Warning shots and shoot-to-wound work, why are american police so badly trained?

lol shut up pussy

Cred Forums Pass user since October 2016.

I don't want pigs to wound niggers, I want them to kill niggers

Not nearly as huge a pussy as the average US cop desu..

>american cop
>blm, guns, spic aliens, cucked population, kiss democrats' feet, kikes everywhere, ied/ isis (new)
>the city considers itself lucky when a cop of iq 100+ joins long-term

>shoot PCPed up nigger in the leg
>He pulls out a hipoint and ventilated you

>shoot-to-wound

i can easily you never fired a weapon

Cuck. You shoot to kill

BIS WIRKUNG IM ZIEL IST!

Nigger in the backs eyeballing the fat guy

Why did the German cops not stop Cologne attacks from the event being a thousand of women instead of just one or two?

>it works
In a society that isn't infested with spics and niggers.

Why do our cops have different ideas when it comes to enforcing the law? Because the areas with the most crime are nigger dominated and they all have firearms they bought illegally. Our cops go into ghettos and expect to get into fire fights with some of the locals.

>administer first aid to the suspect
You have shot Jamal in the leg, he is across the street. Tyron and Jaquon are both still shooting at you. How are you going to cross the street and save Jamal when there is incoming fire? Jamal is bleeding out and you and your partner are still dealing with two hostiles.

>>the city considers itself lucky when a cop of iq 100+ joins long-term

>implying

lmao, you naive cunt.. US police forces indeed test for intelligence, and then they turn down the people that score in the upper brackets.

countercurrentnews.com/2014/04/police-officially-refuse-to-hire-applicants-with-high-iq-scores/

biggest problem is we let idiots like become officers.

Policing needs to stop being a blue collar job, every cop in America should have a 4 year college degree

Eurofags, ffs shut up about this. American courts have an assload of precedent that says if you have the time fire a warning shot, then your life obviously wasn't in danger, and therefore you are guilty of any number of crimes for discharging a weapon inappropriately. Aiming to maim is frowned upon even more.

You're past the point of there even being a pretense that these threads aren't spam.

this is a problem.

Shoot to wound a gorilla on PCP and see how that works eurofags.

You guys have been without guns for so long you forget how bullets fucking work. You're the type of idiots that say shoot the leg without realizing the femoral artery is there.

you are going to get raped in prison

As i said
Kikes everywhere

It's either shot that nigger in the face and be free of any consequences or shot that nigger in the leg and get sued for being rascist.

You know what's going on in the US with these nignogs acting like they dindu nuffin.

>In a society that isn't infested with spics and niggers.
Every society has it's minorities, some worse than others.. American minorities are mostly bad due to American policies, American culture and the American justice system m8. Everything you people touch seem to turn to shit, even if it's shit to begin with.
>Why do our cops have different ideas when it comes to enforcing the law?
See: Because they actively weed out the clever ones.
>Because the areas with the most crime are nigger dominated and they all have firearms they bought illegally.
Same as literally everywhere, yet you have ghettos that are literally worse than African cities. Everything is bigger in America, even problems...
>Our cops go into ghettos and expect to get into fire fights with some of the locals.

Is that supposed to be an excuse for them not being able to asses proportionality when using a firearm? I suspect the only reason the law doesn't provide them that freedom, is because lawmakers damn well know your cops are imbeciles.

>You have shot Jamal in the leg,
Doesn't actually happen because US cops magdump for centre mass, but let's assume it was a stray..
>he is across the street. Tyron and Jaquon are both still shooting at you. How are you going to cross the street and save Jamal when there is incoming fire?
Cops handcuff dying people and stand around ALL the time m8, do you think we don't get to see US police dashcam footage or something? They're always completely safe, doing nothing, standing around waiting for the ambulance.
> Jamal is bleeding out and you and your partner are still dealing with two hostiles.
Nice scenario. Try this:

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3725800/Shocking-video-shows-Chicago-police-shooting-unarmed-black-teen-handcuffing-leaving-die-officials-warn-footage-incite-violence-against-law-enforcement.html

>Such a huge threat

lmao.. US cops are just incompetent pussies m8, why even try defending it?

>warning someone you are going to shoot them by missing on purpose

>Courts decide the law

Lmao, why don't your lawmakers simply make it legal for cops to use firearms to stop people from resisting, fleeing or even potentially posing a threat to people without killing them?

Is it because they don't trust US cops to deal with basic concepts like proportionality?

See:
>parool.nl/amsterdam/politie-schiet-verwarde-man-neer-in-badhoevedorp~a3846190/

It works. Even when people are out of their minds..
>b-but the artery is there
Yeah, so better magdump his torso where all of his vital organs are instead, right?

Is that why North American cops are not trusted to make judgement calls? Because they all reason like you do?

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Hypothetical:
>Shoot to wound for an 80% chance to save your life
>Shoot to kill for a 90% chance to save your life
Which do you do, Cred Forums? Is his life worth more than yours?

In all these videos we have been seeing, the cops life wasn't in danger even for 1%.

