OFF-DUTY COP HITS 4-YEAR-OLD GIRL WITH MOTORCYCLE, SHOOTS AND KILLS ANGRY DAD

[Danno 1,228]

I thought we have been told time and time again that standard police training DOES NOT allow for shots to disable a person. All training is predicated upon firing a weapon when life is in danger, to allow disabling shots erodes the severity of the threat.

(which I disagree with).

Anyone familiar with current standards of training for Law enforcement?

Reports indicate the dead guy was shot in the groin..... not a pretty way to go out.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Danno

[Nooblord 10]

His shots did disable the violent father? Lol no sympathy or the father, and the cousin is lucky he didn't get shot. Danno, I'll get back to you on the SOP for the shooting to disable

[Nooblord 10]

Danno, My source did say that the SOP is still shoot to kill.

[RobNKharen 70]

I thought we have been told time and time again that standard police training DOES NOT allow for shots to disable a person. All training is predicated upon firing a weapon when life is in danger, to allow disabling shots erodes the severity of the threat.

(which I disagree with).

Anyone familiar with current standards of training for Law enforcement?

Reports indicate the dead guy was shot in the groin..... not a pretty way to go out.

It is a very sound strategy to only pull your weapon when you intend to use lethal force, especially for civilians. Pointing a weapon at someone to scare them off is a very big no-no. Targeting center mass not only takes out the threat but helps to avoid collateral damage. Many PD's use this strategy, but is not the most effective option for someone in my line of work. We want and need alive assailants. You can not interrogate a dead man. PD's only give minimal hand to hand training, have minimal weapon skills requirements etc. They are there in a role to keep the peace, but be able to handle a deadly threat if needed. They would be all but useless in a convoy ambush.

If the thug was indeed shot in the groin at an upward angle, the bullet would have likely traveled well into center mass and caused extensive bleeding. Bleed out would occur rather quickly.

[Danno 1,228]

Danno, My source did say that the SOP is still shoot to kill.

At's what I thought.

I suspect L.E> are forced to take this approach which is unfortunate.

We have seen cases where a suspect under some substance with a knife was shot & killed for approaching the cops.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

There are plenty of ways to "disable" someone without killing them. A cop, of all people, knows that.

So how would you disable someone who was kicking you in the chest while you are on the ground.. Say pretty with your please ?

[rocks 494]

So how would you disable someone who was kicking you in the chest while you are on the ground.. Say pretty with your please ?

I'd bite his foot off. Duh.

[Karee 4,189]

I'd bite his foot off. Duh.

I truly believe you would.

[rocks 494]

I truly believe you would.

I also have sharp fingernails.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Reports indicate the dead guy was shot in the groin..... .

Maybe the cop was gay? What do you think?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Actually I am Einstein. I've owned and operated a private professional personal security firm over 25 years. We do both personal and corporate security in hotspots all over the world, such as Afghanistan, which includes cyber-security, not just "bodyguards". Our agents are highly trained in every aspect of security and the movies only wish they could do some of what we do. Even an agent on the ground would put you on your ####### so fast you wouldn't know what happened. They don't NEED a gun, but are well trained and highly armed at all times.

My remarks might be comical to you, but I can tell from yours that you have no clue when the escalation of force is really warranted. A trained agent would have neutralized the threat almost instantly and the thug would still be alive.....damaged, but alive.

I don't understand all the moves you talk about that Hollywood " wishes they Knew". :rofl:

But I do have one glaring question ?? -- They don't need a gun...... But they are highly armed at all times. I mean you said it in the same sentence. The question is so obvious..If they don't need a gun why are they so well armed at all times.

[Teddy B 17,251]

You roll into the target and affect weapon, be it a knife or a gun. The assailant has already breached your distance safety perimeter, so now you want to get CLOSE. In a normal threat situation you maintain distance and spacial awareness, but when it has already reached your red zone you must close the distance. It is not very hard to shoot a kneecap when your gun is pressed against it. With the knife, which would be preferred in this instance, you roll into the target and start slicing until the attacker stops or bleeds out. When he does stop, then you regain distance.

How do you "roll into the target" when you're lying on the ground with a broken leg, broken shoulder, and two men kicking and punching you senseless within inches of your life?

Do you watch a lot of Roadrunner cartoons too?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

All these experts!

[Ban Hammer 12,836]

I'd bite his foot off. Duh.

that would take a lot of chomping.

I don't understand all the moves you talk about that Hollywood " wishes they Knew". :rofl:

But I do have one glaring question ?? -- They don't need a gun...... But they are highly armed at all times. I mean you said it in the same sentence. The question is so obvious..If they don't need a gun why are they so well armed at all times.

maybe they all are black belts?

[natty bumppo 289]

So how would you disable someone who was kicking you in the chest while you are on the ground.. Say pretty with your please ?

I'd bite his foot off. Duh.

talk about putting a foot in your mouth .....

+1 for honesty ...