06-18-2020, 12:56 PM
Still some loose ends to tie up here:
LOL you mean congrats to my friend's "stupid" command for telling soldiers to "make a more difficult shot attempt." IDF soliders know very well they can "miss the target and hit something behind." They make a good reference point for understanding the difference between using police to police civilians of one's own community and using military to police civilians who are not of one's own community, resulting in different calculations of applicable force.
Except for the bolded, which is just bad guesswork, "ignorant" IDF commanders (not to mention 80% of the people on this message board) are already familiar with the above information. I'll wager most still don't see legs shots as only "slightly" less lethal.
Then you post this:
In response to this:
"But US police are only supposed to be using deadly force when there is an immediate and direct threat to their lives or others. Like a 250 Lb man running straight at you with an ax. We only get into these muddled discussions of whether to go for "body mass" because there are so many times when police kill people who are not such a threat. (Check out the video in Dino's post #960 above--like a firing squad.) People wonder "Couldn't they have used less force, like shoot him in the leg?" But then police are in trouble for using lethal force where "less than" was called for. Cuz a gun is always deadly force."
. . . which exhibits no confusion either about what constitutes "deadly force" or whether the issue is "deadly force being used in the first place."
The point of the last two statements is that police officers aren't supposed to use a weapon of "deadly force" for anything but saving their own lives or bystanders'. If an unarmed person is resisting arrest, police can use their baton, pepper spray and tasers to manage that. But they can't just shoot a guy in the leg to settle him down. Even police reformers don't encourage limb shots on those who attack police, for fear it will loosen restrictions on when and where lethal weapons may be used.
The paragraph as a whole addresses the question many have when comparing police-caused deaths between countries. E.g., British police are also frequently attacked by people wielding knives and pipes and other potentially deadly weapons, but somehow neutralize them without killing them. In the US, many see "no-choice" but to simply shoot the knife and pipe-wielders. Those who raise questions about this normality are typically scolded for "monday-morning quarterbacking" from their armchairs about an officer who had to make a "split second decision." It is this bland acceptance of no other alternative that puzzles our friends from countries with high levels of police accountability.
Hoping you won't continue claiming you HAVE to post rationales for aiming "center-mass" because "ignorance" is the only reason people don't accept your take on appropriate force.
Time to consider more closely why we have so many "regrettable accidents" and shootings of unarmed people, including those fleeing the scene.
(06-16-2020, 01:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ugh, the ignorance about firearms again raises its head. The IDF soldiers have rifles equipped with scopes or red dot sights. It is infinitely easier to aim for a body part other than center mass when using a long gun with an appropriate scope or tactical sight. Additionally, they have the advantage of occupying a fixed position, meaning they aren't on the move when making such shots. All of this adds up to a much easier shot then you are intimating.
I'll further add that hitting someone in the thigh with a high velocity rifle round is very close to as lethal as shooting them in the torso. If you hit the femoral artery that person will bleed out in short order. If the bullet does not directly hit the artery then the "stretch cavity" or the stress tearing caused by the bullet dumping kinetic energy into the surrounding tissues will absolutely tear the artery if it hits anywhere near it. Additionally, if you hit the femur with a high velocity rifle round it will shatter, sending bone splinters into the surrounding tissue, which is likely to hit the femoral artery as it rests almost directly against the femur. So congrats to your friend for making am ore difficult shot attempt, that is only slightly less lethal, but also raises the possibility of his missing the target and hitting something behind the target, like a person who isn't throwing rocks. So yes, it is a stupid idea when you take into account all the actual facts of the consequences of such an action.
LOL you mean congrats to my friend's "stupid" command for telling soldiers to "make a more difficult shot attempt." IDF soliders know very well they can "miss the target and hit something behind." They make a good reference point for understanding the difference between using police to police civilians of one's own community and using military to police civilians who are not of one's own community, resulting in different calculations of applicable force.
Except for the bolded, which is just bad guesswork, "ignorant" IDF commanders (not to mention 80% of the people on this message board) are already familiar with the above information. I'll wager most still don't see legs shots as only "slightly" less lethal.
Then you post this:
(06-16-2020, 01:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Then your argument is the use of deadly force itself, not the aiming for center mass. You talk about them like they're the same thing, they are not. If you use deadly force you always aim center mass, no serious firearms instructor would ever tell you otherwise. Your issue is, or should be, with deadly force being used in the first place.
In response to this:
"But US police are only supposed to be using deadly force when there is an immediate and direct threat to their lives or others. Like a 250 Lb man running straight at you with an ax. We only get into these muddled discussions of whether to go for "body mass" because there are so many times when police kill people who are not such a threat. (Check out the video in Dino's post #960 above--like a firing squad.) People wonder "Couldn't they have used less force, like shoot him in the leg?" But then police are in trouble for using lethal force where "less than" was called for. Cuz a gun is always deadly force."
. . . which exhibits no confusion either about what constitutes "deadly force" or whether the issue is "deadly force being used in the first place."
The point of the last two statements is that police officers aren't supposed to use a weapon of "deadly force" for anything but saving their own lives or bystanders'. If an unarmed person is resisting arrest, police can use their baton, pepper spray and tasers to manage that. But they can't just shoot a guy in the leg to settle him down. Even police reformers don't encourage limb shots on those who attack police, for fear it will loosen restrictions on when and where lethal weapons may be used.
The paragraph as a whole addresses the question many have when comparing police-caused deaths between countries. E.g., British police are also frequently attacked by people wielding knives and pipes and other potentially deadly weapons, but somehow neutralize them without killing them. In the US, many see "no-choice" but to simply shoot the knife and pipe-wielders. Those who raise questions about this normality are typically scolded for "monday-morning quarterbacking" from their armchairs about an officer who had to make a "split second decision." It is this bland acceptance of no other alternative that puzzles our friends from countries with high levels of police accountability.
Hoping you won't continue claiming you HAVE to post rationales for aiming "center-mass" because "ignorance" is the only reason people don't accept your take on appropriate force.
Time to consider more closely why we have so many "regrettable accidents" and shootings of unarmed people, including those fleeing the scene.
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