>Hypothetical that has fuck all to do with the reality on the street
>Hypothetical that is pointless entirely as US law and policy prevent cops from making judgement calls like that themselves anyway

Lmao I'm starting to understand why they're not allowed to think for themselves. You people cannot into abstract thinking for shit.

Never assume anything when dealing with a suspect. You don't know what weapons they have hidden. It only takes one slight fuckup, one small opening, one tiny mistake, for you to lose your life out there.

Lmao, is that why they handcuff teenagers that are bleeding out as they stand over his body with 4+ guys? ()

>courts decide the law
No, but a prior interpretation of the law is preferred
That's how common law works

>Policing needs to stop being a blue collar job, every cop in America should have a 4 year college degree
Police now have student debt, further adding to the stress of having a job where you almost solely interact with niggers all day. Number of police shooting increase as pansy-ass-stressedout-fresh-out-of-college liberals snap due to having their whole worldview challenged. Having gone through 4 years of safe spaces and trigger warnings, they don't know how to properly handle the stress of Jamal yelling niggerbabble while Tyrone screeches and does a tribal rain dance in the background.

Yes, actually. Someone bleeding out can still shoot you

What if he had a knife or a dirty needle? All he needs is half a second to whip it out and stab an officer with it and give him tetanus or HIV.

IT'S NOT WORTH THE RISK.

Who gives a shit if a violent criminal lives or dies? We're better off without them. What we need are some serious RWDS sheriffs who'll take a Dutertist approach to solving America's street crime problems.

Psst, not so secret secret. Our giant for profit prisons are full of scum already. Why let anymore live? The death penalty should be legal and used in all 50 states

Because they are literally retards
They even have an IQ threshold in some states were you cannot apply if you exceed it

If you're in the position to cuff someone, you're also in the position to make sure he is no longer armed, and provide first aid. Especially if they're literally dying..

Then again, I suppose they just hold Americans in general to lower standards than most of us are held to.

I can tell you've never held a pistol before;

When you have a violent subject that may have additional weapons you have no idea about it becomes tough to make a judgment call.

>holding a gun up at subject for 5 minutes yelling at them to stop
>your hands become tired and sweaty from adrenaline and stress
>have to make a judgment whether or not to shoot
>consider people in the background and where your bullet needs to go
>potential cover and egress if things go south
all this to consider in milliseconds
>choose to shoot
>you slap the trigger, first round goes anywhere
>fire the next 10 rounds as quickly as possible, if you're like 2 hit since you're not even paying attention to your sights
>you shot so fast you slapped the trigger every time
Try that against someone running at you or pulling a gun on you instead of your video which shows the guy dodging the cop with the gun lol

Never fired a gun in their lives.

It's the land of the gun. You attack a cop you die. what is so hard to understand about that?

what if he has abomb inside his butthole ready to explode once his heart stops beating?!

you guys put your lives on the line srsly Obama bless you

>WHAT IF HE HAS A KNIFE OR DIRTY NEEDLE?
>I KNOW! BETTER GET IN AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE AND GRAB HIS HANDS TO CUFF HIM

It's becoming more and more clear to me why they don't trust US cops to make judgement calls.

>For profit prisons are full
>This is a bad thing, because we hate profit
>Better kill more dudes

lmao wat

What I suggested is not improbable.

What you suggested is.

Nice try Ahmed. You wish american cops would suck your cock like euros do but it's not gonna work.

I assure you. American cops have excellent accuracy and are always aware of their target an surroundings. A warning shot is a risk, you're supposed to eliminate the threat not give it more time to hurt you.

>men carry HIV infected needles in their pocket

That's why cops tase people where possible, so they can't reach for a weapon. Doesn't always work though. Cops are heroes for putting their lives at risk in order to protect others.

Do you think they should just let the guy go in case he has a knife, let him roam free and go stab other people?

Shooting to wound is torture.
If you have to shoot a deadly weapon you must fear for your life

>I can tell you've never held a pistol before;
You're wrong though, but ok.
>When you have a violent subject that may have additional weapons you have no idea about it becomes tough to make a judgment call.

Being a cop is a tough job. It helps to not employ retards...

>all this to consider in milliseconds

Kek, except you've been yelling at him for 5 minutes in the example you provide. You coudl have tased or peppered him, or in most European countries you could have shot him in the leg and applied first aid.
>Consider where bullet goes
Applies for shooting for torso as well.

>Try that against someone running at you or pulling a gun on you instead of your video which shows the guy dodging the cop with the gun lol

Did you even watch OPs vid? Or this one: You cannot always save everyone's life.. But in the US, and apparantly Canada (?), cops aren't even allowed to make that judgement call, which reflects hilariously poorly on the trust your systems seem to have in first responders and law enforcement.

See above. Training helps.

KEK not true. You're going to need a better source that cuntercurrent.

Because if they only hired those best qualified there would be no nigger cops, and that would be racist

>Cops are heroes for putting their lives at risk in order to protect others.
Lmao pls, they're just in it for the salary and pension like the rest of us, don't put them on a pedestal.
>Do you think they should just let the guy go in case he has a knife, let him roam free and go stab other people?

