Everyone is praising the police who shot the loony in Glasgow dead. I can never understand why they don't shoot their guns at someone's legs or arms. Surely there is no need always to kill people? Many people suspect one of the motivations for becoming a cop is the desire to kill people legally. All we know is that, at present, the only killing in the Glasgow incident was by a cop.

Not sure about circs of Glasgow but UK Police - in common with most countries - when the risk threshold has been reached to public or themselves, are told to aim for the central torso/chest area. Obviously this results in a high risk of death.

The reason they don't shoot in arms or legs is this can't be guaranteed to stop the person advancing - apparantly they have even been known to run after being shot in leg! The only guarantee is "disabling" the central nervous system.

JK2006 wrote:
Everyone is praising the police who shot the loony in Glasgow dead. I can never understand why they don't shoot their guns at someone's legs or arms. Surely there is no need always to kill people? Many people suspect one of the motivations for becoming a cop is the desire to kill people legally. All we know is that, at present, the only killing in the Glasgow incident was by a cop.

3 second decision Mr King. Also depending if you're shot in arm and leg you can still be mobile - not forgetting you need to be a very good sharp shooter to shot limbs from a distance.

wyot wrote:
Not sure about circs of Glasgow but UK Police - in common with most countries - when the risk threshold has been reached to public or themselves, are told to aim for the central torso/chest area. Obviously this results in a high risk of death.

The reason they don't shoot in arms or legs is this can't be guaranteed to stop the person advancing - apparantly they have even been known to run after being shot in leg! The only guarantee is "disabling" the central nervous system.

I like the eye for an eye approach also.

If they really want a useful suspect, not a convenient corpse.

They COULD use ballistic shields and tasers from 30ft/10ms.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_shield#:~:text=It%20may%20be%20the%20policy,suspect%20deemed%20to%20be%20dangerous.

Can you Just imagine the compensation claims if police blinded suspects or passers bye. They can bounce off surfaces.

Green Man wrote:
wyot wrote:
Not sure about circs of Glasgow but UK Police - in common with most countries - when the risk threshold has been reached to public or themselves, are told to aim for the central torso/chest area. Obviously this results in a high risk of death.

The reason they don't shoot in arms or legs is this can't be guaranteed to stop the person advancing - apparantly they have even been known to run after being shot in leg! The only guarantee is "disabling" the central nervous system.

I like the eye for an eye approach also.

I think the eye for an eye approach is morally vacuous, infantile in conception and degrading to all involved.

JK2006 wrote:
I can never understand why they don't shoot their guns at someone's legs or arms.

That's because you have no firearms experience. It's very difficult to hit a small target, like a limb, that might be moving around. One millimetre difference in your grip on the weapon can make a large difference over even a 10m shooting range: a difference large enough to hit a bystander. And by the time you've missed and re-aimed, the attacker has closed the range and is stabbing you to death.

Plus, firearms are only used AT ALL because lethal force has been judged necessary to protect others from harm. There is no such thing as shooting to wound, only shooting to kill. Hence aiming for the centre of mass: the chest. Best chance of hitting and stopping the target.

But your point about less lethal methods is a good one. Beanbag or baton rounds and tasers or even a dog are preferable options. But facing a determined and murderous attacker, would you risk a policeman's life and the life of passers by? So there is a regrettable but distinguishably less bad eventuality in shooting such a suspect.

Randall wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
I can never understand why they don't shoot their guns at someone's legs or arms.

That's because you have no firearms experience. It's very difficult to hit a small target, like a limb, that might be moving around. One millimetre difference in your grip on the weapon can make a large difference over even a 10m shooting range: a difference large enough to hit a bystander. And by the time you've missed and re-aimed, the attacker has closed the range and is stabbing you to death.

Plus, firearms are only used AT ALL because lethal force has been judged necessary to protect others from harm. There is no such thing as shooting to wound, only shooting to kill. Hence aiming for the centre of mass: the chest. Best chance of hitting and stopping the target.

But your point about less lethal methods is a good one. Beanbag or baton rounds and tasers or even a dog are preferable options. But facing a determined and murderous attacker, would you risk a policeman's life and the life of passers by? So there is a regrettable but distinguishably less bad eventuality in shooting such a suspect.

Ditto.

I am no stranger to firearms, but God forbid anyone with no confidence or knowledge to handle them. It takes confidence, knowledge, practise and common sense.

