[eskimobobseal]

One less queer pervert to worry about now.

It asked for it, literally, while walking towards a police officer with a knife. What did it expect would happen?

[Laska]

(09-19-2017 07:57 PM)eskimobobseal Wrote:  

One less queer pervert to worry about now.

It asked for it, literally, while walking towards a police officer with a knife. What did it expect would happen?

Our society practically asked for this to happen. Anyone with enough sense to want to get him help would be too afraid to do so, and wouldn't have had a good chance at succeeding.

[BoiBoi]

(09-19-2017 07:13 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 03:34 PM)BoiBoi Wrote:  

Why not do something like those cops here?

Because cucks like yourself have defanged European police officers from carrying a weapon.

You can bet if those Spanish cops had guns, they would have unloaded on him the second he pulled that knife out.

You are jumping to conclusions. I'm not British and I'm not against cops carrying firearms. I just think that when you are able to not take a life, then you shouldn't. Yeah, I'm a softy like that.

As I said, if the Spanish cops in the video had used lethal force, it would have been appropriate.

[Leonard D Neubache]

I find that people tend to judge these events based more on their fears of police violence overall rather than based on the specific event in question.

If I were the chief of the world police then every squad car would have a pump action shottie with a laser sight. First in the mag tube would be a beanbag round. The next would be a rubber slug. After that it would be deer slugs until the hammer dropped on an empty chamber.

[Suits]

(09-20-2017 03:43 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

I find that people tend to judge these events based more on their fears of police violence overall rather than based on the specific event in question.

If I were the chief of the world police then every squad car would have a pump action shottie with a laser sight. First in the mag tube would be a beanbag round. The next would be a rubber slug. After that it would be deer slugs until the hammer dropped on an empty chamber.

I guess I misjudged your competency when it came to firearms. A plan like this makes sense until you account for the human factor.

Sooner or later, some fuck head is going to forget to load the shells in the right order and someone is going to die before their time.

There's a reason why less lethal shotguns only come in a specific colour and are physically incompatible with lethal rounds.

Another fun fact is that police are actually safer (statistically) if they are alone in their squad car. When cops ride doubled up they are more likely to rush into deadly situations whereas when they have to wait for backup, they have a chance to cool their heads and tend to come out alive more often.

Sure, it goes again commonly held assumptions, but common assumptions often get people killed.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(09-20-2017 07:52 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(09-20-2017 03:43 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

I find that people tend to judge these events based more on their fears of police violence overall rather than based on the specific event in question.

If I were the chief of the world police then every squad car would have a pump action shottie with a laser sight. First in the mag tube would be a beanbag round. The next would be a rubber slug. After that it would be deer slugs until the hammer dropped on an empty chamber.

I guess I misjudged your competency when it came to firearms. A plan like this makes sense until you account for the human factor.

Sooner or later, some fuck head is going to forget to load the shells in the right order and someone is going to die before their time.

There's a reason why less lethal shotguns only come in a specific colour and are physically incompatible with lethal rounds.

Another fun fact is that police are actually safer (statistically) if they are alone in their squad car. When cops ride doubled up they are more likely to rush into deadly situations whereas when they have to wait for backup, they have a chance to cool their heads and tend to come out alive more often.

Sure, it goes again commonly held assumptions, but common assumptions often get people killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bean_bag_round

Quote:

The bean bag round consists of a small fabric “pillow” filled with #9 lead shot weighing about 40 grams (1.4 oz). It is fired from a normal 12-gauge shotgun.

Would you like a drink to wash your hat down with?

Quote:

I guess I misjudged your competency when it came to firearms. A plan like this makes sense until you account for the human factor.

Plenty of people kill themselves with guns by accident. By your logic cops shouldn't have guns because they're just too dangerous. Why some fucking idiot specifically unloading the gun and then reloading it in the wrong order somehow reflects on my personal competency is beyond me.

Pardon the pun, Suits, but guns seems to trigger you. Take a deep breath.

The gun gets loaded by the armourer (but not chambered) who then affixes a breakable seal on the pump, much in the same way a break-glass alarm is used. It's not rocket science.

[The Beast1]

(09-20-2017 02:45 AM)BoiBoi Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 07:13 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

(09-19-2017 03:34 PM)BoiBoi Wrote:  

Why not do something like those cops here?

Because cucks like yourself have defanged European police officers from carrying a weapon.

You can bet if those Spanish cops had guns, they would have unloaded on him the second he pulled that knife out.

You are jumping to conclusions. I'm not British and I'm not against cops carrying firearms. I just think that when you are able to not take a life, then you shouldn't. Yeah, I'm a softy like that. .

