effect of shots to arms and legs

[ToddG]

By court decisions this means an officer has to aim for the suspects legs in most of this situations.

How do you say, "Holy cow our court system is full of massive idiots!" in German?

[Odin Bravo One]

How do you say, "Holy cow our court system is full of massive idiots!" in German?

The educated and enlightened over there have also severely limited and restricted access to firearms for most of the subjects in civilize Europe.

After the past few weeks of the nonsense here..........without an abrupt turn, and soon, we won't be far behind.

[Rich]

From the website Chuck linked:


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.

I kind a see there point if using rifle calibers like 75gr TAP VS 62gr Soft Point.

Not so much with pistol calibers.

[Luger]

How do you say, "Holy cow our court system is full of massive idiots!" in German?

Why should I say something like this?

If I had to enforce the arrest of a fleeing suspect by the use of a firearm, I think it would be reasonable to aim for the legs.

If I was attacked with a firearm (or someone lunged at me with a knife at short distance), it would be easy to explain why shooting at the attackers legs was not an option.

I can't remember one single case within the last ten years over here in bavaria, where an officer was convicted for shooting (and killing) a suspect. Especially not in self defense.

A problem over here is not the law, or the court system. It's the kind some politicians and the media deal with police use of force. And I guess this is not much better over there in the US.

[JAD]

How do you say, "Holy cow our court system is full of massive idiots!" in German?

Wir Menschen sind.

[ssb]

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...

Thank you for your response.

I hope you guys are well-trained. It seems like you're asked to make some very difficult shots under stress.

[Jeep]

The educated and enlightened over there have also severely limited and restricted access to firearms for most of the subjects in civilize Europe.

After the past few weeks of the nonsense here..........without an abrupt turn, and soon, we won't be far behind.

Unfortunately, that is part of the intent behind "fundamental transformation," and it is absolutely part of the intent of those who are staging and paying for much of the nonsense here.

[CompressionIgnition]

As an interesting counterpoint; police in Norway have been unarmed save for a gun in a lockbox in the patrol car. Due to recent threats all cops have been armed, and though ostensibly a temporary measure it is likely to be permanent. The Norwegian police have also asked to be able to use HP ammo, due to overpenetration concerns. Some of the tabloids have been screaming that they are asking for "Hague-banned ammo", but overall they seem to be getting what they are asking.

[GardoneVT]

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...

Why do I feel like I just read an article from America's future?

[ToddG]

Why do I feel like I just read an article from America's future?

Not a chance. Courts have almost always sided with reasonable police actions (though that is a dangerous word to define) and have, if anything, expanded lethal UOF in some ways compared to the rules that existed pre-Graham/Garner. If nothing else, look at nyeti's comments. Yes, major segments of the public go nuts when they see what seems like excessive force or "unfair" force, but communities also rally 'round the flag when an officer is severely injured or killed in the line of duty. The only way "shots to the legs" will become a requirement in the US is if a significant segment of department UOF experts declare it a requirement because until then, it's not a normal and reasonable police practice.