See the vids in OP and the one I posted. Both of those men have knives, none of them end up walking free, and nobody dies.

/Thread

Firing a pistol is not easy, let alone under stress. Some yuros have been fucked out of guns for so long, they think they're magic.

In jew'd America you can sue for anything. Any "warning shot" would just give whatever PD you work for a hefty lawsuit. Shoot to kill is just a pragmatic solution to our shitty legal system.

You've never held a gun, let alone out a significant amount of rounds through one. Cod doesn't count.

Nogunz opinions are invalid

Google it yourself.. The case is fairly famous:

abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836

nytimes.com/1999/09/09/nyregion/metro-news-briefs-connecticut-judge-rules-that-police-can-bar-high-iq-scores.html

>Not watching the videos

It's also not THAT hard to fire a pistol accurately at point blank ranges.. Yes, it's a lot harder than a rifle, but it's managable. Especially for someone who carries one professionally, and should ideally be well trained.

By that logic, anyone should just kill anyone they ever encounter.

But they were removing undesirables. Which I wholeheartedly support. The US should execute more criminals rather than waste mone throwing them in prison just so they can come out later and be more useless to society.

Its about taking down a hostile armed suspect, though police trying has degraded in democrat held areas along with Obama's edits. Plus cops have different training procedures and ways to handle a situation. Federal police will shoot two to the head one to the chest while regular street cops are trained to shot center mass as a last resort. Or that is how it use to be.

The new standard approach if the suspect is armed, imposes immediate danger, and refuse to compile is to take him out fast. The reason for this is because the amount of ambushing cops has increased over the years. Wither it be a drugged out dindu, gang shoot out, cop killer, suicide by cop, drunk hick, or other. The big thing is if someone that is armed refuses to compile that will start a shoot out. The only exception is if a hostage is taken which will cause HRT/SWAT to take over.

>91220936

>You've never held a gun,
False.
>let alone out a significant amount of rounds through one.
Quite a few, though I didn't count them. It's also fucking irrelevant, since we know that police forces in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and countless other European countries succesfully employ tactics like warning shots and shooting for the legs.
> Cod doesn't count.
I'm more of a Battlefield player.
>Nogunz opinions are invalid
Johnny pls, you're embarassing yourself.

No, that's specious reasoning.

Tbh that does more or less seem to be US police standard method of operation..

I'll say it again.
They can't just hire the most qualified people because then minorities would not be police officers.

>Warning shot
>Round goes flying off somewhere, injures or kills a civilian
>Shoot-to-wound
>Round goes flying off somewhere, injures or kills a civilian

There is a reason you aim for the torso, and that's because you're likely to hit your target and not put someone else in danger. If the situation is elevated to the point you need to use a firearm you must use it responsibly.

Did the person in the video have a gun?

Yes, Britain is a silly shithole where cops are unarmed.. What does that have to do with Germany, the Netherlands or the United States?

This.

They're too busy trying to find more excuses to avoid seeing the faults of their own countries by pointing out the supposed issues of the most relevant on their minds.

liveleak.com/view?i=885_1420607869

>Stopping bleeding is much easier than reconstructing vital organs m8..

In a crime scene, criminals are treated last. Look at Hollywood Shootout.

Kek. That would explain a lot to be honest..

>Yeah, ideally we would hold our law enforcement to basic standards of intelligence and civilisation...
>But that would be racist

A knife.

Where is that Video of us cops firing at a vehicle driving away almost hitting each other

>Obama's edits
Explain.

PSNI, the only part of the UK police that are armed by default, shoot to kill. Their advice to civilians who are armed, which is about 40 percent of the population, is to do exactly the same.

Do not use a lethal weapon unless lethal force is required. I don't care what they do in Germany, shooting someone in the leg in an attempt to wound them is a moronic idea. As is firing into the air or ground to "warn" people.

>female cops
>anywhere
youtube.com/watch?v=Lgsu08O9XX0

*edicts, I assume

Well its either have a slightly gimped police force than have niggers rioting in the streets much more often because all cops are white

Weapons training for cops is pathetic. Their qualification tests are pathetic. Most only shoot their gun twice a year.

>People shot in leg bleed out in minutes
>This means it's better to magdump him in the torso so that he'll die instantly

Ok m8.. Also, they don't seem to be applying first aid, which typically helps.. Note I'm not saying it's a 100% succesful way of stopping people always without killing them. Some people bleed out here after being shot by cops.. Tough luck for them, but they got themselves in those situations themselves.

The point I find retarded is, is that US cops are apparantly not trusted to make such calls for themselves, essentially ensuring that people will ALWAYS be killed when it turns to a shooting situation. Especially when dealing with confused/mentally ill people, that just leads to tragic situations that could be solved better..

>vid related
youtube.com/watch?v=EUp4bDa9M3o

Often the criminal is the only one injured in US officer involved shootings, and still the cops present tend to not do anything besides watching a cuffed body bleed out.

>That webm

Ehehe. Note she's british, and doesn't have a gun... If they tried that with Dutch cop ladies they'd be kneecapped.

That would explain a lot too.

The vast, vast majority of police officers in the USA will never fire their weapon in anger.