Translation: "You've jumped to conclusions man, i'm not like that at all! But really, cops shouldn't take the lives of people who are wielding knives and are threatening to attack them because cucking for the victim is the thing now!"

Knives can not only kill, a gun is an appropriate level of response.

Again I say: stop the cucking.

[Number one bummer]

(09-19-2017 06:53 PM)MikeInRealLife Wrote:  

...Here's the thing. The supposed "trauma" of a man killing doesn't come from the act of killing. It comes from, as Massad Ayoob put it, your reaction to society's reaction to you having killed a person. If your society/tribe/in-group/whatever doesn't think killing is a bad thing, then you won't generally suffer any negative feelings about it. If you're treated like a monster for even a justified killing, then yeah, you're probably going to develop some negative baggage...

(09-19-2017 07:25 PM)Laska Wrote:  

MikeInRealLife, David Grossman, the Navy psychologist who's books on the psychology of killing and combat are required reading at the FBI Academy, West Point, and for Marine officers, would disagree with you...

Great posts.

I have watched Grossman and Ayoob at different speaking engagements and have read material from both. I think they are both right in their given context. Grossman is correct with his research that people in general have a hesitancy to killing and Ayoob is right in the context that society's pressure is the greatest post-shooting factor.

If I had to recommend a book on this thread's topic it would be Officer Down! Lessons From the Street. . Ayoob and Grossman both gave it very good reviews. The book is a collection of real life lethal force encounters. I think most people wouldn't be as quick to give monday morning opinions if they read it.

[Suits]

(09-20-2017 08:18 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(09-20-2017 07:52 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(09-20-2017 03:43 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

I find that people tend to judge these events based more on their fears of police violence overall rather than based on the specific event in question.

If I were the chief of the world police then every squad car would have a pump action shottie with a laser sight. First in the mag tube would be a beanbag round. The next would be a rubber slug. After that it would be deer slugs until the hammer dropped on an empty chamber.

I guess I misjudged your competency when it came to firearms. A plan like this makes sense until you account for the human factor.

Sooner or later, some fuck head is going to forget to load the shells in the right order and someone is going to die before their time.

There's a reason why less lethal shotguns only come in a specific colour and are physically incompatible with lethal rounds.

Another fun fact is that police are actually safer (statistically) if they are alone in their squad car. When cops ride doubled up they are more likely to rush into deadly situations whereas when they have to wait for backup, they have a chance to cool their heads and tend to come out alive more often.

Sure, it goes again commonly held assumptions, but common assumptions often get people killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bean_bag_round

Quote:

The bean bag round consists of a small fabric “pillow” filled with #9 lead shot weighing about 40 grams (1.4 oz). It is fired from a normal 12-gauge shotgun.

Would you like a drink to wash your hat down with?

Quote:

I guess I misjudged your competency when it came to firearms. A plan like this makes sense until you account for the human factor.

Plenty of people kill themselves with guns by accident. By your logic cops shouldn't have guns because they're just too dangerous. Why some fucking idiot specifically unloading the gun and then reloading it in the wrong order somehow reflects on my personal competency is beyond me.

Pardon the pun, Suits, but guns seems to trigger you. Take a deep breath.

The gun gets loaded by the armourer (but not chambered) who then affixes a breakable seal on the pump, much in the same way a break-glass alarm is used. It's not rocket science.

No one said that beanbag rounds cannot be fired from an ordinary shotgun. What I wrote was that less than specially designed lethal shotguns do not accept regular shotgun rounds.

This is because you'd be tempting fate by mixing rounds lethal and less than lethal rounds in a standard issue police shotgun.

Since law enforcement seems to be an interest of yours, I'll provide the following tutorial.

Here's what a typical less than lethal shotgun looks like:



Note the bright green furniture. It's no accident. The weapon is designed to make it as difficult as humanly possible for a police officer to forget which firearm they are holding. Simply affixing a breakable seal to a firearm doesn't remove the possibility of human error. It won't correct the risk of an officer in a high stress encounter accidently squeezing the trigger three times instead of two. It won't doesn't account for the fact that the same officers who you are attempting to train to use a shotgun loaded with different rounds also train to fire handguns (and possibly rifles) that aren't loaded with mixed rounds.

Since fire-fights are not currently a daily activity for police officers, it's best to expect that mistakes can and will be made when law enforcement does end up in a lethal encounter and plan accordingly.

While it's bad juu-juu to refer to any encounter with the public as routine, many aspects of law enforcement work do become routine, as they are repeated literally every day.

