American Cops behaving Badly (All inclusive thread)

[Mr Mike]

I believe there is a relatively high incidence of people being stopped for one thing also being wanted for another. I also understand that the information flow can be extremely poor.

A couple of incidents where a felon was left to run and then did something bad would put an end to any such policy very, very quickly.

Also, such a policy would incentivise people to resist arrest I reckon.

Ted Bundy is a good example of your first point.

In the early hours of the morning, Bundy was driving down a street in his Volkswagen Beetle with his lights off when a patrol officer in the area happened to notice him. When the officer commanded Bundy to stop, he disobeyed and the policeman arrested him for what initially seemed like a misdemeanor.

Understand your points of the effect of the policy but that’s where people have to be very clear about tradeoffs and expectations. There is reasons for the current practice and if that changes then a sufficient percentage of the population will need to be onboard about those.

Being stopped for commiting a legitimate traffic offence is one thing. But, as with the nurse the other day there can be all kinds of vague reasons given 'windows too tinted (they werent)' 'a lot of burglaries in the area' 'you fit a description (i.e young black male)'.

Plus the difference in the states is where we all think, sure just let them cuff you and take your punishment, black guys know the criminal justice system will f*ck them and it can very quickly become, take plea bargain slammer time or the judge will go to town on you. A fair trial is a rarity.

The sleepy Wendys guy is the problem in a nutshell. In most otherdeveloped countries the guy probably wouldnt run. In most other developed countries the cops probably wouldn't have shot. Its a toxic system beyond the officers, which is why in essence BLM is right, despite some of the associated nonsense.

All of which I get. For me the point is that the public here have to be more honest about which trade offs they are prepared to accept, especially while they work on longer term systematic changes on the justice system so certain offenders feel less incentivized to try and run. If you want to address police conduct then target what they enjoy limited immunity for and build a system around that.

“The nurse”, was that a reference to Breonna Taylor?

[Mr Mike]

The choice there seems to be let him get away and everyone lives, or shoot him, and he probably dies. And as pointed out, they know who he is and can find him again surely. Sure, by their laws they're probably just about justified, but that doesn't mean the laws are right.

I'm no gun guy so am all ears from the experts on this one: why don't they shoot at the fleer's legs?
- unlikely to kill
- less likely to accidentally kill someone else

Yes, I get that an angled trajectory is a harder shot than a straight one, but these are supposedly trained marksmen.

That sort of stuff is for the movies, if you shoot you aim at the biggest target (the torso) unfortunately barring the head there are no worse places to be hit...

I’ve often wondered why they don’t just shoot the knife or gun out of the hands of the bad guys.

[bessantj]

The choice there seems to be let him get away and everyone lives, or shoot him, and he probably dies. And as pointed out, they know who he is and can find him again surely. Sure, by their laws they're probably just about justified, but that doesn't mean the laws are right.

I'm no gun guy so am all ears from the experts on this one: why don't they shoot at the fleer's legs?
- unlikely to kill
- less likely to accidentally kill someone else

Yes, I get that an angled trajectory is a harder shot than a straight one, but these are supposedly trained marksmen.

That sort of stuff is for the movies, if you shoot you aim at the biggest target (the torso) unfortunately barring the head there are no worse places to be hit...

I’ve often wondered why they don’t just shoot the knife or gun out of the hands of the bad guys.

It's what I would do and if I miss I would simply shoot the nearest first aid box to recover fully.

[eldanielfire]

Bret Weinstein with anexcellent analysis of the whole issue from Joe Rogan:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR7gDJGFW5A

[Anonymous 1]

Well I watched a Joe Rogan clip where Rogan claims that the guy asked the cops to get him an Uber and if they did that and had his car towed then fingers crossed the guy can wake up in the morning and possibly think about getting help for any substance problems he has. But I don't know if what Rogan said is true.

I know he asked them if he could walk home. They may have even given him a lift home in certain circumstances. My problem with that though is drunk drivers tend to be habitual and someone who is so drunk they fall asleep at the wheel should be arrested. Get enough DUI's on your record and you get locked up.

