Australian Politics Forum

Sir Spot of Borg Gold Member Offline WE ARE BORG Posts: 26513 Australia	Shoot to Kill May 10^th, 2012 at 5:17pm 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
Back to top	Whaaaaaah! I'm a Moron! - edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope IP Logged

Frances Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 3577 In a Castle in the Hills Gender:	Re: Shoot to Kill Reply #1 - May 10^th, 2012 at 5:22pm Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 5:17pm: Some have views on self defen s e here though. Not really - you might find Australians with views on self defen c e though....
Back to top	Sure God created man before woman. But then you always make a rough draft before the final masterpiece. IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg Gold Member Offline WE ARE BORG Posts: 26513 Australia	Re: Shoot to Kill Reply #2 - May 10^th, 2012 at 5:31pm Frances wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 5:22pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 10^th, 2012 at 5:17pm: Some have views on self defen s e here though. Not really - you might find Australians with views on self defen c e though.... What does that mean? Are you correcting my grammar or nitpicking? I cant tell. SOB
Back to top	Whaaaaaah! I'm a Moron! - edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope IP Logged

Johnsmith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4716
Gender: male

Re: Shoot to Kill
Reply #3 - May 10^th, 2012 at 5:35pm

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

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

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

Some have views on self defen

s

e here though.

Not really - you might find Australians with views on self defen

c

e 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

Back to top

When politicians offer you something for nothing, or something that sounds too good to be true, it's always worth taking a careful second look.
(Malcolm Turncoat)

IP Logged

... Gold Member Offline Posts: 23673 WA Gender:	Re: Shoot to Kill Reply #4 - 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.
Back to top	In the fullness of time... IP Logged

Incomptinence Full Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 190 Gender:	Re: Shoot to Kill Reply #5 - May 10^th, 2012 at 5:42pm 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.
Back to top	IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26513
Australia

Re: Shoot to Kill
Reply #6 - May 10^th, 2012 at 5:46pm

... 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

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: Shoot to Kill
Reply #7 - May 10^th, 2012 at 6:00pm

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.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49509 At my desk.	Re: Shoot to Kill Reply #8 - 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'.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg Gold Member Offline WE ARE BORG Posts: 26513 Australia	Re: Shoot to Kill Reply #9 - May 10^th, 2012 at 6:37pm 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
Back to top	Whaaaaaah! I'm a Moron! - edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49509
At my desk.

Re: Shoot to Kill
Reply #10 - 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.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Swagman

Gold Member

Offline

Beware of cheap imitations......

Posts: 15095
Illawarra NSW
Gender: male

Re: Shoot to Kill
Reply #11 - May 11^th, 2012 at 9:07am

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... Cheesy

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26513
Australia

Re: Shoot to Kill
Reply #12 - May 11^th, 2012 at 9:20am

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

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26513
Australia

Re: Shoot to Kill
Reply #13 - May 11^th, 2012 at 9:21am

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

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... Cheesy

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

SOB

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

Johnsmith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4716
Gender: male

Re: Shoot to Kill
Reply #14 - May 11^th, 2012 at 9:23am

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

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

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

Back to top

When politicians offer you something for nothing, or something that sounds too good to be true, it's always worth taking a careful second look.
(Malcolm Turncoat)

IP Logged

Poll
Question: Shoot to Kill?
Yes kill em dead! No shoot to disable Use the Taser and no guns No dont shoot Maybe « Created by: Sir Spot of Borg on: May 10^th, 2012 at 5:17pm »