how do ya like cops now biatch

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:04 pm

84fierotrevor wrote: I was sitting at a stoplight once when i looked over to my right and there was 3 cops with guns drawn at me, turns out it wasn't at me but at some guy standing in between me and the cops that was on the sidewalk.
had the guy ran at the officers, and they fired. I coulda been hit, as well as the 3 people in my car, and other people at the light along with me.
I didn't know what the fuck they where thinking, and hope they new not to shoot, but who knows.

Now I can't of course speak for the officers there. But let it be known, the vast majority of firearms training for police officers is recognizing the circumstances surrounding you. Thus keeping in mind where your shots might end up, possible ricochets, citizens presence, etc. However, mistakes do happen, and a lot of people aren't good at looking past the main target (In this case, the subject that needs to be shot).

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:08 pm

Kohburn wrote: if that is true (and i think you are full of shit anyways) then it'd be the most retarded law in existance.

Think what you want, but that is the law, and the reasoning behind it is to prevent the officers using their weapons as a means of torture. That's what the tazer is for. They don't want officers shooting uncooperative drunks in the leg to "teach them a lesson."

the paintball pepper equipment is cheaper than a standard issue side arm - infact some are cheaper than those fancy flashlights security guards carry - and requires no additional training if they know how to pull a trigger. how much money do police departments waste every month investigating the officers who shoot criminals, or paying off people who had "excessive force" used on them even if they deserved it? seriously - the money excuse is old

No doubt cheaper than a sidearm, but a tazer? I doubt it. Furthermore, it can't be carried on the officers (too big). And it does require training (Reloading, videos on its direct effects, etc).

You keep saying the money excuse is old, I see it first hand, everyday I walk into work, and notice our officers don't have a tazer on their side.

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:14 pm

Aaron wrote: No doubt cheaper than a sidearm, but a tazer? I doubt it. Furthermore, it can't be carried on the officers (too big). And it does require training (Reloading, videos on its direct effects, etc).

You keep saying the money excuse is old, I see it first hand, everyday I walk into work, and notice our officers don't have a tazer on their side.

yes cheaper - pull setup cost about 70$ - the tazer guns cost about 700$

too big? did you not READ?!? they make paint pistols , this one even replicates a glock http://www.paintballbuster.com/site/750 ... 85-5898166 - already stated that - they used a DAMN CAR.. i think they could fit the fuull sized gun in the trunk

it is an excuse, not by the officer, by the beurocrats

law to keep them from torturing uncooperative drunks? maybe if the drunk was wielding a knife or something threatening the office, but its pretty easy to spell out when it is and isn't acceptable to use a certain amount of force.. lame reasoning..

Unsafe At Any Speed · Post by **Unsafe At Any Speed** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:18 pm

Kohburn wrote:
law to keep them from torturing uncooperative drunks? maybe if the drunk was wielding a knife or something threatening the office, but its pretty easy to spell out when it is and isn't acceptable to use a certain amount of force.. lame reasoning..

That friend I was talking about was running from the cops from a DUI or something. They shot him in the back.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:22 pm

Kohburn wrote: yes cheaper - pull setup cost about 70$ - the tazer guns cost about 700$

Trust me when I say the Government would find a way to buy $500 ones.

too big? did you not READ?!? they make paint pistols , this one even replicates a glock http://www.paintballbuster.com/site/750 ... 85-5898166 - already stated that - they used a DAMN CAR.. i think they could fit the fuull sized gun in the trunk

What good are they in the trunk? The problem with these, and pepper spray in general, is it inflicts pain. That is the sole purpose, is to overcome the subject via inflicting pain. Eyes burn, he can't see, hurts like fuck, he gives up. This is a problem when you encounter drunks and drug addicts, as many times they don't feel or react to pain. The tazer overcomes one's nervous system. You simply can't blow it off and keep fighting. It completely takes control, sending enormous amounts of voltage, causing every muslce in your body to clench uncontrollably.

law to keep them from torturing uncooperative drunks? maybe if the drunk was wielding a knife or something threatening the office, but its pretty easy to spell out when it is and isn't acceptable to use a certain amount of force.. lame reasoning..

So what if he doesn't have a knife, but is being extremely uncooperative and fighting? Perfect scenario for the tazer. But if you don't have that, you're honestly saying you'd be ok with an officer standing back and busting a couple rounds into the guy? Yah fucking right.

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 5:23 pm

Unsafe At Any Speed wrote:
Kohburn wrote:
law to keep them from torturing uncooperative drunks? maybe if the drunk was wielding a knife or something threatening the office, but its pretty easy to spell out when it is and isn't acceptable to use a certain amount of force.. lame reasoning..
That friend I was talking about was running from the cops from a DUI or something. They shot him in the back.

hmm but with a tazer.. good thing they had a tazer or they would have had to shoot to kill huh aaron

if i was running from cops i would expect to get shot in the legs

crzyone · Post by **crzyone** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 10:30 pm

I'm pretty sure that vid was taken in Alberta. I've seen it before, probibly on the news.