They are far more likely to be involved in altercations that, if your logic was applied, would lead to them shooting people in the limbs in an attempt to disable them.

>shoot to wound
That doesn't exist.

m8 not only are you in a nogunz country, your police force are nogunz.. What the fuck do you know about anything relating to officer involved firearm use?

Cops have the right to self defense, just like every other US citizen.
You can't 'shoot to wound' because a gun is a deadly weapon in any case, so saying you were 'shooting to wound' means you weren't really in danger, you just wanted to torture someone.
That is really how it works man.
Same reason why most home defense advocates say DO NOT use rubber shot as the gun is still a deadly weapon, and using it in such a manner means you didn't really fear for your life.

>a cuffed body bleed out.

Exactly, that doesn't help if you hit an artery and are waiting for help.

>That is really how it works man.

That's 100% a US legal construct though.. In most of Europe, shooting someone in the leg does not count as the use of deadly force or the use of a deadly weapon. Judges might even wonder why you didn't shoot someone in the leg instead of the torso in certain situations..

the thing is, my turkshit friend, that shoot to kill is the only viable option because lawyers can fuck your mouth with the argument, "If you were able to fire a warning shot or aim to wound, you were never in a life threatening situation at all." and you get a smooth 50 year sentence.

shooting someone in the leg only proves that you were calm and unthreatened enough to aim at a small target, when police doctrine states only to shoot if you think you're about to get murdered

>watch the cuffed body bleed out
Cops aren't medics, nor are they obligated to put their life at risk for some scumbag
Fuck getting aids from some nigger

If they bleed out from a leg shot, that's unfortunate, but at least you tried to keep the person alive. Especially if the person was posing a threat due to mental issues (which is a relatively common situation police encounter) it's kind of tragic to magdump them in the chest because they ran out of medication or something m8.. Also, even if you do cuff them, the least cops can do is apply first aid, something US cops apparantly are not paid to do.

>your hands become tired and sweaty from adrenaline and stress
>have to make a judgment whether or not to shoot
>consider people in the background and where your bullet needs to go

So according to your logic it's okay to shoot for an officer if he gets tired and the stand-off situation is not resolved? This idea is absolutely idiotic, especially because getting shot by a firearm is always potentially lethal.

Additionally, in this videos there were many other policemen around. How can you justify to potentially ill someone just because you are tired? If he was tired he could have stepped back so another officer can take his position.

In the video you can see, that the individual still ran towards the officer with a knife in his hand. This is another potentially dangerous situation, which resulted through the officers escalating "warning" shot.

Police is supposed to shoot to kill. And rightfully so. Shots should only have fallen if the suspect was to charge for an attack.

There was enough space between cops and the armed man. I don't see how you can justify shooting someone in the leg when it is clearly escalating the situation.

I live in Northern Ireland, where the police are armed as default and do not shoot to wound. I also spent 12 years in the British Army (with a stint at the small arms school toward the end of my career) and have, unfortunately, been involved in the training of police officers and soldiers from all over the world in everything from small unit tactics to VBIED prevention.

I would never, under any circumstance, shoot at someone I didn't intend to kill. Neither would any of the men I know in law enforcement, security or the forces. If you have the PPW (concealed carry) here, you are under strict instruction only to use it if you are in fear of your life or those around you.

Your turn.

>Europeans being the limp wristed faggots of the world again.

Wew lad. I'm amazed you care so much about the lives of criminals.

Damn, what's the source of that webm?

>US cops are incompetent pussies

That much has become clear to me during the course of this thread, yes.

Yeah because Europeans think real life is like Hollywood
You aim small, you miss small and you put innocent lives at risk
cnn.com/2016/06/10/asia/australia-police-shoot-3-bystanders/
Best to just shoot center mass until they stop moving

because american police stopped giving a shit about public safety

>Your turn.

Your policies, and the ones you teach abroad are as retarded as those the US law enforcement hold, apparantly.. Discouraging judgement calls, and encouraging escalating any potential deadly-force situation to a certain deadly-force situation....

Perhaps it's an Anglo thing.

>imlpying cops actually want to help...

>Stopping bleeding is much easier than reconstructing vital organs m8..

If you hit the femoral artery, you bleed to death in 2-3 minutes. Long before any medical help will come.
Its especial bad when it gets separated by a bullet and not a knife because its not cut, but blown apart.

the founding fathers were criminals you stupid cuck

You set whole cities on fire because a criminal got killed.

In some cases, yes, that would be best. They're 2 distinct tactics that police are both taught in many European countries... Noodweervuur=Self defense, like you describe. Shooting for torso until threat ends.

However, police also have the option to use 'aanhoudingsvuur', to stop/arrest people that might pose a threat, but are not directly threatening the lives of anyone. Standard example would be a mentally ill person pacing up and down or coming at people/the police.. Those kinds of people typically get shot in the leg, if tasers or pepper spray are ineffective. See OP and Shooting people centre mass, and almost certainly killing them, isn't always necessary.. So why not shoot for the legs when a situation in which that is viable presents itself?