[Santa]

I believe there is a relatively high incidence of people being stopped for one thing also being wanted for another. I also understand that the information flow can be extremely poor.

A couple of incidents where a felon was left to run and then did something bad would put an end to any such policy very, very quickly.

Also, such a policy would incentivise people to resist arrest I reckon.

Ted Bundy is a good example of your first point.

In the early hours of the morning, Bundy was driving down a street in his Volkswagen Beetle with his lights off when a patrol officer in the area happened to notice him. When the officer commanded Bundy to stop, he disobeyed and the policeman arrested him for what initially seemed like a misdemeanor.

Understand your points of the effect of the policy but that’s where people have to be very clear about tradeoffs and expectations. There is reasons for the current practice and if that changes then a sufficient percentage of the population will need to be onboard about those.

That's all fair but I think this is a solution looking for a problem.

Off the top of my head I think there 160m police interactions in the US last year. 10m resulted in some kind of police action. As a proportion of that number the number of results like Brooks is almost zero.

[Anonymous 1]

Bret Weinstein with anexcellent analysis of the whole issue from Joe Rogan:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR7gDJGFW5A

Yeah get him an Uber it's only falling asleep at the wheel due to drink driving.

According to the the FBI in 2018 alcohol-impaired crash fatalities accounted for 29 percent of all crash fatalities.

[etherman]

I believe there is a relatively high incidence of people being stopped for one thing also being wanted for another. I also understand that the information flow can be extremely poor.

A couple of incidents where a felon was left to run and then did something bad would put an end to any such policy very, very quickly.

Also, such a policy would incentivise people to resist arrest I reckon.

Ted Bundy is a good example of your first point.

In the early hours of the morning, Bundy was driving down a street in his Volkswagen Beetle with his lights off when a patrol officer in the area happened to notice him. When the officer commanded Bundy to stop, he disobeyed and the policeman arrested him for what initially seemed like a misdemeanor.

Understand your points of the effect of the policy but that’s where people have to be very clear about tradeoffs and expectations. There is reasons for the current practice and if that changes then a sufficient percentage of the population will need to be onboard about those.

Being stopped for commiting a legitimate traffic offence is one thing. But, as with the nurse the other day there can be all kinds of vague reasons given 'windows too tinted (they werent)' 'a lot of burglaries in the area' 'you fit a description (i.e young black male)'.

Plus the difference in the states is where we all think, sure just let them cuff you and take your punishment, black guys know the criminal justice system will f*ck them and it can very quickly become, take plea bargain slammer time or the judge will go to town on you. A fair trial is a rarity.

The sleepy Wendys guy is the problem in a nutshell. In most otherdeveloped countries the guy probably wouldnt run. In most other developed countries the cops probably wouldn't have shot. Its a toxic system beyond the officers, which is why in essence BLM is right, despite some of the associated nonsense.

All of which I get. For me the point is that the public here have to be more honest about which trade offs they are prepared to accept, especially while they work on longer term systematic changes on the justice system so certain offenders feel less incentivized to try and run. If you want to address police conduct then target what they enjoy limited immunity for and build a system around that.

“The nurse”, was that a reference to Breonna Taylor?

Nah Neomi Bennett in London.

[bessantj]

Well I watched a Joe Rogan clip where Rogan claims that the guy asked the cops to get him an Uber and if they did that and had his car towed then fingers crossed the guy can wake up in the morning and possibly think about getting help for any substance problems he has. But I don't know if what Rogan said is true.

I know he asked them if he could walk home. They may have even given him a lift home in certain circumstances. My problem with that though is drunk drivers tend to be habitual and someone who is so drunk they fall asleep at the wheel should be arrested. Get enough DUI's on your record and you get locked up.

Could they have then popped around in the morning and arrested him? That would have been a wake up call!

