What goes on after they have shot someone?

Over here if they fire their gun they then seem to get taken off duty while someone decides if they right to do so. Is having to shoot someone such an everyday thing over there that it's just ask for a few new bullets next time you go on duty and carry on?

It's a case-by case thing. With the Oscar Grant killing, the guy resigned and took off for Nevada. The shooting on Saturday of the knife guy was multiple cops, so I'm sure they just got ammo refills and carried on. Same with the freeway shootout yesterday.

I wasn't a snipper, did do some training but I was SRT and police and military police trained, all times trained one shot, one kill. 9mm was just one type of gun we had, normally for gate/guard duty.

Law enforcement officers are trained to shoot until the threat is stopped, not to shoot to kill. You can look it up in any manual, training manual or motto used. One shot one kill is a training element, shooting 3 rapid bursts increase your chances of missing, greatly.

They train center mass due to stress, because when "you're being fired back at" you tend to panic... not because some guy is 20+ feet away that you already know has knives in hand.

I have a friend that got shot 16 times point blank with an AK47, maybe we should have cops shoot 17 times just to be sure the guy is dead?


Here is one reason why multiple officers should not be allowed to take multiple shots, we're in a huge ammo shortage in our Country - It's wasted rounds when one shot from a .45 will take down a horse, let alone a man.


If you stand 2 feet from a dart board you can't hit shit, doesn't make a diff how good you are - if you backup to 10 feet you can what you aim for. This wasn't a gun fight in a elevator, it was a stand off with police drawn down on him, in the ready... and on target.

Being trained, I can easily see what took place.

That's what I have tried and a small game head as well. Think I'll just stick with a shotgun when it comes to flying birds, bow is too fucking hard.

Is it just me, or does it seem like transit cops are killing more people than SWAT teams these days?

this thread is GAY and USELESS..

Dont' get what you are arguing about, center mass is the largest target, and you keep shooting till he drops once the attacks happens. Adrenal dump is adrenal dump, and if you have your firearm unholstered and someone attacks you with knives you don't fire one and hope it stops him, you fire till he stops. This is common sense, and I have zero clue why you want to argue semantics.

Red Herring and frankly makes no sense.

With all due respect, if I was one of the cops and I had a guy coming at me with a knife in each hand, I dont' give a flying fuck what ammo shortage we're in. I'm going to live. This is a weak argument point you keep bringing up again and again. I'm sure anyone in fear of their live in this situation is going to stop and think about the alledged ammo shortage.


Again, no idea what your analogy means, and you took my example of "close quarters gun fight" severely out of context to further your agenda.

Being trained and being there are two different things. And frankly, I've lost some respect for you in this thread. You are arguing a loosing position and to bolster it you use anecdotal evidence.

This is a poor example of the use of excessive force. The man was not randomly pulled over and harassed; someone called the police. He had 2 knives. Not even Davy Crockett carried 2 knives. He was still aggressive even after non lethal means were used to subdue.

For those with a beef with police brutality this case is not the one you should cite. There are plenty of other cases you could use to illustrate some cops are douche bags.

I'm not arguing, I'm telling you what was trained and taught to me. We are trained, told and taught to shoot to stop the threat, and not shoot to kill. Those are very different things. The reason is very simple, your job is to protect the people 'first' - that includes the crazy ones.


That's called regulations and it's one of many officers often have to deal with. It is something to think about, because they put in at least 5 rounds to many into a person, rounds that could be used to actually save a cops life that was in danger at another time, rounds other stations throughout our Country could have used.



Wouldn't giving such an example of a close quarters gun fight actually further your agenda to try and make this situation relate to your view point?


Exactly, these people train for this situation, and these weren't beat cops - chances are they have gone through similar situations before along with the training. Probably like the several I have personally been through, being that most Military bases allow knives but not guns. But no reason to discuss those, we have different rules.

I never asked for your respect... I haven't given any out, so no reason to take any in.

I would have shot him too.

I'm actually tired of debating a moot point with you. After reading back to fathom why you would continue to attempt to construct any type of rationale behind your argument, I noticed that might not happen as I disagreed with your mate.

Enjoy your day.

It helps if you don't twist the view points so many times that you lose sight of the original argument, it helps to keep on track basically.

The rationale on my argument is very sound, I think they used more force than what was needed. The guy had a history of mental problems, if anything the police failed to the job correctly.