>Discouraging judgement calls
It encourages judgement. "Is the person an immediate threat to my life and the lives of people around me?"

If no, don't shoot them. Simple.

>Your policies, and the ones you teach abroad are as retarded
That'll be why governments and companies the world over pay hundreds of millions for American and British private security expertise and state assistance.

>another guns thread filled with nogunz
sage in all fields

And, like the Americans here, your solution to this is to shoot someone 5x in the chest, rather than for the leg?

>US cops are incompetent pussies
Better than neutered european 'cops' that let muslim gangs rule no go zones and kick in native citizens doors for 'hate speech'

Why shoot them at all?

If someone is a threat to themselves and others without a constant supply of medication they're living on borrowed time. Frankly, people like that should be put down under controlled circumstances for their own and society's good, rather than waiting until they lose their shit and hurt someone.

>If no, don't shoot them. Simple.

Police are not only employed to stop killings though.. Police are also employed to catch those who have already killed, for instance. If you're walking away from a crime scene in this country, and you're armed, but not posing an immediate threat to the police that turned up, expect to get shot in the leg anyway because you are deemed a potential threat, and rendering your knee useless for the rest of your life is deemed proportional in such a situation.

>American and British expertise
lmayo

>equating the founding fathers who wanted to found a nation based on democracy to a nigger robbing people with his problem solver.

Nope.

>niggers
>you

I'm white and I couldn't give less of a shit about a State with a shitty city 1.1K miles from me

you just do not understand what it's like to have a 60% white country. These precautions are needed.

You've got a point
I can't remember what its called but some big city police units have started using these long metal poles with two prongs to pin mentally unstable/knife weilding suspects
Wish I could remember the name, saw it used on Blue Bloods recently and looked it up and apparently it was invented by japs

Why are you working under the logic that the US police have an on/off switch, in which they are either doing absolutely nothing or shooting people dead?

There are a vast number of instances in which the American police forces will restrain, stop, detain or prevent a suspect from acting without drawing their firearms. In terms of police interactions to shootings, it's low. What you're suggesting would increase the number of shootings, because under your system they'd be shooting people in the limbs for things they would have previously used a baton or the dogs for.

>why are american police so badly trained?
Funding, altough to be fair American police are facing threats that most European cops arent, the gangs and criminal organisations in America are better or atleast more heavily armed than most gangs in Europe, so alot of the police funding has been put towards fancy equipment and such.
But they are doing alot of things right, they alot more of local policing, where the cops often live in the areas and know the people of the area that they work in, atleast compared to Sweden for an example.

Also i think the American police union suffer from low wages, low standards allowing people to enter the force, which bascially means that its a pull factor for lets say some less than great people going into this occupation.

I don't live in Britain or Sweden m8..

Because mentally ill people might stab you on account of not having had their meds.. Or because that criminal that just assasinated to fellow criminals by riddling their car with bullets still poses a threat to society at large, even if he is now running away from the scene rather than also engaging the first responders..

IIRC it's not common for people to be placed under controlled circumstances like that in the US, because you have a sub-par mental heathcare system.. In those circumstances, it's pretty tragic that they run the risk of being riddled with bullets because US cops apparantly cannot be trusted to shoot someone in the knee and provide first aid.

>Police are also employed to catch those who have already killed, for instance

Let me get this straight.

You're suggesting that the police, pursuing an armed man who has killed previously, shoot him in the leg?

Then what?

cute buzzwords

You most likely live closer to Warsaw than I do Charlotte.

>deadly force isn't required
>using deadly force
>I'm being reasonable

It's really as simple as that toothpaste. You don't escalate violence for no reason.

>60% 'white'

Lmao, don't remind me..

If the amount of shootings go up, but the amount of deaths go down, isn't that a net positive? Tools are just a means to an end, results are what matter.
>Baton or dog
Why didn't they use a baton or dog in this case?
>vid
youtube.com/watch?v=EUp4bDa9M3o

>Or because that criminal that just assasinated to fellow criminals by riddling their car with bullets still poses a threat to society at large, even if he is now running away from the scene rather than also engaging the first responders..

So you're pursuing an armed man, who has killed two people sat in a car, and he's evading whatever other units you have. You can obviously see him, and you're close enough to him to take a shot with a handgun on a moving, running target (this is 20m, at most) and you think the best thing you can do in this situation is to shoot him in the leg?

You genuinely, deeply believe that in a close contact with an armed murderer you should attempt to wound him in the lower body and then approach him to apply first aid?

Sasumata is what its called, it was orginally a martial arts weapon and now its being used to detain the mentally unstable, nice

>Then what?

Arrest and put on trial, as per usual in this country. You'd shoot him in the back, because 'muh potentially deadly force must always be deadly'?

lmao.

>You don't escalate violence for no reason.

In America you do, apparantly.

>You genuinely, deeply believe that in a close contact with an armed murderer you should attempt to wound him in the lower body and then approach him to apply first aid?

I genuinely believe police should be able to make that judgement call, like they are in Germany and the Netherlands, as seen in OPs vid and the one I posted earlier.

You genuinely believe that as soon a situation arises that might require the use of a firearm, proportionality can go out the window and niggas just needs to get got, I gather?

