Ok. This is a public issue in america but here its mainly for police. Some have views on self defense here though.

Should private citizens or police shoot to kill? Or should they shoot to disable instead so the "threat" can have a fair trial? How about tasers? Should we take the guns away from police and just use tasers?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 5:17pm:

Some have views on self defense here though.

Not really - you might find Australians with views on self defence though....

Frances wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 5:22pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 5:17pm: Some have views on self defense here though. Not really - you might find Australians with views on self defence though....

What does that mean? Are you correcting my grammar or nitpicking? I cant tell.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 5:31pm:

Frances wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 5:22pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 5:17pm: Some have views on self defense here though. Not really - you might find Australians with views on self defence though.... What does that mean? Are you correcting my grammar or nitpicking? I cant tell. SOB

She correcting your spelling ...

I say shoot to kill. Police only draw their weapons if you approach them with a weapon or with your hands hidden for which the most likely cause is to hide a weapon ... they should shoot to kill. Chances are if you aim for the arm you'll miss, in which case if he's coming at you with a weapon, you could end up dead. If you don't want to be shot, don't approach the cops with a weapon... not difficult

Obviously shooting with the specific intent to kill is over the top, problem is that shooting for an area that definitely won't kill them is a) more likely to miss altogether and b) not likely to stop an imminent threat even if it does hit.

I agree on that point tolerator. Even though I find tasers repulsive I think they are much better than balistics when it comes to body shots and the like.

... wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 5:38pm:

Obviously shooting with the specific intent to kill is over the top, problem is that shooting for an area that definitely won't kill them is a) more likely to miss altogether and b) not likely to stop an imminent threat even if it does hit.

Why is it more likely to miss? and Why is it not likely to stop the threat?

If you are shot in the arm or anywhere else and are carrying a weapon your first instinct (and probably not even on purpose) is to drop it and grab the effected area isnt it?


PS there is no reason to insult me @ this point they are only questions.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 5:46pm:

Why is it more likely to miss? and Why is it not likely to stop the threat? If you are shot in the arm or anywhere else and are carrying a weapon your first instinct (and probably not even on purpose) is to drop it and grab the effected area isnt it? PS there is no reason to insult me @ this point they are only questions. SOB

Becasue the torso (potential kill shot) is a bigger target, that can't move as much, or as quickly as the extremities. 

A shot in the arm won't stop a determined attacker.  I know a guy who got shot but still managed to knock 3 people out cold with his 1 good arm.  Few people in the world are that tough, but they do exist, especially if they're hyped on drugs and even more dangerous if they are armed.

I don't think police should be expected to put their own life on the line - so, shoot to kill if there is a significant risk, especially if a suspect is pointing a gun. I think the legal term is 'proportionate response'.

How about if the "attacker" has a knife?

And what abut tasers? They kill too apparently but they stop ppl. Could they be used instead of guns?

SOB

Tasers are obviously a far better option - much lower risk of death, pretty much zero compared to a gun. Even pepper spray can kill occasionally, but to attempt to compare it to shooting someone is absurd.

If someone has a knife and is threatening people with it, I don't have a problem with killing them. Someone skilled with a knife can kill in under a second if they are close enough.

freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 6:23pm:

I don't think police should be expected to put their own life on the line - so, shoot to kill if there is a significant risk, especially if a suspect is pointing a gun. I think the legal term is 'proportionate response'.

Agreed.

The moral is don't do the crime and you won't get shot dead, fried with a taser, beaten to death with a phone book, etc etc... :D

freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 7:31pm:

Tasers are obviously a far better option - much lower risk of death, pretty much zero compared to a gun. Even pepper spray can kill occasionally, but to attempt to compare it to shooting someone is absurd. If someone has a knife and is threatening people with it, I don't have a problem with killing them. Someone skilled with a knife can kill in under a second if they are close enough.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT but i disagree. I dont think police are justified in killing someone with a gun if they only have a knife. I especially dont think private citizens are justified. My opinion. Every case is different of course and if they are close enough perhaps it may be needed but usually in the cases on the news they arent. A taser would do the same job.