Guns are sometimes loaded by people who got two hours of sleep the night before because the kids were sick or by morons who were out drinking till 4 AM.

The best way to prepare for a high stress situation is to reduce the possible complications that can occur in such a situation, not increase them.

Your idea increases the number of things that could go wrong, so the thinking is simply in the wrong direction.

There's nothing wrong with thinking creatively, but sometimes it's just best to leave police work to the professionals.

Mixing ammunitions types in a load out is a terrible gun safety practice. Don't do it.

[Laska]

^^True, gun safety is designed to have redundancies so that you're still safe, even if you make a mistake.

[BortimusPrime]

(09-19-2017 12:34 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

The best thing about that video is that she put just one shot in him (not in the head, or face), saw him drop, and then stopped shooting.

Does anyone know the odds of surviving one shot to the chest? I know it varies based on bullet type and wound location, but I'm looking for a general idea.

Quote:

The Independent Wrote:
“I'm bisexual, nonbinary, and intersex,” Schultz wrote. “When I'm not running Pride or doing classwork I mostly play D&D and try to be politically active.”

A multiclass level 1 male / level 1 female with average Constitution would have 13 HP, and a 3d6 damage pistol shot would deal about 10 damage on average. So you'd need a critical hit and a moderately lucky damage roll to instantly kill the creature with one shot. Although since he/she didn't die instantly, I'm guessing he/she was reduced to mid negative HP and the paramedics failed their healing skill checks to stabilize.

[Robert High Hawk]

Serious question, but does intersex mean actually Hermaphroditic? Those people are actually born in a tough spot.

Regardless all these new terms are getting really confusing.

[Foolsgo1d]

(09-19-2017 09:05 AM)ScrapperTL Wrote:  

When you train Self Defense alongside Police Officers and SWAT personnel, one of the first things they introduce you to is the "21 foot rule"

Countless simulations and real life crime statistics have proven that:
If a person with a Knife is within 21 feet of a person with a Gun in a life and death situation, the Knife wielder more often than not comes out the victor.

Jones lied to us.

[Leonard D Neubache]

@Suits (so this doesn't turn into a quote fest)

What you're failing to account for is that this guy was killed because the officers had access to a pistol and little else.

Your reasoning is that you can't multiple-load a shotgun because someone might get killed by accident. No? Better to kill them on purpose every time because you can't take a bean-bag specific gun to a knife fight, can you? Knife man sees that big green gun and thinks "how many hits can I eat up before I stab him?"

These nerf guns are typically used by special response teams and they make sense if a legion of cops with real guns are standing by waiting to drill the suspect if he so much as twitches. In that instance colouring them green or yellow or pink is perfectly reasonable.

But if you're at all interested in saving lives without having to seriously compromise the chances of the officer involved then my idea is perfectly reasonable. Soldiers in war zones deal with far more complicated weapons, technology and ROEs every single day. If you can't train a cop to take out a shotgun, remove a safety seal and use if properly then that cop has no business being a cop.

As for an armourer loading the gun wrong, give me a break. It's a weak argument. Tasers present a much higher chance of officer injury and victim death, yet we've accepted them as a tool to save lives where a gun might have otherwise been employed.

Don't be one of those people that tut-tuts a partially effective system because it's not God-level-infallible.

[Laska]

^Firearm accidents are easy without strict safety rules, and with a shotgun, its often a matter of life and death. You also don't want officers to pull out the shotgun cavalierly. Soldiers in war zones aren't dealing with the sensitive American public (who wouldn't want shotguns pulled if it weren't life-threatening). These things are easy to forget in the heat of the moment, like remembering a safety on a range only worse. If you're dealing with something as scary to the public as a shotgun, you'd better make your system nearly infallible, or the public won't accept it.

[Paracelsus]

(09-20-2017 08:09 PM)Laska Wrote:  

Soldiers in war zones aren't dealing with the sensitive American public

Actually they are. See: why the US didn't enter World War 2 until they were bombed into it. Also see: why Vietnam was lost. Also see: why the military absolutely has to win a conventional war within 2 years of it being launched.

Also see: why US ROE used to include a rule that if the raghead put his gun down and walked away pretending to be a civilian, you didn't gun the fucker down.

Also see: why Afghanistan or Iraq ROE says you don't shoot through human shields, even though all rational evaluation of the situation says you should do so because the moment you start doing so is the moment human shields stop being used. Even Black Hawk Down notes this insanity, the skinnies would move between buildings by holding women in front of themselves so Special Forces wouldn't tap them through the head.