[Spyglass]

Well I watched a Joe Rogan clip where Rogan claims that the guy asked the cops to get him an Uber and if they did that and had his car towed then fingers crossed the guy can wake up in the morning and possibly think about getting help for any substance problems he has. But I don't know if what Rogan said is true.

I know he asked them if he could walk home. They may have even given him a lift home in certain circumstances. My problem with that though is drunk drivers tend to be habitual and someone who is so drunk they fall asleep at the wheel should be arrested. Get enough DUI's on your record and you get locked up.

He had just got out of jail (second visit) on probation and had a rap sheet going back to 2013 that included: battery, false imprisonment, cruelty to children, family violence battery, receipt of stolen property, credit card fraud, obstruction of the law. The cops would likely have run a background check on him during the stop and been aware of his history and the fact he was just released on parole.

This does not justify the shooting but gives some context to the situation.

[Raggs]

The choice there seems to be let him get away and everyone lives, or shoot him, and he probably dies. And as pointed out, they know who he is and can find him again surely. Sure, by their laws they're probably just about justified, but that doesn't mean the laws are right.

I'm no gun guy so am all ears from the experts on this one: why don't they shoot at the fleer's legs?
- unlikely to kill
- less likely to accidentally kill someone else

Yes, I get that an angled trajectory is a harder shot than a straight one, but these are supposedly trained marksmen.

That sort of stuff is for the movies, if you shoot you aim at the biggest target (the torso) unfortunately barring the head there are no worse places to be hit...

Yep, once you're shooting, you've made a decision to kill basically.

[Raggs]

Well I watched a Joe Rogan clip where Rogan claims that the guy asked the cops to get him an Uber and if they did that and had his car towed then fingers crossed the guy can wake up in the morning and possibly think about getting help for any substance problems he has. But I don't know if what Rogan said is true.

I know he asked them if he could walk home. They may have even given him a lift home in certain circumstances. My problem with that though is drunk drivers tend to be habitual and someone who is so drunk they fall asleep at the wheel should be arrested. Get enough DUI's on your record and you get locked up.

He had just got out of jail (second visit) on probation and had a rap sheet going back to 2013 that included: battery, false imprisonment, cruelty to children, family violence battery, receipt of stolen property, credit card fraud, obstruction of the law. The cops would likely have run a background check on him during the stop and been aware of his history and the fact he was just released on parole.

This does not justify the shooting but gives some context to the situation.

That changes things. If the cops were aware of this (and seeing as how slowly this arrest began I assume they would be), then given his history, and the fact he's got a taser, I have a lot more sympathy for the cop.

[Spyglass]

The choice there seems to be let him get away and everyone lives, or shoot him, and he probably dies. And as pointed out, they know who he is and can find him again surely. Sure, by their laws they're probably just about justified, but that doesn't mean the laws are right.

I'm no gun guy so am all ears from the experts on this one: why don't they shoot at the fleer's legs?
- unlikely to kill
- less likely to accidentally kill someone else

Yes, I get that an angled trajectory is a harder shot than a straight one, but these are supposedly trained marksmen.

That sort of stuff is for the movies, if you shoot you aim at the biggest target (the torso) unfortunately barring the head there are no worse places to be hit...

Yep especially with the hollow point rounds that are used by the cops, the head squashes on impact and then makes a mess inside

[robmatic]

Well I watched a Joe Rogan clip where Rogan claims that the guy asked the cops to get him an Uber and if they did that and had his car towed then fingers crossed the guy can wake up in the morning and possibly think about getting help for any substance problems he has. But I don't know if what Rogan said is true.

I know he asked them if he could walk home. They may have even given him a lift home in certain circumstances. My problem with that though is drunk drivers tend to be habitual and someone who is so drunk they fall asleep at the wheel should be arrested. Get enough DUI's on your record and you get locked up.

He had just got out of jail (second visit) on probation and had a rap sheet going back to 2013 that included: battery, false imprisonment, cruelty to children, family violence battery, receipt of stolen property, credit card fraud, obstruction of the law. The cops would likely have run a background check on him during the stop and been aware of his history and the fact he was just released on parole.