Odd thing is, you would think you would respect me more - being that I would put my life on the line to save another mans life, all by simply shooting 2x2 left.

Yer kidding right?

To you it would seem so. Every professional firearms instructor I know would disagree. That's from DEA to former SAS and all the other acronyms I've trained with.

What's there to respect about Monday Morning Quaterbacking?

My first reply back to you was about a surprise attack with a knife, something that didn't happen. Then you talked about the caliber of the bullet and police procedure, an elevator and so on. We covered your view points of various situations that did not related to what happened. By time we go through them, you were frustrated.

That's twisting situations that do not relate to the situation, so the subject matches your view point... so no, I'm not kidding.


I highly doubt you have ever discussed with federal agents what they do when a known mental history person is on the loose, has a weapon (knives) hasn't hurt anyone (very important) and is confronted and goes nuts, runs away... is this really a subject that comes up on the mat?

Ask them how they would deal with a person in this situation, when they approached him again. The answer they give you will enlighten you as to why I feel the police used too much force in this situation.

The problem with you is your comprehension. Or lack of.

That's a great world you live in, do you bedazzle the S on your chest? That's rhetorical, don't answer.

Sweet, you don't disagree with the statement I made then, you did twist topics - good man! :thumbsup

I agree with you btw, reading comprehension was always one of my lacking skills, I tend to get bored and wonder off in the mind when I'm forced to read gibberish.

One thing I can comprehend is... you didn't answer the questions, you twisted it to nothing again, and gave your own perspective, again. This is exactly what I was talking about, and a great example to use.

So, is that a no..? You don't really talk about unique police procedures with your acronym friends? Very understandable, it wasn't something police generally talked about either, for sure not during different training.

But... maybe I'm wrong...would you like to clear any of this up?

spoken very well....

agreed 110%...


you know like I know that a cop just might shoot you if he's nervous.. so I comply yes sir no sir a cop is not who you argue with.. the judge is...

thats my point in the other thread ....

you don't know .. you treat everyone weather they are 21 and on roids or 85 and on oxygen.. cause you just don't know... how the fuck can you make a statement like that then bitch about the cops shooting some criminal... shoot the criminals seriously.. offer the public to shoot criminals ill be first in line.. we don't want them or need them to breed more idiots like you

doc are you serious about all the cops shooting him? dood.. you must not have friends and I sure as shit don't want you in my foxhole if your not going to help your buds out....

your telling me since I have a bit more training with handguns than you do that I should be the only one to take the shot and I need to make it a headshot?


fuck that.. I was FR and my partner is a 27 year navy seal (ret) and only in certian situations were we ever trained to reserve our ammo and take only kills shots... but in urban situations unless we were 2 weeks in on an all foot hike and low on ammo...

for cops? like anthony said.. and every firearms instructor for civilians and LEO always teach shoot til the threat is gone... even if I got a headshot off on an intruder in my house im still dumping 2 more in his fucking brain and 5 more in his chest... im in no shortage of ammo at home...

and gat damnit if im under fire or about to be attacked I want everyone on (my team) to shoot that fucker before he gets me.. don't you agree?

or would you like to be front line and just watch your brothers get shot?

again I understand your statement on 1s1k but understand this is urban and urban warfare is a tottally different ballgame... you shoot til the threat is gone and 40rds in someones chest is a good way to elimnate the threat

You missed the point entirely.

The point was, you can't say they dealt with him the way cops deal with scumbags because they didn't know he was a scumbag. Which means..... what? It means they dealt with him the same way they would deal with YOU having a bad day. Finding out his priors after the fact and THEN labeling him a "criminal" or whatever name suits you this week is retarded and fruitless. The larger picture here is that the cops deal with all people this way.

And you think that's a good thing? Let me 'splain you how fucked up this can be.

My wife and I were sitting at home one night watching a movie. Out of the clear blue sky, the police are at the door. Someone called them and reported us as squatters on the property. So the fuzz showed up, searched my entire property without my permission, then demanded that I prove it was my residence by producing and showing them my mortgage documents. Failing that I was informed that I would be tased and arrested until they could sort it out.

Really?

What kind of fucking police state are we living in here? This particular incident happened years ago, but I guess I didn't get the memo that the police now have authority to go door to fucking door demanding proof of shit.