[Number one bummer]

(09-20-2017 10:18 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(09-20-2017 08:09 PM)Laska Wrote:  

Soldiers in war zones aren't dealing with the sensitive American public

Actually they are. See: why the US didn't enter World War 2 until they were bombed into it. Also see: why Vietnam was lost. Also see: why the military absolutely has to win a conventional war within 2 years of it being launched.

Also see: why US ROE used to include a rule that if the raghead put his gun down and walked away pretending to be a civilian, you didn't gun the fucker down.

Also see: why Afghanistan or Iraq ROE says you don't shoot through human shields, even though all rational evaluation of the situation says you should do so because the moment you start doing so is the moment human shields stop being used. Even Black Hawk Down notes this insanity, the skinnies would move between buildings by holding women in front of themselves so Special Forces wouldn't tap them through the head.

My great uncle fought in the bulge in WW2. He was in one of the forward divisions that heard of the Malmedy massacre, where German troops executed American POW's. He was given orders to execute any German prisoners. He ended up coming home with several lugers and some german merch. The retaliation on American side really isn't talked about because it doesn't fit the "good war" optics. America definitely did what it took to win both theaters. A cousin of mine was killed in action in Vietnam by a primitive roadside bomb. The letters he sent home did not strike my family with confidence, he wrote that they basically drove around until they got ambushed. He also wrote that if his grandmother kept sending him canned meat, he was going to send back a live grenade. Send the reporters home and Vietnam could have been won.

[Laska]

(09-20-2017 10:18 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(09-20-2017 08:09 PM)Laska Wrote:  

Soldiers in war zones aren't dealing with the sensitive American public

Actually they are. See: why the US didn't enter World War 2 until they were bombed into it. Also see: why Vietnam was lost. Also see: why the military absolutely has to win a conventional war within 2 years of it being launched.

Also see: why US ROE used to include a rule that if the raghead put his gun down and walked away pretending to be a civilian, you didn't gun the fucker down.

Also see: why Afghanistan or Iraq ROE says you don't shoot through human shields, even though all rational evaluation of the situation says you should do so because the moment you start doing so is the moment human shields stop being used. Even Black Hawk Down notes this insanity, the skinnies would move between buildings by holding women in front of themselves so Special Forces wouldn't tap them through the head.

That's not what I meant. I meant they aren't professionally interacting with American citizens in the way police do (police are policing the American people).

[infowarrior1]

(09-20-2017 10:18 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(09-20-2017 08:09 PM)Laska Wrote:  

Soldiers in war zones aren't dealing with the sensitive American public

Actually they are. See: why the US didn't enter World War 2 until they were bombed into it. Also see: why Vietnam was lost. Also see: why the military absolutely has to win a conventional war within 2 years of it being launched.

Also see: why US ROE used to include a rule that if the raghead put his gun down and walked away pretending to be a civilian, you didn't gun the fucker down.

Also see: why Afghanistan or Iraq ROE says you don't shoot through human shields, even though all rational evaluation of the situation says you should do so because the moment you start doing so is the moment human shields stop being used. Even Black Hawk Down notes this insanity, the skinnies would move between buildings by holding women in front of themselves so Special Forces wouldn't tap them through the head.

I will amend the last statement. It will reduce the use of human shields most certainly due to civilians now incentivized to separate themselves from the militants and the militants having less reason to use human shields.

But there will be people who will just do what they can to take others down with them regardless of human shield effectiveness. When they know they are going to die.

Its a sad reality but violence especially war is always ugly messy and nasty. We can only reduce the innocents who die not eradicate the possibility of their deaths whether through human shields or the shortages that lead to their deaths.

[Malone]

(09-20-2017 08:09 PM)Laska Wrote:  

^Firearm accidents are easy without strict safety rules, and with a shotgun, its often a matter of life and death. You also don't want officers to pull out the shotgun cavalierly. Soldiers in war zones aren't dealing with the sensitive American public (who wouldn't want shotguns pulled if it weren't life-threatening). These things are easy to forget in the heat of the moment, like remembering a safety on a range only worse. If you're dealing with something as scary to the public as a shotgun, you'd better make your system nearly infallible, or the public won't accept it.

It's funny you say that. Here in Spain the cops patrol in pairs and one of them is always carrying a shotgun.

[Tex Cruise]

(09-20-2017 03:10 PM)Robert High Hawk Wrote:  

Serious question, but does intersex mean actually Hermaphroditic? Those people are actually born in a tough spot.

Regardless all these new terms are getting really confusing.

In this case it most probably means hypospadias, the mildest and most common "intersex" condition.