This does not justify the shooting but gives some context to the situation.

"He was no angel".

[Mr Mike]

Well I watched a Joe Rogan clip where Rogan claims that the guy asked the cops to get him an Uber and if they did that and had his car towed then fingers crossed the guy can wake up in the morning and possibly think about getting help for any substance problems he has. But I don't know if what Rogan said is true.

I know he asked them if he could walk home. They may have even given him a lift home in certain circumstances. My problem with that though is drunk drivers tend to be habitual and someone who is so drunk they fall asleep at the wheel should be arrested. Get enough DUI's on your record and you get locked up.

He had just got out of jail (second visit) on probation and had a rap sheet going back to 2013 that included: battery, false imprisonment, cruelty to children, family violence battery, receipt of stolen property, credit card fraud, obstruction of the law. The cops would likely have run a background check on him during the stop and been aware of his history and the fact he was just released on parole.

This does not justify the shooting but gives some context to the situation.

It does illustrate how quickly the narrative can change also. If the police let him escape or worse still took him home and there was an incident of domestic violence (arguably reasonable to anticipate with someone who has a record of such offenses and who is under the influence of alcohol and stressed, facing the prospects of returning to prison) then there would be a very different discussion. I suspect that even if the police had an Uber friendly policy they wouldn’t have been able to return him home with those facts.

In any event, he appears to have failed to meet the criteria in the Raggs non-pursuit test given a history of violence, so it’s a different example.

[BlackMac]

Well I watched a Joe Rogan clip where Rogan claims that the guy asked the cops to get him an Uber and if they did that and had his car towed then fingers crossed the guy can wake up in the morning and possibly think about getting help for any substance problems he has. But I don't know if what Rogan said is true.

I know he asked them if he could walk home. They may have even given him a lift home in certain circumstances. My problem with that though is drunk drivers tend to be habitual and someone who is so drunk they fall asleep at the wheel should be arrested. Get enough DUI's on your record and you get locked up.

Could they have then popped around in the morning and arrested him? That would have been a wake up call!

He was a suspected of driving under the influence. If the US is like the UK, the roadside test is only a rough indication of excess alcohol and the driver has to be arrested so they can be taken to the station to carry out the full procedure, whether that be breath or blood.

[Anonymous 1]

Well I watched a Joe Rogan clip where Rogan claims that the guy asked the cops to get him an Uber and if they did that and had his car towed then fingers crossed the guy can wake up in the morning and possibly think about getting help for any substance problems he has. But I don't know if what Rogan said is true.

I know he asked them if he could walk home. They may have even given him a lift home in certain circumstances. My problem with that though is drunk drivers tend to be habitual and someone who is so drunk they fall asleep at the wheel should be arrested. Get enough DUI's on your record and you get locked up.

He had just got out of jail (second visit) on probation and had a rap sheet going back to 2013 that included: battery, false imprisonment, cruelty to children, family violence battery, receipt of stolen property, credit card fraud, obstruction of the law. The cops would likely have run a background check on him during the stop and been aware of his history and the fact he was just released on parole.

This does not justify the shooting but gives some context to the situation.

That changes things. If the cops were aware of this (and seeing as how slowly this arrest began I assume they would be), then given his history, and the fact he's got a taser, I have a lot more sympathy for the cop.

I very much doubt in that split second any of that went through that cops mind. The guy shot at him and in less than two seconds he had shot the guy. It's a difficult job but when cops shoot someone who is doing nothing wrong and they use the "I perceived a threat" get out of jail free card I find it really annoying. However this cop has been fired and is now facing criminal charges because he shot someone who was a few feet away from him and firing at him.

[BlackMac]

Well I watched a Joe Rogan clip where Rogan claims that the guy asked the cops to get him an Uber and if they did that and had his car towed then fingers crossed the guy can wake up in the morning and possibly think about getting help for any substance problems he has. But I don't know if what Rogan said is true.