If you go to a gun show in America, you need money, state ID, background check. If you ask a stall holder for a 9mm he will ask for these. Some states make it impossible for people to buy a gun now especially New York and New Jersey.

wyot wrote:
Green Man wrote:
wyot wrote:
Not sure about circs of Glasgow but UK Police - in common with most countries - when the risk threshold has been reached to public or themselves, are told to aim for the central torso/chest area. Obviously this results in a high risk of death.

The reason they don't shoot in arms or legs is this can't be guaranteed to stop the person advancing - apparantly they have even been known to run after being shot in leg! The only guarantee is "disabling" the central nervous system.

I like the eye for an eye approach also.

I think the eye for an eye approach is morally vacuous, infantile in conception and degrading to all involved.

If someone stole your car and burnt it. You should be allowed to do the same or chop his hands off.

Green Man wrote:
wyot wrote:
Green Man wrote:
wyot wrote:
Not sure about circs of Glasgow but UK Police - in common with most countries - when the risk threshold has been reached to public or themselves, are told to aim for the central torso/chest area. Obviously this results in a high risk of death.

The reason they don't shoot in arms or legs is this can't be guaranteed to stop the person advancing - apparantly they have even been known to run after being shot in leg! The only guarantee is "disabling" the central nervous system.

I like the eye for an eye approach also.

I think the eye for an eye approach is morally vacuous, infantile in conception and degrading to all involved.

If someone stole your car and burnt it. You should be allowed to do the same or chop his hands off.

Why?

Er, unless (rarely) hostages are involved, 'professional' police (exclude current populist career climbers) cordon an area safely from bystanders before they use tasers or deadly force. Not least against a Glasgow 'knife' wielder who might throw in desperation, but can't 'shoot' back from distance.

The December 1975, London, Balcombe Street blueprint UK 'hostage' case successfully and safely concluded against four IRA gunmen, was rarely if ever repeated.

Because, paraphrase media-savvy JK, "It took six expensively long days, and ultimately wasn't a 'Good Story' to sell to the ever growing swarm of short-brain longtail tabloid and multi-channel TV masses."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balcombe_Street_siege

Green Man wrote:
If someone stole your car and burnt it. You should be allowed to do the same or chop his hands off.

Even for taking my 2003 Skoda Rust-Bucket Mk III?

Way to go, Wyot & Barney in Wild West modern UK!

And, if another innocent man/femme/child victim gets burned, who cares?

Quote media-savvy JK, "Just another tabloid 'Good Story' to sell to the shallow ignorant masses."

Green Man wrote:
wyot wrote:
Green Man wrote:
wyot wrote:
Not sure about circs of Glasgow but UK Police - in common with most countries - when the risk threshold has been reached to public or themselves, are told to aim for the central torso/chest area. Obviously this results in a high risk of death.

The reason they don't shoot in arms or legs is this can't be guaranteed to stop the person advancing - apparantly they have even been known to run after being shot in leg! The only guarantee is "disabling" the central nervous system.

I like the eye for an eye approach also.

I think the eye for an eye approach is morally vacuous, infantile in conception and degrading to all involved.

If someone stole your car and burnt it. You should be allowed to do the same or chop his hands off.

And how has that been working out so far?

Honey wrote:
Green Man wrote:
wyot wrote:
Green Man wrote:
wyot wrote:
Not sure about circs of Glasgow but UK Police - in common with most countries - when the risk threshold has been reached to public or themselves, are told to aim for the central torso/chest area. Obviously this results in a high risk of death.

The reason they don't shoot in arms or legs is this can't be guaranteed to stop the person advancing - apparantly they have even been known to run after being shot in leg! The only guarantee is "disabling" the central nervous system.

I like the eye for an eye approach also.

I think the eye for an eye approach is morally vacuous, infantile in conception and degrading to all involved.

If someone stole your car and burnt it. You should be allowed to do the same or chop his hands off.

And how has that been working out so far?

Haven't tried it yet.

Barney wrote:
Green Man wrote:
If someone stole your car and burnt it. You should be allowed to do the same or chop his hands off.

Even for taking my 2003 Skoda Rust-Bucket Mk III?





I say he'll be doing you a favour. I remember my first Toyota pickup truck; it was pretty much fit only for the scrap heap but it did a while. But what do you expect for $90 with a free wire hanger for the radio aerial.

My first car leaked oil and water, had no heater or radio, just one working door and wiper - together with a damaged steering wheel, with a mind of its own.

But it ferried me to the Wormwood Scrubs and the Hackney Marshes for football games - in anticipation of a tap on the shoulder, from an Arsenal scout.

Now my car opens and starts when told, tells when where to go, what pressure is in my tyres - and allows me to converse with anyone, in any country on earth.