SOB

Swagman wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 9:07am:

freediver wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 6:23pm: I don't think police should be expected to put their own life on the line - so, shoot to kill if there is a significant risk, especially if a suspect is pointing a gun. I think the legal term is 'proportionate response'. Agreed. The moral is don't do the crime and you won't get shot dead, fried with a taser, beaten to death with a phone book, etc etc... :D

Yeah @ phone book. That happens BEFORE you are charged with anything. A lot of innocent ppl have copped the phone book.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 9:20am:

freediver wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 7:31pm: Tasers are obviously a far better option - much lower risk of death, pretty much zero compared to a gun. Even pepper spray can kill occasionally, but to attempt to compare it to shooting someone is absurd. If someone has a knife and is threatening people with it, I don't have a problem with killing them. Someone skilled with a knife can kill in under a second if they are close enough. I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT but i disagree. I dont think police are justified in killing someone with a gun if they only have a knife. I especially dont think private citizens are justified. My opinion. Every case is different of course and if they are close enough perhaps it may be needed but usually in the cases on the news they arent. A taser would do the same job. SOB

SOB - your living in lala land if you see any difference between a knife and gun .. both kill just as easily, and someone juiced up on drugs just won't stop if you shoot them in the arm or legs .. how many people died from stabbings last year? how many were shot? If I was a cop and you ran at me with a knife, sorry but your an idiot and you deserve to die.. I'm aiming for the head

Johnsmith wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 9:23am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:20am: freediver wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 7:31pm: Tasers are obviously a far better option - much lower risk of death, pretty much zero compared to a gun. Even pepper spray can kill occasionally, but to attempt to compare it to shooting someone is absurd. If someone has a knife and is threatening people with it, I don't have a problem with killing them. Someone skilled with a knife can kill in under a second if they are close enough. I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT but i disagree. I dont think police are justified in killing someone with a gun if they only have a knife. I especially dont think private citizens are justified. My opinion. Every case is different of course and if they are close enough perhaps it may be needed but usually in the cases on the news they arent. A taser would do the same job. SOB SOB - your living in lala land if you see any difference between a knife and gun .. both kill just as easily, and someone juiced up on drugs just won't stop if you shoot them in the arm or legs .. how many people died from stabbings last year? how many were shot? If I was a cop and you ran at me with a knife, sorry but your an idiot and you deserve to die.. I'm aiming for the head

What did I just say? Obviously there are circumstances where they should be shot. I dont think it should be just routine though to shoot because someone might have a knife and they arent close to you or threatening you imminently.

The cases that get on the news are usually someone turning around or putting their hand in their pocket or something. WTF is wrong with a taser?

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 9:36am:

Johnsmith wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:23am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:20am: freediver wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 7:31pm: Tasers are obviously a far better option - much lower risk of death, pretty much zero compared to a gun. Even pepper spray can kill occasionally, but to attempt to compare it to shooting someone is absurd. If someone has a knife and is threatening people with it, I don't have a problem with killing them. Someone skilled with a knife can kill in under a second if they are close enough. I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT but i disagree. I dont think police are justified in killing someone with a gun if they only have a knife. I especially dont think private citizens are justified. My opinion. Every case is different of course and if they are close enough perhaps it may be needed but usually in the cases on the news they arent. A taser would do the same job. SOB SOB - your living in lala land if you see any difference between a knife and gun .. both kill just as easily, and someone juiced up on drugs just won't stop if you shoot them in the arm or legs .. how many people died from stabbings last year? how many were shot? If I was a cop and you ran at me with a knife, sorry but your an idiot and you deserve to die.. I'm aiming for the head What did I just say? Obviously there are circumstances where they should be shot. I dont think it should be just routine though to shoot because someone might have a knife and they arent close to you or threatening you imminently. The cases that get on the news are usually someone turning around or putting their hand in their pocket or something. WTF is wrong with a taser? SOB

Standard Operating Procedure, to my understanding (I am not nor ever have been a police officer),  is to shoot only if they are threatened with a knife .. the person has to be approaching them or another innocent bystander with the weapon before the police shoot ... they do not just shoot everyone that holds a knife

They is only one purpose to shooting a human being, and that is to kill them, no-one gets taught to wound / miss on purposes, that is merely a by-product of poor aiming / adrenaline shakes / fear.

The standard is three rounds to the centre body mass, so the person pulling the trigger better be sure that is the outcome required and it can be justified.