I know he asked them if he could walk home. They may have even given him a lift home in certain circumstances. My problem with that though is drunk drivers tend to be habitual and someone who is so drunk they fall asleep at the wheel should be arrested. Get enough DUI's on your record and you get locked up.

He had just got out of jail (second visit) on probation and had a rap sheet going back to 2013 that included: battery, false imprisonment, cruelty to children, family violence battery, receipt of stolen property, credit card fraud, obstruction of the law. The cops would likely have run a background check on him during the stop and been aware of his history and the fact he was just released on parole.

This does not justify the shooting but gives some context to the situation.

That changes things. If the cops were aware of this (and seeing as how slowly this arrest began I assume they would be), then given his history, and the fact he's got a taser, I have a lot more sympathy for the cop.

I very much doubt in that split second any of that went through that cops mind. The guy shot at him and in less than two seconds he had shot the guy. It's a difficult job but when cops shoot someone who is doing nothing wrong and they use the "I perceived a threat" get out of jail free card I find it really annoying. However this cop has been fired and is now facing criminal charges because he shot someone who was a few feet away from him and firing at him.

I would have a bit more sympathy for the cop if he was chasing him alone and was left in the situation if he was hit by the Tazer and incapacitated then he could be entirely at the guys mercy. However in this case he knew he had backup with him so that was very unlikely to happen.

[Anonymous 1]

I very much doubt in that split second any of that went through that cops mind. The guy shot at him and in less than two seconds he had shot the guy. It's a difficult job but when cops shoot someone who is doing nothing wrong and they use the "I perceived a threat" get out of jail free card I find it really annoying. However this cop has been fired and is now facing criminal charges because he shot someone who was a few feet away from him and firing at him.

I would have a bit more sympathy for the cop if he was chasing him alone and was left in the situation if he was hit by the Tazer and incapacitated then he could be entirely at the guys mercy. However in this case he knew he had backup with him so that was very unlikely to happen.

Perhaps he should have made the time out signal to the guy running so he could stop and consider the permutations for 30 seconds like they do in basketball.

[BlackMac]

I very much doubt in that split second any of that went through that cops mind. The guy shot at him and in less than two seconds he had shot the guy. It's a difficult job but when cops shoot someone who is doing nothing wrong and they use the "I perceived a threat" get out of jail free card I find it really annoying. However this cop has been fired and is now facing criminal charges because he shot someone who was a few feet away from him and firing at him.

I would have a bit more sympathy for the cop if he was chasing him alone and was left in the situation if he was hit by the Tazer and incapacitated then he could be entirely at the guys mercy. However in this case he knew he had backup with him so that was very unlikely to happen.

Perhaps he should have made the time out signal to the guy running so he could stop and consider the permutations for 30 seconds like they do in basketball.

In most situations a police officer is expected to make quick decisions under pressure. Sadly I think this guy made a poor one.

[Openside]

The choice there seems to be let him get away and everyone lives, or shoot him, and he probably dies. And as pointed out, they know who he is and can find him again surely. Sure, by their laws they're probably just about justified, but that doesn't mean the laws are right.

I'm no gun guy so am all ears from the experts on this one: why don't they shoot at the fleer's legs?
- unlikely to kill
- less likely to accidentally kill someone else

Yes, I get that an angled trajectory is a harder shot than a straight one, but these are supposedly trained marksmen.

That sort of stuff is for the movies, if you shoot you aim at the biggest target (the torso) unfortunately barring the head there are no worse places to be hit...