I'd shoot him until he stopped moving, but apparently this is a farcical idea and I should instead shoot him in the leg and then start to fix his shattered limb whilst arresting him.

The only situation which does require the use of a deadly weapon is one in which either my life or the lives of those around me are threatened.

>I'd shoot him until he stopped moving

Typical Anglo I guess... What if he was a mentally ill person running away after having threatened people with a knife and rambling incoherently, but before having actually injured anyone?

>In America you do, apparantly.

Yes, exactly. You escalate when your life is in danger not because you are crack shot and mr. dindu isn't complying.

Discharging a firearm in a public place is a fairly dangerous proposition in the first place. It's odd to see how cavalier you are about using firearms as a compliance tool.

>IIRC it's not common for people to be placed under controlled circumstances like that in the US
"put down" is a euphemism for killing, typically used in the context of domesticated animals
e.g., "Fido got fucked up beyond repair by a car, but was still breathing, so we had to have him put down"

Typical cucked spineless Dutchmen

>So why not shoot for the legs when a situation in which that is viable presents itself?

What if the person bleeds to death?
What if you kill a bystander?
What if the person who got shot still manages to kill or injure someone else?

The most important question is:
When are you justified to shoot?

Essentially, you haven't drawn a clear line. In your opinion law enforcement seems to be allowed to potentially kill someone, even though there are no clear boundaries. When we talk about "shoot to kill", we see it as the most humane and justifiable action when dealing with lethal force. When someone is an immediate threat to the life of another individual, he gets shot to death. This is a clearer boundary than your version, and it has less of a gray zone surrounding it.

It gets even more problematic, when there is a politically important person, who gets shot by law enforcement. Let's say someone from black lives matter gets shot in the leg, because he was on drugs and pulled out a knife in the open. He dramatically bleeds to death, everything is documented, the movement will gain momentum. However, if he gets shot to death because he was storming at the police with a knife, the police will have rightfully shot him to death. All on camera for everyone to see. In the first case, your wishy-washy regulation of using deadly force can lead to a political wildfire.

>Discharging a firearm in a public place is a fairly dangerous proposition in the first place.
Agreed.
>It's odd to see how cavalier you are about using firearms as a compliance tool.
It's odd to see how cavalier American law enforcement is about killing people for non-compliance...
youtube.com/watch?v=EUp4bDa9M3o

Just shoot the fucker in the kidney and be done with it. This is the most autistic way of handling a knife attack ever.

Well the Obama administration has been trying and pressuring the change of police tactics. Early Obama administration focused on counter terrorism with all branches of law enforcement. That is when you saw CIA working with NYPD became public and no action was taken to reprimand the CIA for operating in the US. Police training was edited to meet the threat assessment and dealing with a terrorist cell or attack underway. heritage.org/research/reports/2011/06/changing-todays-law-enforcement-culture-to-face-21st-century-threats

After Ferguson, Obama spent 263 million dollars to change police training and 75 million went to buying body cameras. The changes for use of force and bias free police training.
justice.gov/file/441426/download
whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/12/01/building-trust-between-communities-and-local-police

>i have realised how stupid my scenario is in which you approach an armed double murderer who you have just shot in the leg, so here's a different one that's nearly as stupid

The police round here deal with the mentally ill all the time without drawing on them, or rendering them disabled. There's a lot of heroin, most of it coming up from Dublin into the North, and lots of smackheads doing the rounds. Most of them carry a knife.

Not once have the police decided to shoot them in the leg whilst chasing them, which they do every night of the week.

You never hear about the well handled police work, Kraut.

Only the mistakes and failures come to light and stack up. All the successes are forgotten and disappear. Much like Tetris.

>You genuinely believe that as soon a situation arises that might require the use of a firearm, proportionality can go out the window and niggas just needs to get got, I gather?

Why can't you understand that repelling deadly force with deadly force is a perfect example of proportionality?

You are literally advocating the opposite of that-- using deadly force for law enforcement's convenience.

Its not just for knife attackers or for police to use
inventorspot.com/articles/teachers_expel_school_intruder_twopronged_people_pusher
Hell schools could use this for belligerent dindus without getting their resource officer fired for using 'too much force'

You do not fire A DEADLY WEAPON at someone with the intent to maim them. Not only is that cruel, it's dumb. What if they actually die? The purpose of the tool used is TO KILL, why would the intended consequence be something other than death? Citizens don't have the right to misuse their weapons, why should police?

Tard claims have been made.

>warning shots.
If you are in a city, you sure as shit don't shoot to miss. You would just end up hitting little Suzy who is two hundred meters behind the perp.

Aquafresh doesn't think that busting a cap in somebody's ass is deadly force. That's the problem.

Look, we all know you Germans are addicted to nigger cock but the American cops are actually doing everyone a favor by giving post-birth abortions to their apes.