Tasers don't always stop people either.  A quick brush- off of those electrodes and they're free.  Also the range of tasers are severely limited, and there is no second shot.

Johnsmith wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:36am: Johnsmith wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:23am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 9:20am: freediver wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 7:31pm: Tasers are obviously a far better option - much lower risk of death, pretty much zero compared to a gun. Even pepper spray can kill occasionally, but to attempt to compare it to shooting someone is absurd. If someone has a knife and is threatening people with it, I don't have a problem with killing them. Someone skilled with a knife can kill in under a second if they are close enough. I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT but i disagree. I dont think police are justified in killing someone with a gun if they only have a knife. I especially dont think private citizens are justified. My opinion. Every case is different of course and if they are close enough perhaps it may be needed but usually in the cases on the news they arent. A taser would do the same job. SOB SOB - your living in lala land if you see any difference between a knife and gun .. both kill just as easily, and someone juiced up on drugs just won't stop if you shoot them in the arm or legs .. how many people died from stabbings last year? how many were shot? If I was a cop and you ran at me with a knife, sorry but your an idiot and you deserve to die.. I'm aiming for the head What did I just say? Obviously there are circumstances where they should be shot. I dont think it should be just routine though to shoot because someone might have a knife and they arent close to you or threatening you imminently. The cases that get on the news are usually someone turning around or putting their hand in their pocket or something. WTF is wrong with a taser? SOB Standard Operating Procedure, to my understanding (I am not nor ever have been a police officer),  is to shoot only if they are threatened with a knife .. the person has to be approaching them or another innocent bystander with the weapon before the police shoot ... they do not just shoot everyone that holds a knife

Yeah I just keep thinking though about some case where some kid was shot while threatening HIMSELF with a knife. I will see if i can find it in google but not sure what to look for. Can you remember it?

SOB

I cant find it because I dont know what to look for. It doesnt matter anyway. It was a one off and I think the policewomen who did the shooting is under review or something.

SOB

The police should be like in New Zealand & the UK where they don't have guns.

Shoot to kill.

I think one thing that happens is police spend so much time trying to talk the person into giving up, that when the criminal over steps the line, then shoot to kill is about the only option left.

I remember the young fella shot in Melbourne (I think that is the one SOB was referring to) and often think what would have happened if earlier on, before he became menacing, an officer had taken direct aim at a leg, to bring him down.

Another case was the bloke stomping around, waving a knife, in front of a burning house. When he eventually came at police the only option left was to shoot him dead. I recon I could have popped a .22 in his knee-cap from across the road with-out my scope. Might have given police more time and an easier target to subdue if they had tried to injure him earlier.

Who knows. 

FriYAY wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 2:10pm:

Shoot to kill. I think one thing that happens is police spend so much time trying to talk the person into giving up, that when the criminal over steps the line, then shoot to kill is about the only option left. I remember the young fella shot in Melbourne (I think that is the one SOB was referring to) and often think what would have happened if earlier on, before he became menacing, an officer had taken direct aim at a leg, to bring him down. Another case was the bloke stomping around, waving a knife, in front of a burning house. When he eventually came at police the only option left was to shoot him dead. I recon I could have popped a .22 in his knee-cap from across the road with-out my scope. Might have given police more time and an easier target to subdue if they had tried to injure him earlier. Who knows.

Huh. I think I agree with that. Whodda thunkit. Kinda.

I still dont see why we dont just use tasers though.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 2:17pm:

FriYAY wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 2:10pm: Shoot to kill. I think one thing that happens is police spend so much time trying to talk the person into giving up, that when the criminal over steps the line, then shoot to kill is about the only option left. I remember the young fella shot in Melbourne (I think that is the one SOB was referring to) and often think what would have happened if earlier on, before he became menacing, an officer had taken direct aim at a leg, to bring him down. Another case was the bloke stomping around, waving a knife, in front of a burning house. When he eventually came at police the only option left was to shoot him dead. I recon I could have popped a .22 in his knee-cap from across the road with-out my scope. Might have given police more time and an easier target to subdue if they had tried to injure him earlier. Who knows.  Huh. I think I agree with that. Whodda thunkit. Kinda. I still dont see why we dont just use tasers though. SOB

;) maybe it won't be the last time!!

I'd say guns should be the last line of defence, after sprays and tasers.