Yep especially with the hollow point rounds that are used by the cops, the head squashes on impact and then makes a mess inside

Wow that seems fairly barbaric? I thought hollow points were outlawed by Geneva Convention.(or whatever the relevant piece of law is)

[Nieghorn]

Yep especially with the hollow point rounds that are used by the cops, the head squashes on impact and then makes a mess inside

Wow that seems fairly barbaric? I thought hollow points were outlawed by Geneva Convention.(or whatever the relevant piece of law is)

Seems not the case ... stopping power, fewer shots needed seems to make sense, as gruesome as it sounds.

https://www.quora.com/Do-police-officer ... acket-ammo

[Raggs]

Yep especially with the hollow point rounds that are used by the cops, the head squashes on impact and then makes a mess inside

Wow that seems fairly barbaric? I thought hollow points were outlawed by Geneva Convention.(or whatever the relevant piece of law is)

Seems not the case ... stopping power, fewer shots needed seems to make sense, as gruesome as it sounds.

https://www.quora.com/Do-police-officer ... acket-ammo

Think tumbling bullets were banned. And again, once you make the decision to pull the trigger, you're attempting to kill, so it makes sense to use the most lethal option.

[Mr Mike]

Yep especially with the hollow point rounds that are used by the cops, the head squashes on impact and then makes a mess inside

Wow that seems fairly barbaric? I thought hollow points were outlawed by Geneva Convention.(or whatever the relevant piece of law is)

Seems not the case ... stopping power, fewer shots needed seems to make sense, as gruesome as it sounds.

https://www.quora.com/Do-police-officer ... acket-ammo

Think tumbling bullets were banned. And again, once you make the decision to pull the trigger, you're attempting to kill, so it makes sense to use the most lethal option.

And less risk of a shot going through the target and injuring bystanders, as I understand it.

[Sandstorm]

The choice there seems to be let him get away and everyone lives, or shoot him, and he probably dies. And as pointed out, they know who he is and can find him again surely. Sure, by their laws they're probably just about justified, but that doesn't mean the laws are right.

I'm no gun guy so am all ears from the experts on this one: why don't they shoot at the fleer's legs?
- unlikely to kill
- less likely to accidentally kill someone else

Yes, I get that an angled trajectory is a harder shot than a straight one, but these are supposedly trained marksmen.

That sort of stuff is for the movies, if you shoot you aim at the biggest target (the torso) unfortunately barring the head there are no worse places to be hit...

Yeah that’s also in a lot of movies.

[Spyglass]

The choice there seems to be let him get away and everyone lives, or shoot him, and he probably dies. And as pointed out, they know who he is and can find him again surely. Sure, by their laws they're probably just about justified, but that doesn't mean the laws are right.

I'm no gun guy so am all ears from the experts on this one: why don't they shoot at the fleer's legs?
- unlikely to kill
- less likely to accidentally kill someone else

Yes, I get that an angled trajectory is a harder shot than a straight one, but these are supposedly trained marksmen.

That sort of stuff is for the movies, if you shoot you aim at the biggest target (the torso) unfortunately barring the head there are no worse places to be hit...

Yep especially with the hollow point rounds that are used by the cops, the head squashes on impact and then makes a mess inside

Wow that seems fairly barbaric? I thought hollow points were outlawed by Geneva Convention.(or whatever the relevant piece of law is)

Yes, NATO uses Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) rounds, it's a general agreement between the worlds military's (although the US is now going to use 9mm Jacketed Hollow Points (JHP) in their service pistols). FMJ has better penetration through objects and since assault rifles are full auto you aren't as worried about max damage with a single round as you'll likely have multiple hits.

FMJ are much cheaper than JHP so most people use FMJ at the range and JHP for self defense.

[Spyglass]

Yep especially with the hollow point rounds that are used by the cops, the head squashes on impact and then makes a mess inside

Wow that seems fairly barbaric? I thought hollow points were outlawed by Geneva Convention.(or whatever the relevant piece of law is)

Seems not the case ... stopping power, fewer shots needed seems to make sense, as gruesome as it sounds.

https://www.quora.com/Do-police-officer ... acket-ammo

Think tumbling bullets were banned. And again, once you make the decision to pull the trigger, you're attempting to kill, so it makes sense to use the most lethal option.

And less risk of a shot going through the target and injuring bystanders, as I understand it.

Correct

[Gavin Duffy]

I suppose the argument is that, if the cop was incapacitated by being tased, the criminal could get his weapon and use it on him. However, in this case weren't there 2 policemen?