No sympathy for the guy with the knife.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 11:37 pm

Kohburn wrote: hmm but with a tazer.. good thing they had a tazer or they would have had to shoot to kill huh aaron

if i was running from cops i would expect to get shot in the legs

Ignorance is bliss isn't it stupid fuck?

A gun and a tazer have two different reasons for use in law enforcement.

The reason, the ONLY reason, for police officers to carry firearms is for self-defense. When they feel that their life, or a life of a citizan, is in immediate danger from another person, the officer has the justification to use his firearm, in a sole attempt to neutralize the aforementioned dangerous subject. If the officer fires, he must not only fire at the subject, he must also fire in attempt to kill the subject.

Thus, the officer cannot fire his weapon into the ground or the air, simply to prove a point or to show authority. Furthermore, the ONLY condition in which an officer is authorized to fire his weapon is as I stated, if his life, or the life of a citizen, is in immediate danger. So if the officer feels that the aforementioned lives are in enough danger for him to draw and fire his weapon, what the fuck are the courts going to think when he shoots the subject in the leg? Quite the cop. Tell me fucktard (That's you Kohburn), would you really support the local police department if somebody is putting your life at risk, and the cop shoots the guy in the leg? Furthermore, if someone pulled a gun on you, and fired, would you shoot the guy in the leg? A cop CANNOT shoot somebody for ANY other reason, so if the above requirements are met, why shouldn't the officer shoot to kill? You're a fucking idiot.

The tazer. The tazer's sole purpose is NOT for self defense, although it is there if the officer needs it for such a reason. It's primary purpose is to offer a way of controlling an unruly subject in such a manner that will not impose harmful, long-term effects upon the subject. However the tazer is such a good tool (because it overcomes them in a way that cannot be fought), that it is also a reliable means of self defense. It is just as harmful in the short-term as a gun, in most cases. However, that's most. The tazer has a short range, and does have the possibility, though rare, of not affecting someone enough to neutralize them. Furthermore, it only has one shot. An officer can fire a tazer for a lot of reasons, ranging from someone being uncooperative to someone putting the officer's life at risk. Because it isn't likely to kill, seriously injure, or, most importantly, inflict long-term injury upon the subject, it isn't as controlled as the firearm. If you get shot in the leg, you probably won't ever walk right again. That is cruel and unusual punishment, which in case you didn't know (At this point you don't seem to know shit about this topic), is illegal.

Weponhead · Post by **Weponhead** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 11:38 pm

just stop arguing , aaron knows all about law enforcement .. he is a meter maid after all. You cant deny his infalliable knowledge.

douche , shut up , maybe your FUCKED UP bumfuck egypt town has a law saying "set your pistols on BOOM HEADSHOT" but around here its not that way.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Tue Oct 24, 2006 11:43 pm

You can't seem to argue it. Oh yah, it's because it's right.

I'm not saying they shoot everyone in the face. But if an officer needs to fire his weapon, he must do so in an effort to have complete certainty that the subject will be neutralized. Shooting someone in the fucking leg isn't accomplishing this. So no, the officer doesn't HAVE to kill the person, but does have to shoot them in the target zones to maximize the damage, and thus minimize the chance that the subject is still a threat. And since this normally means shooting in the stomach/chest/head, it's generally conceived to be shooting to kill.

crzyone · Post by **crzyone** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 12:32 am

I have a cousin who is a cop and I asked him why they do not shoot for extremedies to injure instead of kill. He said they are trained to aim at the main body mass and shoot to kill.

People who are high on things such as PCP can charge you and not go down when you shoot at arms and legs so the gun is a last resort. If they have a knife, they can easily kill you if you don't put them down quick.

He is a strong advocate of the Tazer, a few people may die every year from it, but its a better option than pulling their sidearm.

ps, he is a city cop in Ellensburg Washington.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 1:08 am

Thanks Cryzone, and you/he are exactly right.

As I said, they don't shoot to kill, they aim at as you put it, the main body mass. This often times kills the subject, if not seriously injuring/handicapping them for life. Thus it's considering to be shooting to kill.

I am also a strong advocate for the tazer. But a replacement for the firearm it is not.