As long as the police officer makes it home safe, ahead of the criminal.

FriYAY wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 2:22pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 2:17pm: FriYAY wrote on May 11th, 2012 at 2:10pm: Shoot to kill. I think one thing that happens is police spend so much time trying to talk the person into giving up, that when the criminal over steps the line, then shoot to kill is about the only option left. I remember the young fella shot in Melbourne (I think that is the one SOB was referring to) and often think what would have happened if earlier on, before he became menacing, an officer had taken direct aim at a leg, to bring him down. Another case was the bloke stomping around, waving a knife, in front of a burning house. When he eventually came at police the only option left was to shoot him dead. I recon I could have popped a .22 in his knee-cap from across the road with-out my scope. Might have given police more time and an easier target to subdue if they had tried to injure him earlier. Who knows.  Huh. I think I agree with that. Whodda thunkit. Kinda. I still dont see why we dont just use tasers though. SOB ;) maybe it won't be the last time!! I'd say guns should be the last line of defence, after sprays and tasers. As long as the police officer makes it home safe, ahead of the criminal.

they should use grenade launchers ... that'll stop em .

Another case was the bloke stomping around, waving a knife, in front of a burning house. When he eventually came at police the only option left was to shoot him dead. I recon I could have popped a .22 in his knee-cap from across the road with-out my scope. Might have given police more time and an easier target to subdue if they had tried to injure him earlier.



Stomping around with a knife and you could shoot him in the knee from across the road  with a 22??

Move over Michael Diamond.

angeleyes wrote on May 11^th, 2012 at 4:07pm:

Another case was the bloke stomping around, waving a knife, in front of a burning house. When he eventually came at police the only option left was to shoot him dead. I recon I could have popped a .22 in his knee-cap from across the road with-out my scope. Might have given police more time and an easier target to subdue if they had tried to injure him earlier. Stomping around with a knife and you could shoot him in the knee from across the road  with a 22?? Move over Michael Diamond.

Sorry, I thought people may have been familiar with the situation. Many times the man stood motionless with his arms over the front rail of the veranda, or in front of the house. Wouldn’t have been that hard.

I guess the issue then becomes “why did you shoot him, he wasn’t even threatening you”

But, hey, thanks for the input into the discussion.

Quote:

I dont think police are justified in killing someone with a gun if they only have a knife.

What if they attempt to stab the officer? I would be happy for a tasering policy in this situation, but only if the taser is turned up high enough to definitely stop the guy, not matter what drugs he is on. In fact a taser may even be better than a gun because it floors them pretty much straight away. You can put a hole in someone with a gun and they don't even notice it for a few seconds.


Quote:

but usually in the cases on the news they arent

I have never read a news report that contained enough of the right sort of detail to tell. A 'knife wielding man was shot' tells you nothing.

The reason I started this thread is not really because of our police and our culture seems to be okay on this issue really. I have been talking to a bunch of yanks lately though and their gun culture and the way they think seems to be completely different to us. the ones I have talked to seem to think that even from a distance you should always aim to kill. Aim for the head. Its self defense afterall. Since its mainly the police that have to make that decision here . . . . . I just wanted to guage the different opinions.

SOB

My understanding is that you should aim for the torso. It is easy to miss with a handgun, and people don't normally stand still when you are trying to shoot them. Unless they also have a gun - in which case again, you need to hit the target first, not necessarily kill. A shattered rib would normally be enough to upset their aim. If they are coming at you with a knife, you would probably have more luck getting a few shots into the chest than going for the head.

As for American gun culture, it stems from the constitution, which has taken on almost religious significance in American culture. Being granted a right in the constitution is better than being granted a right by God. I still haven't figured out why they have not altered that bit of the constitution. I suspect it is very savvy spin from the gun makers. It's hard to get through to someone who chants 'guns don't kill people, people do' as a substitute for rational argument. Plus, they have to deal with the Mexican border - which makes it a lot more true that the bad guys will still get guns than in a country like Australia that has no land borders. This is mostly down to economics - it is a lot easier to import guns into the US than Australia.

Yeah apparently that line about them all being allowed to have guns is out of context anyway and was about militias or something. I dont know for sure and maybe later I will look it up.

SOB

I don't think anyone knows for sure. They are still arguing about it a few hundred years later.