Yes. One still had his tazer, the other had it snatched. The guy was running away, half turned whilst running and seemed to shoot the tazer over the cop that was nearest to him. He then returns to running, the cop drops his tazer, draws his gun, and then shoots the guy whilst he's just running.

No reason to inflame the situation, no reason to even give chase, no reason to believe that the guy is an immediate threat to police or public if they just let him go and pick him up later.

Except that he was incredibly pissed, had assaulted a police officer and was in possession of a taser. But yeah, no immediate threat.

[JM2K6]

Yes, NATO uses Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) rounds, it's a general agreement between the worlds military's (although the US is now going to use 9mm Jacketed Hollow Points (JHP) in their service pistols). FMJ has better penetration through objects and since assault rifles are full auto you aren't as worried about max damage with a single round as you'll likely have multiple hits.

FMJ are much cheaper than JHP so most people use FMJ at the range and JHP for self defense.

I thought actually using full auto was pretty rare? I seem to remember reading something a few years back about how even the M16's burst mode wasn't that useful, and fully auto on the M4 was essentially a sop to gun manufacturers and military top brass rather than anything that'd get regular usage.

[Mr Mike]

Yes, NATO uses Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) rounds, it's a general agreement between the worlds military's (although the US is now going to use 9mm Jacketed Hollow Points (JHP) in their service pistols). FMJ has better penetration through objects and since assault rifles are full auto you aren't as worried about max damage with a single round as you'll likely have multiple hits.

FMJ are much cheaper than JHP so most people use FMJ at the range and JHP for self defense.

I thought actually using full auto was pretty rare? I seem to remember reading something a few years back about how even the M16's burst mode wasn't that useful, and fully auto on the M4 was essentially a sop to gun manufacturers and military top brass rather than anything that'd get regular usage.

The Faklands conflict was an interesting study in that as both sides had the FN FAL, but the British had a semi option vs the Argentinian full auto. The story goes that the rifle in full auto was almost unmanageable, giving British forces a significant advantage. Others may have more facts.

[Sefton]

The choice there seems to be let him get away and everyone lives, or shoot him, and he probably dies. And as pointed out, they know who he is and can find him again surely. Sure, by their laws they're probably just about justified, but that doesn't mean the laws are right.

I'm no gun guy so am all ears from the experts on this one: why don't they shoot at the fleer's legs?
- unlikely to kill
- less likely to accidentally kill someone else

Yes, I get that an angled trajectory is a harder shot than a straight one, but these are supposedly trained marksmen.

That sort of stuff is for the movies, if you shoot you aim at the biggest target (the torso) unfortunately barring the head there are no worse places to be hit...

That would be your arse.

[C69]

The choice there seems to be let him get away and everyone lives, or shoot him, and he probably dies. And as pointed out, they know who he is and can find him again surely. Sure, by their laws they're probably just about justified, but that doesn't mean the laws are right.

I'm no gun guy so am all ears from the experts on this one: why don't they shoot at the fleer's legs?
- unlikely to kill
- less likely to accidentally kill someone else

Yes, I get that an angled trajectory is a harder shot than a straight one, but these are supposedly trained marksmen.

That sort of stuff is for the movies, if you shoot you aim at the biggest target (the torso) unfortunately barring the head there are no worse places to be hit...

That would be your arse.

I doubt it is bigger than his self righteous pompous ego tbh

[OptimisticJock]

The choice there seems to be let him get away and everyone lives, or shoot him, and he probably dies. And as pointed out, they know who he is and can find him again surely. Sure, by their laws they're probably just about justified, but that doesn't mean the laws are right.

I'm no gun guy so am all ears from the experts on this one: why don't they shoot at the fleer's legs?
- unlikely to kill
- less likely to accidentally kill someone else

Yes, I get that an angled trajectory is a harder shot than a straight one, but these are supposedly trained marksmen.

That sort of stuff is for the movies, if you shoot you aim at the biggest target (the torso) unfortunately barring the head there are no worse places to be hit...