Basically, I'd say this dude was so low T that his dick failed to form properly, leaving it very small with the piss hole somewhere along the underside rather than at the tip.

Note that this does not mean "non-binary" It means that for whatever fuckup or deficiency of enzymes/hormones while in the womb, his cock didn't finish developing as it should have.

Note that instead of counselling/support with an honest explanation of his condition being provided (as would've happened 10 or 20 years ago) to help him live happily as a relatively normal man (I think his D&D habit probably harmed his mating options more than his penis) he was sucked into the LGBTASDFGHJKL madness and literally went mad.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(09-20-2017 08:09 PM)Laska Wrote:  

^Firearm accidents are easy without strict safety rules, and with a shotgun, its often a matter of life and death. You also don't want officers to pull out the shotgun cavalierly. Soldiers in war zones aren't dealing with the sensitive American public (who wouldn't want shotguns pulled if it weren't life-threatening). These things are easy to forget in the heat of the moment, like remembering a safety on a range only worse. If you're dealing with something as scary to the public as a shotgun, you'd better make your system nearly infallible, or the public won't accept it.

I'm not sure if you and Suits are missing the forest for the trees.

A dude with a knife was shot and killed because all the cops had to put him down with was a pistol.

Plainly explain how the system I suggested would result in the aggressor being more dead rather than less dead.

[Suits]

(09-21-2017 04:46 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

(09-20-2017 08:09 PM)Laska Wrote:  

^Firearm accidents are easy without strict safety rules, and with a shotgun, its often a matter of life and death. You also don't want officers to pull out the shotgun cavalierly. Soldiers in war zones aren't dealing with the sensitive American public (who wouldn't want shotguns pulled if it weren't life-threatening). These things are easy to forget in the heat of the moment, like remembering a safety on a range only worse. If you're dealing with something as scary to the public as a shotgun, you'd better make your system nearly infallible, or the public won't accept it.

I'm not sure if you and Suits are missing the forest for the trees.

A dude with a knife was shot and killed because all the cops had to put him down with was a pistol.

Plainly explain how the system I suggested would result in the aggressor being more dead rather than less dead.

When guns are loaded only with lethal rounds, the law enforcement officers entrusted with their use are going to be understandably hesitant to pull the trigger.

For those familiar with the use of force continuum (which is pretty standard in English speaking, Western nations), lethal force is at the top of the continuum. It's the resort of last resort.

When you start mixing lethal rounds with less-than-lethal rounds in a single load-out, the lines get blurred.

Cops use tasers a lot, for example, because the assumption is that no one is going to die. With rare exception, it's a pretty safe assumption.

The last thing we need is cops drawing a bead on subjects that do not warrant lethal force, because they're comfortable in the fact that they have two less than lethal rounds to work with before the situation turns potentially deadly.

This is a dangerous assumption. Your recommendation may not result in the unnecessary death of individuals like the subject of this thread, but it could very easily result in the deaths or serious injury of others who unlike the subject of this thread, were not legitimately a deadly threat.

Additionally, if a subject does unexpectedly draw a gun, I don't want to be the officer whose hands are full with a shotgun containing two less than lethal rounds that need to be cleared before I can terminate the now-definitely deadly threat.

In that situation, I want to be sure as possible that my first round is as likely as possible to prevent my target from getting any shots off himself.

[Leonard D Neubache]

(09-21-2017 05:15 AM)Suits Wrote:  

...

This is a dangerous assumption. Your recommendation may not result in the unnecessary death of individuals like the subject of this thread, but it could (1) very easily result in the deaths or serious injury of others who unlike the subject of this thread, were not legitimately a deadly threat.

(2)Additionally, if a subject does unexpectedly draw a gun, I don't want to be the officer whose hands are full with a shotgun containing two less than lethal rounds that need to be cleared before I can terminate the now-definitely deadly threat.

In that situation, I want to be sure as possible that my first round is as likely as possible to prevent my target from getting any shots off himself.

(1) An officer would have to go against every rule in the book to point a loaded firearm of any kind at someone who was "not legitimately a deadly threat".

(2) Uh, what? I'm having trouble following your hypothetical scenario here. The suspect had a knife, causing the officer to respond with a less lethal shotgun, but then suspect pulls a gun? Can you be more specific about your hypothetical situation?

[Suits]

(09-21-2017 06:14 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Can you be more specific about your hypothetical situation?

No.

We've already dragged this thread far enough off-topic. If you genuinely want to become better informed about gun safety practices, feel free to PM me, but I don't see the point of discussing this any further here.