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:39 am

and if blind aaron would actuall read a single word i say then he's know i support the tazer but since he said they can't afford them so its not an option then they should also be allowed to shoot to disable without killing.

and each type of shot would be allowed under certain cercomstances - if someone is charging an officer then of course they are going to shoot to kill.. if someone isn't charging (no imediate threat) but is a flight risk or refusing to drop a weapon then shooting them int he extremities should be perfectly acceptable.

so nothing aaron has said has actually gone against a single point i've made, he just keep going :blah5: :blah5: :blah5:

but thats ok because he isn't particularly important

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:40 am

Aaron wrote:As I said, they don't shoot to kill, they aim at as you put it, the main body mass..

lol, like hell you said "they are required by law to shoot to kill"

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:44 am

Aaron wrote:[Tell me fucktard (That's you Kohburn), would you really support the local police department if somebody is putting your life at risk, and the cop shoots the guy in the leg? Furthermore, if someone pulled a gun on you, and fired, would you shoot the guy in the leg? A cop CANNOT shoot somebody for ANY other reason, so if the above requirements are met, why shouldn't the officer shoot to kill? You're a fucking idiot.
.

wow you really are retarded.. tell me where i said that if a criminal was a threat to a cop that they couldn't shoot him in the head? no i said many times the opposite - you are the one that said they are required to shoot to kill. this prevents them from having any other options to protect the public when they are not provided any other equipment and there is no immediate danger that "per the book" allows them to shoot to kill.. obviously the tazer is only an option if they actually HAVE ONE - god you are so fucking stupid and can;t read worth shit.

Kohburn · Post by **Kohburn** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 7:52 am

since Aaron destroyed this thread and it is doomed for the gay zone i'll add one more point.

hey shit eating toolbag (thats you aaron) since you eat up all the bullshit they feed you and enjoy every second of it, and then you like to take shits all over peoples threads and insult them when the sole fault lies in your failure to comprehend the written language. don't expect any kind treatment from me anymore, i'm done with you, done defending you to other people, done saying that you are just some kid with poor social skills who isn't all bad. because frankly i think you are completely hopeless, your chances of succeeding in life, society are slim to none. You fit into society about as well as a convicted child molester.

AkursedX · Post by **AkursedX** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:49 am

This video was taken in Toronto, it's been around for a while.

It's amazing that A-wrong knows all of the different use of force policies for not only every American department but also Canadian departments! That is just amazing.

My opinion: The officers managed to apprehend the suspect with minimal injury and no officers or bystanders were hurt. Yes it was an unorthodox method, but it worked. Good job. But if an action like that were taken in my agency, there would be a lot of memo writing.

DiggityBiggity · Post by **DiggityBiggity** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 9:23 am

If that shit happened in America, that police force may be bankrupt from the lawsuit that man would have filed... completely excessive. I've shown the video to three seperate cops I know, they all agree... that's a no no

84fierotrevor · Post by **84fierotrevor** » Wed Oct 25, 2006 3:46 pm

Aaron wrote:You can't seem to argue it. Oh yah, it's because it's right.

I'm not saying they shoot everyone in the face. But if an officer needs to fire his weapon, he must do so in an effort to have complete certainty that the subject will be neutralized. Shooting someone in the fucking leg isn't accomplishing this. So no, the officer doesn't HAVE to kill the person, but does have to shoot them in the target zones to maximize the damage, and thus minimize the chance that the subject is still a threat. And since this normally means shooting in the stomach/chest/head, it's generally conceived to be shooting to kill.

when i was in college, taking some classes they told me to take that would help set me up for the police academy, "you know the one where they make you listen to 911 calls, and watch the video of the guy who shoots himself in the interegation room"
some of the stuff that was stressed, was you never ever fire your gun, unless its to kill someone, there is no such thing as nutrualzing the enemy, or shooting in the legs, or arms, or gun out of his hand or whatever cause it just isnt likley with the aim from a handgun, and the adreniline flow of the scene.they say you shoot dead mass center for the chest. always.
i was also told the same thing in police explorers when i was younger.
and then when i used to hang out on glocktalk.com "before i sold my glock 17"
alot of LEO's there would post in self defense related threads. to always shoot dead mass.
I don't cops have ever been told told to shoot someone in the face, atleast not around here.
maybe any real cops on the forum can help out and explain better.

DINSTAAR · Post by **DINSTAAR** » Sat Oct 28, 2006 10:25 pm

From my understanding there are three reasons that law enforcement is trained to shoot for center mass. The first is because they want the suspect immobilized. The second is because the average human torso is 2 square foot target vs a 6 square inch arm or leg for a target. The third reason is because under normal circumstances there is enough resistance with a torso to keep a bullet from travelling though the suspect and hitting an innocent civilian in the background.

As for the person that posted about ending up on the wrong end of the police gunbarrel while driving past an arrest in progress. I would call that a lack of situational awareness. If you are aware of your surroundings when out and about you can avoid putting yourself in that specific situation as well as many others like getting run over by an emergency vehicle, or getting car-jacked at a stoplight. Just my opinion there.