Fuck. The. Police.

are you seriously brain dead or are you just putting on a show....

it's like you read what I am writing but you just don understand what im saying...

of course they treated him the same way as anybody.. then he fucked that up by acting the fool... here let me put it in little kid terms since your a fucking idiot it seems...

ok cops are like an arguement .. the louder you get the louder they will get.. the softer you talk the softer they are...

make sense or are you still retarded about it?

again...

if he had a knife on him he should have been spread angel on the ground with hand stretched as far as he could have them out.. his face as far in the ground as he could put it.... and not made one fucking movement ... shit at that point you should has to sneeze know what I mean...


funny part is.. you aint got a hair on your ass dood.. I give you 30sec with one of our cops here in vegas before you are calling him sir or you might just be that fucking retarded that you would be the next video of some idiot who argued with cops and ended up shot

Dude, if there's been any twisting it's been you quoting back what I say with anecdotal insight. Which in the world of facts, means nothing. Congratulations, you won and saved the honor of your mate by posting sheer disconnect.

"You never win arguing with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you by experience."

You're right DirtyDanza. I submit. You win. Good luck.

im just saying dood you are yet to show me a video or something where a cop shoots some innocent person just oblidging every command they make ..... it's always someone who wants to argue with cops...

Sure.... let's take your word for it because you train with secret agent 007 that told you everything and no reason to consider what a trained police officer and military policeman has to say, it's just a bunch of hearsay evidence that is disconnected from reality.

Wow, you're insight is purely brilliant and twisting all in one, bravo!

Here you go Superman. http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/...eb.htm#page_15

I'm sure you know better than the FBI, Mr Has Been Police Officer disconnected from reality.

I'm sure you watched a lot of Cowboy movies.

Snipped from FBI Publication.
Now I've showed my proof that your full of shit, why don't you show me your proof that you shot someone with one round and stopped them in their tracks.

This argument with THe Doc reminds me of Kung Fu guys who think they have the deadly martial arts, who get promptly taken to the ground and then beaten the shit out of.

Total disconnect from reality from watching tv and wanting to believe they are the deadly.

I forgot to put in my fave line in that FBI Publication...

There you go Doc, I even maded it Bold and made it a bright color so you can see it sky high in that world in your head you live in where you know better than everyone else.

this guy asked for it

Are you really this slow, seriously? I'm fucking shocked you're trying to twist more stupid shit..

I never said shoot a person in the hands, I never said police shouldn't shoot a person multiple times, I never denied that they do, I never denied that it was okay or part of procedure.

What I did say (read this part again it's important) is the situation is different. The guy had a history of mental issues, police are given the situation details before they engage.

In this case, this shooting, this example, this article.... they police "used too much force" and could have stopped him with one shoot or as stated, other ways than shooting him.

Do you understand what my statement is? It's this "They used too much force in this situation." - This isn't about cowboy shooting, it's about force.







Thanks... looks like we will need your quote again to make sure you understand what it says.

As I stated "Law enforcement officers are trained to shoot until the threat is stopped, not to shoot to kill."

As the the quote states: "Combat courses should necessitate officers shooting until they incapacitate the threat (target) or the threat ceases."

I did say if they need to kill them, so be it. But again, this situation in the article isn't a normal one. It's why I said "they used too much force."



I guess this proves my point, you haven't actually talked to any special agents about this situation. Thanks!

Btw... Police procedure is overwritten by American Law. We do have a "federal" mental health law in this Country and we do have procedures on dealing with 'knowing or thought to be' people with mental issues, in damn near every State.

To prevent danger to the individual or society... the police have an obligation, to subdue the person.

Now.. I will break out the big guns: 1996 I was diagnosed with a personality disorder. While on duty, with a gun, I lost it and became violent... if the police didn't follow procedure, I would be dead today.

So you can stick all your stupid ass comments, thinking you know theories, bullshit that you heard second hand that nobody really ever told you, that you had to look up to try and apply it to the wrong situation - again, stick it up your ass.

My constant in this thread.

"Shoot till attack is stopped". This is common training with LEO, Self Defense with handgun, and is a fact. You tell me I'm wrong and use your personal stories as proof. I cite you empirical data, and you tell me I'm wrong.

Your argument this whole thread.
1. You can shoot 1 round and stop someone --- Still waiting for proof
2. There's an ammo shortage -- And that matters why in a gun fight
3. Standard training is one shot one kill
4. You can do it, so every police officer or Law Enforcement Officer for that matter should do it.