>criminal has gun
>instead of killing him or talking him into dropping the gun, cop shoots "warning" shot
>instantly inflames the situation and now the criminal starts shooting, feeling that his life was in danger
>bystanders die

Or
>same situation
>cop shoots criminal in the leg
>criminal, being still alive, starts shooting in fear of his life
>again, more people at risk of dying

I've got a better solution.

police dont carry weapons to kill people

>Why is it that American cops have the habit of handcuffing dying people?

Department policy, they'll lose their jobs if they don't. Their job is to secure the scene.

The specific practice stems from a case where some FBI agents shot the shit out of an armed suspect during a raid. He was sitting there with half a head and a shotgun in his hands, then suddenly he started moving and shot 3 officers dead. Now they either shoot the shit out of you even more or handcuff you while you're bleeding out. They are also required to provide aid to you, but providing aid could be classified as calling for aid via radio. It depends on state interpretation of the law.

That should be a better solution

I still cannot comprehend how this guy advocates shooting people, when there are other options at hand. It's like he thinks law enforcement uses a firearm as a multitool.

Maybe because its cheaper? Lets do this...we teach our cops to shoot to wound ONLY if you European faggots agree to take the criminal cunts into your countries afterwards?

Stupid fucking kraut...I understand you have some type of self destructive guilt over the past two world wars but suck it up faggot. Not everyone deserves to live.

No. That's not how it works at all. When the police, who due to the vast amount of range time and funding they get, make a shot over 60 feet directly into the leg of an armed suspect, his firearm is instantly removed from his hand and in some cases actually makes itself safe.

He then lies perfectly still, calmed by the apple sized exit wound in his shin, waits for the police to administer first aid (all police officers are trained in immediately treating gunshot wounds, too) and then goes down to the station to admit to his crimes. At this point, he certainly doesn't sue the police officer and drag the entire department into a lengthy legal battle. He also doesn't require the use of a wheelchair for the rest of his life, due to having his foot amputated.

Any missed shots simply vanish from existence, instead of entering peoples homes and businesses.

>"put down" is a euphemism for killing, typically used in the context of domesticated animals

lmao, I read over the 'down' part.. I thought you meant putting them in institutions.

>What if the person bleeds to death?
Too bad for them, at least you tried. That's what judges here typically say anyway.. 'Unfortunate, but necessary'
>What if you kill a bystander?
If killing bystanders is a significant risk you're not really dealing with a situation in which the use of a firearm in that way is viable, if at all, now are you?
>What if the person who got shot still manages to kill or injure someone else?
Then apparantly there WAS a situation in which he was posing a direct threat to the life of someone, which is distinctly different from the situation I suggested, and as such would not be a viable situation either.

>When are you justified to shoot?
As a policeman you are justified to shoot to stop people in certain situations.. I'm not a policeman or criminal lawyer, so I'm not aware of the exact details, but it basically comes down to people that pose a threat to the life of others, but not necessarily a direct threat. When shooting in defense of your life or the safety of others, anyone can shoot according to Dutch caselaw on 'noodweer', including the police. Police don't have a specific article in the law that state they can use their firearm to defend themselves.. The fact that they have the gun, and Dutch 'noodweer' laws provide the right to defend yourself or others by any means necessary make it inherent that police can kill you to save themselves or others, with their gun or otherwise.
>than your version
My version is literally the law, user, and judging by the video in OP it's exactly the same in Germany. The cop was even SAYING to the guy 'I schiesse dich in dein bein', so he clearly wasn't going for centre mass m8.
Your last example is nuts. Public opinion should not mean shooting and killing is preferable to the situation in OPs vid

Copfag here and I don't see how this could be a real practice. We want the smartest people, they're less likely to make mistakes that cost the department money and face. Not to mention its not a bad idea to have smart detectives... I just don't see how having dumb officers at any level would cause a positive outcome.

There are dumb cops, I won't lie. Academy was a joke, the teachers would stomp their foot everytime they were telling us something that was on a test, and it would be in big bold red letters on the powerpoint. Most the people I work with are 90-100 IQ, but a shit job like this doesn't attract the brightest of the bright. I blame the shitty pay, you get what you pay for. You, the taxpayer, are always bitching that you want to pay less and yet receive better services at the same time... either pay us more to attract better people or shut up.

See OPs vid. Why is that so bad?

See:It's a real practise. The case is fairly famous..

Yes they do, here. Indeed it's also for defense of the officer, but it's pretty explicitly written (at least in my states law) that we have to eliminate a threat to public safety.

The most recent case I can think of was a couple of dudes robbed a bank, shot one of the tellers and got in a shootout in front of the bank with police. They chased him for about 15 miles while he continued to shoot out of the vehicle at patrol cars. At that point we're not yelling commands for him to surrender if he stops, he's obviously not going to stop until he's dead. Our SWAT was called out, did a pit maneuver and shot up the car until he wasn't a threat. Fleeing felons can be killed if they threaten officers or the public, I guess that can be seen as a form of defense but obviously there's some cucks who will act like we randomly selected the guy and hunted him down like an animal...

Because god forbid you hurt a poor rufugee who is simply trying to culturally enrich your women.

Europe is pathetic. The US is heading toward a race war but fighting it out is much better than surrendering to third world niggers like they have.

