why it's still a bad idea to have perforated appendages.

Less likely to incur a lawsuit if you kill, less likely to miss if you aim center mass as they are trained to do. Aiming for the limbs is a good way to miss and hit innocents.

It's a non lethal gun.
So the purpose is execution?

I have a question for you.
We are you underage faggots posting here.

Shoot anywhere else and chances of hurting someone uninvolved rises. Shooting at the chest is the easiest thing for accuracy.

The point is that they don't shoot at all unless they're in imminent danger. And when that's the case you shoot to kill.

it's illegal
next question

To sum it up, the system developed with guns including the resulting death and now depends on it.

>trained to aim for center mass
I was about to post this but I realised the OP is an underage kid that lives in fantasy land
sage

The purpose is ending a threat, a one shot net cant beat a 17 round pistol in that regard over here we place little value on the lives of criminals.

This needs to be required at the bottom of every news article about a police or self defense shooting.
Probably won’t stop the dinduposts in the comments but one can hope.

Better question, if people understand cops will shoot to kill, why do so many resist arrest? Is it just as simple as Darwinism?
If so why would you have a problem with it?

Stop responding to this thread. It is an obvious bait straw man to make anti police posters look stupid

You shoot to stop. It's difficult enough to hit center of mass, it's damn near impossible to hit somebody's knee or something without capping a bystander. It's unfortunate, but it's true. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

They are, though