You've been proven to be wrong. But yet you continue to argue. You bring up your mental breakdown to compare with the shoot out in this thread. Any sane person working with facts and not anecdotes can see that every situation is different. But you cling on desperately with your personal story hoping that it supersedes FBI and every firearms training doctrine I've ever trained with.

You just can't admit when you are wrong.

One more time for your poor reading comprehension. You fucking argued with me in this thread for no other reason than I hurt your feelings.

How sad of a person are you?

Umm... I never said you were wrong, I said this is how we train. What I said was very clear and doesn't need to be twisted. The purpose is to stop the attack or threat, we have both made that clear... what you're ignoring is it doesn't say to kill, it says to stop. That is, actually important.

It's the Police's duty is to use the least amount of force as possible... that's why it doesn't say kill.


1) Joke right? People die / get stopped from one shot all the time, good lord use google. So one shot can be made, it can stop/kill a person, but it might not - which is the point.

2) It matters to other Cops that don't have ammo, that need it... why are we covering this again?

3) If I remember correctly, it's called: One shot, one kill vs. double tap shots. It was repeated in all training I had, other than double tap came in during SRT training. So yeah, rather standard.

4) I'm for sure not the only one that can shoot a gun, far better people trained me.




You haven't proven anything... you posted information and twisted it to match your view point, that's all you did.

They compare because the guy had a history of mental problems and it's the police's job to take in that situation, so it can be treated differently.

So my experience means nothing because your experience supersedes it? Love those twists, really I do.

May want to look at yourself for sadness, cause my feelings aren't hurt, I'm laughing over here. I think you're confused on what an argument is... maybe your're letting your emotions get the best of you?




When I replied to you, I never said anything about shooting in the legs or arms (I don't think you would do this). And I have said many times, they shoot to stop the attack.

Being that you like to twist things for whatever reason...

My reply back to you in the comment you made above was about hitting a target from 20 feet away with your weapon already at the ready. Not what you tried to twist it to be about and for sure not what you made bold in it - that's you trying to twist things, again.


I'm not arguing with you... I'm simply making you look stupid.

Your experience is anecdotal. Your personal views on a subject.

What I've stated is empirical. Data that is supported and documented.

I didn't ask for Google querries, I asked for YOUR PROOF that YOU SHOT SOMEONE ONE TIME AND PUT THEM DOWN. After Action Report will do just fine.

As I've said in this thread, you are monday morning quaterbacking, and making yourself out to be more than you really are. I really question your training and veracity as a police officer considering you were almost put down for going 5150 as one.

Me:

Shoot till you stop the attack. It's standard firearms training.

You:

I could have done it with one shot, and a host of other bullshit red herrings to obfuscate that you are wrong with your statement that it only takes one, and that's how everyone is trained and you can find it in any manual.


I'm done with you. You constantly accuse me of twisting things around when the only person doing that in this thread is you. You've been proven to me and everyone reading this that you still suffer from disconnection to reality.

I mean really come one, arguing with an FBI Document? You have a great day in that world in your head.

Quoted for the truth:thumbsup




Doc, just stop already. This is your "Vietnam" and your not winning.



Posting more stories in this thread isn't going to make you right. Its not a quantity thing dude.:2 cents:

Wow, just one lame twist after another. You said "You can shoot 1 round and stop someone" - Which again I did prove to be correct, just to make sure we're clear on the twists - This isn't asking me for proof of my actions.

Military Police Action Report? I wasn't aware we had those. However, I don't see how this lame twists changes the fact that 1 round can stop someone. That was your real point after all.


Yes, that's your opinion you have stated that already. It's nice to question my training, it's slick to do it after I questioned you ever talking to any agents about this topics special situation, ie: the person having a mental history.

Really what happened here is, I called you're card and you got pissed.


Odd, I don't remember writing that, but anyway as I have told you and you keep bringing up, I said: "Law enforcement officers are trained to shoot until the threat is stopped, not to shoot to kill."

I don't see why you keep bringing this up.


I'm not accusing you, I have examples of it in this reply. I wasn't aware I ever argued the FBI information you posted.


Enjoy your day...

I don't feel I have anything to win or lose nor am I trying to make anything be right or correct, other than the miss quotes of what I said.

And I agree, stories clearly can only be used if the other party is telling them, mine couldn't be right in this situation. Sorry, I forgot the rules.

Thanks for the advice :thumbsup

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh :1orglaugh


Got to give you props on your wit and sense of humor.:thumbsup