Centre Mass has a slightly different meaning for you guys though...

[JM2K6]

Yes, NATO uses Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) rounds, it's a general agreement between the worlds military's (although the US is now going to use 9mm Jacketed Hollow Points (JHP) in their service pistols). FMJ has better penetration through objects and since assault rifles are full auto you aren't as worried about max damage with a single round as you'll likely have multiple hits.

FMJ are much cheaper than JHP so most people use FMJ at the range and JHP for self defense.

I thought actually using full auto was pretty rare? I seem to remember reading something a few years back about how even the M16's burst mode wasn't that useful, and fully auto on the M4 was essentially a sop to gun manufacturers and military top brass rather than anything that'd get regular usage.

The Faklands conflict was an interesting study in that as both sides had the FN FAL, but the British had a semi option vs the Argentinian full auto. The story goes that the rifle in full auto was almost unmanageable, giving British forces a significant advantage. Others may have more facts.

[Enzedder]

I bet the Wendy's manager wishes that he/she had just gone and knocked on the guys window and gotten him to move.

[Mr Mike]

I bet the Wendy's manager wishes that he/she had just gone and knocked on the guys window and gotten him to move.

Yes. I think they did try but there a number of businesses and individuals who are now far less willing to call 911. It was the same with the owner of the business George Floyd was in before he died.

[OptimisticJock]

Yes, NATO uses Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) rounds, it's a general agreement between the worlds military's (although the US is now going to use 9mm Jacketed Hollow Points (JHP) in their service pistols). FMJ has better penetration through objects and since assault rifles are full auto you aren't as worried about max damage with a single round as you'll likely have multiple hits.

FMJ are much cheaper than JHP so most people use FMJ at the range and JHP for self defense.

I thought actually using full auto was pretty rare? I seem to remember reading something a few years back about how even the M16's burst mode wasn't that useful, and fully auto on the M4 was essentially a sop to gun manufacturers and military top brass rather than anything that'd get regular usage.

The Faklands conflict was an interesting study in that as both sides had the FN FAL, but the British had a semi option vs the Argentinian full auto. The story goes that the rifle in full auto was almost unmanageable, giving British forces a significant advantage. Others may have more facts.

Thats always the story I've been told by the old and bold. I imagine it was slightly cheaper to manufacture the SLR without a fully automatic option too.

JM is right in regards to rifles being used on fully automatic. Clearing a dug in position (after posting grenades) is nearly the only time I recall being taught to use it other than 2 to 3 round bursts when suppressing the enemy. Other weapon systems are generally used for the latter.

[Mr Mike]

Yes, NATO uses Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) rounds, it's a general agreement between the worlds military's (although the US is now going to use 9mm Jacketed Hollow Points (JHP) in their service pistkols). FMJ has better penetration through objects and since assault rifles are full auto you aren't as worried about max damage with a single round as you'll likely have multiple hits.

FMJ are much cheaper than JHP so most people use FMJ at the range and JHP for self defense.

I thought actually using full auto was pretty rare? I seem to remember reading something a few years back about how even the M16's burst mode wasn't that useful, and fully auto on the M4 was essentially a sop to gun manufacturers and military top brass rather than anything that'd get regular usage.

The Faklands conflict was an interesting study in that as both sides had the FN FAL, but the British had a semi option vs the Argentinian full auto. The story goes that the rifle in full auto was almost unmanageable, giving British forces a significant advantage. Others may have more facts.

Thats always the story I've been told by the old and bold. I imagine it was slightly cheaper to manufacture the SLR without a fully automatic option too.

JM is right in regards to rifles being used on fully automatic. Clearing a dug in position (after posting grenades) is nearly the only time I recall being taught to use it other than 2 to 3 round bursts when suppressing the enemy. Other weapon systems are generally used for the latter.

That, and celebrating weddings or World Cup wins of course.

[JM2K6]

Qualifying for the Heineken Cup is enough

[Mr Mike]

Good point.