This

This guy gets it. Must suck for camel fuckers in Europe knowing they cant creep to the US and push our cops around without getting ventilated.

>Too bad for them, at least you tried. That's what judges here typically say anyway.. 'Unfortunate, but necessary'
>Public opinion should not mean shooting and killing is preferable to the situation in OPs vid

Literally doublethink. You are putting more civilians at risk of dying than me, mate. My position is the one which puts killing as a last resort, whilst yours brushes off unnecessary casualties as "Unfortunate, but necessary". The notion that there are people, who are unnecessarily killed by the state is a very valid reason for a revolt against the government.

>What if the person who got shot still manages to kill or injure someone else?
>Then apparantly there WAS a situation in which he was posing a direct threat to the life of someone

No, and that's the point. After the escalation the knife-wielding person could have suddenly went for an attack. You don't necessarily feel the wound when you get shot in such a situation. And when the suspect gets shot to death as a consequence, you can blame the person who escalated- the police. Congratulations, he killed someone even though there initially wasn't a direct threat of life.

>My version is literally the law, user, and judging by the video in OP it's exactly the same in Germany.
Yes, obviously. Doesn't mean I support it.

>a very valid reason for a revolt against the government.

Again: The law is the same in Germany, judging by the vid in OP.

>Doesn't mean I support it.

What should police have done in the situation presented to them in OPs vid?

Have you ever stopped to realize that the officer is not trying to take the person in alive but rather neutralize a threat? It makes more sense if you look a it that way.

a court saying you CAN do it, doesn't mean they HAVE to do it. It's more or less so niggers can be cops.

Copfaghere. Aside from a bullshit civil service test I never really got tested for intelligence.

If doing both is a possibility, why not go for that?

I need that shirt.

>warning shots work
>I support police officers firing randomly in my neighborhoods

>What should police have done in the situation presented to them in OPs vid?

Pepper spray, tasers whatever. Just not using a gun at someone who is not a direct threat.

amazon.com/Comical-Shirt-Nobody-Needs-Little/dp/B00VVXI1OC

>Expect average Joe the plumber to be the perfect swat commando in his small town famous for fried butter balls.
>Old average Joe watched the Andy Griffith show growing up and just wants to keep his local town safe.
>Sheriff Joe finds himself fighting an influx of violent niggers on numerous street drugs.
>Violent niggers declare open season on police because "Ayo Fuck Whitey"
>Years of conflict and violent encounters primarily dealing with niggers leads to average sheriff Joe reacting poorly and shooting a coked out nigger with a gun.
>Story makes national headlines and riots break out everywhere.

Police are just average fucks with a gun and a badge, they were never intended to be militarized having to deal with the amount of violence brought on by niggers that suddenly think they have the President and doj on their side. The truth is that we need the national guard to patrol black neighborhoods, the truth is that we are expecting average people to put their lives on the line for absolutely no reason other than a mediocre income. No American citizen should be put to death on the spot by a cop, but it's the reality we let happen.

>Aside from a bullshit civil service test I never really got tested for intelligence.

Did you not have an academy? Do you not work? Here they will fire your ass for not having common sense. I don't get where the dumb cop meme stems from. Generally they're of decent intelligence... then there's the affirmative action hires...

they don't always work

if you're firing a warning shot, and the other guy is firing at you...

A wounded nigger can still shoot you.

This. Warning shots are a meme. They are overly redundant when other shows of force, like shouting and shoving. Sure bean bag rounds, and pepper spray are a thing, but once again, those behavior modification tools are brutal in their own ways and just as likely to instigate deadly force from the perpetrator as an actual gun.

Shooting to disable is even more laughable. Pulling a gun is muscle memory. Pure instinct aims and shoots it center mass because thats the likeliest of places to put a target down.

It takes force to not comply with an officer's demand, I commend an officer that can handle it without the use of a gun, but once a gun gets involved and shot gets fired I expect 100% kill rates.

To an American, a person killed why committing a crime is due process enough. Surrender and face your day in court, that's the only option criminals have.

I always have a good laugh when I hear about warning shots.

What do you think happen when you shoot up in the air?
You think the bullet goes in orbit and never come back to the ground?

I remember last summer a tourist received a bullet because some moron at a wedding a couple kilometers away decided it was a good idea to shoot up in the air.

Bullets falling at terminal velocity aren't typically lethal though..

The bullet would only be falling at terminal velocity if it were fired straight up, lost all of its velocity, and then fell back to earth under gravitational acceleration only.
If it were fired at even a slight angle, it would follow a parabolic trajectory like an artillery shell and strike its victim with lethal effect.

There is no such thing as shoot to wound.

Bullets don't always go straight once it hits flesh. In fact, most of the time they curve.

Even if they did go straight, and you could manage to hit a moving limb with 100% accuracy, your round would exit the limb and continue on past, having the potential to hit someone else.

To avoid the possibilities of through and through shots as much as possible, you should only EVER fire center mass, otherwise you are being criminally negligent.

And it is not "shoot to kill," or "shoot to wound" it is "shoot until the threat is no longer a threat" Whether the threatening person is still alive or not after ceasing to be a threat is of no significance.