effect of shots to arms and legs

[Chuck Haggard]

Danke

Do the Germans and other Europeans prefer lighter bullets for police work or do many use the 124-147 gr used in America?

I assume these are not common for civilians?

Sorry for getting a little off topic.

http://www.ruag.com/en/ammotec/defen...on-ammunition/

[Tamara]

From the website Chuck linked:

The increasing tendency towards violence in urban areas calls for special ammunition, able to stop an aggressor without permanently injuring him.

I do not understand that. If you don't want to permanently injure somebody, the last thing you need to be doing is shooting guns at them.

[Chuck Haggard]

It's common in Europe for people to think you can shoot people nicely.

[Jeep]

It's common in Europe for people to think you can shoot people nicely.

The New York Times has historically had the same view, which is why the NYPD was using FMJ bullets well into the 1990's. A total lack of knowledge on the subject matter combined with a firm conviction that one knows everything that is needed to know can lead to some extremely odd editorial positions.

[Luger]

Well... German police asked for expanding ammunition since mid of the 70iest. Politicians allways denied "dum dum bullets" and kept issuing fmj.

Things changed in 1998, when a munich police officer shot and killed a bystander through the body of a suspect. Politics then decided to retire the old 9mm fmj ammunition and go for a more modern bullet design.

The technische Richtlinie was a compromise. The bullets where intended to be painfull, to make the suspect surrender. But they where also intended to cause less damage to the suspects body. So expansion is verry little (about 11-12mm I guess). Penetration might be within the fbi test protocoll, unless the bullets are fired through a windshield.

[ssb]

Well... German police asked for expanding ammunition since mid of the 70iest. Politicians allways denied "dum dum bullets" and kept issuing fmj.

Things changed in 1998, when a munich police officer shot and killed a bystander through the body of a suspect. Politics then decided to retire the old 9mm fmj ammunition and go for a more modern bullet design.

The technische Richtlinie was a compromise. The bullets where intended to be painfull, to make the suspect surrender. But they where also intended to cause less damage to the suspects body. So expansion is verry little (about 11-12mm I guess). Penetration might be within the fbi test protocoll, unless the bullets are fired through a windshield.

Is there a legal difference in Germany between a shot aimed at the arm or leg and a shot aimed at the torso or head? Here, shooting a gun at somebody is always considered lethal force -- and thus, it must be justified as such (suspect/assailant generally must pose a lethal threat). Is there a situation where a shot to the arm or leg would be legally justified where a shot to the torso would not be?

[SouthNarc]

And what happens with a bullet fired from a rifle or a shotgun slug?

Tom Jones can probably give you a lengthy dissertation on that...

[Tamara]

It's common in Europe for people to think you can shoot people nicely.

To be fair, the "Why can't you just shoot them a little bit?" crowd is well-represented on this side of the pond as well.

[ToddG]

... and full duty by this summer.

Holy crap. You married well, dude.

[Luger]

Is there a legal difference in Germany between a shot aimed at the arm or leg and a shot aimed at the torso or head? Here, shooting a gun at somebody is always considered lethal force -- and thus, it must be justified as such (suspect/assailant generally must pose a lethal threat). Is there a situation where a shot to the arm or leg would be legally justified where a shot to the torso would not be?

Legislation (and court decisions) differ a little bit over here. I will try to explain:
Under bavarian police law (every state has its own, as has the federal government) an officer is justified (as a last resort) to shoot a suspect in several situations. This includes for example stopping a person from commiting a serious crime (arson, robbery, rape...), or arresting a person suspected of commiting such a serious crime.But shots may only be fired "to make a person unable to flee or attack". By court decisions this means an officer has to aim for the suspects legs in most of this situations. (Shots to the arms or even torso may be justified in some of this situations, too. As is a shot which was aimed for the legs, but struck another part of the suspects body.

Shooting at the head or center of mass is only justified if the suspect poses a lethal thread to the officer or a third party. And even then it is a last resort of the last resort.

Example given:
Some years ago officers over here faced a man armed with a knife. As he walked slowly towards them they first used pepperspray, then a baton. It had no effect. Two officers then opened fire, striking the suspect several times in the legs, then in the arms and torso. It had no effect, too.
As the suspect kept walking towards the officers, one of them then fired several shots at the center of mass. One bullet struck the heart and the suspect collapsed and died. The prosecutors office (and several courts) ruled the shooting to be justified, because officers had used every other possible measure before shooting to kill.

In another case a man was running towards officers with a knife. They opened fire, striking him several times in the head and chest. The suspect died at the scene. This shooting was ruled as justified, too. Because there was no time for other measures.

PS: Most people (even most police officers) over here do not understand how wound ballistics work. They are just not interested in this topic. Politics and media consider guns as being evil and often seem to worry more about police brutality, than about violent crime. No wonder we get bullets, that are intended to hurt not to much...