The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: BlueStateSaint on May 25, 2010, 10:38:41 AM
-
(http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2010/05/25/news/photos_stories/cropped/cop--300x300.jpg)
City cops are livid over a legislative proposal that could handcuff the brave officers involved in life-and-death confrontations every day -- requiring them to shoot gun-wielding suspects in the arm or leg rather than shoot to kill, The Post has learned.
The "minimum force" bill, which surfaced in the Assembly last week, seeks to amend the state penal codes' "justification" clause that allows an officer the right to kill a thug if he feels his life or someone else's is in imminent danger.
The bill -- drafted in the wake of Sean Bell's controversial police shooting death -- would force officers to use their weapons "with the intent to stop, rather than kill" a suspect. They would be mandated to "shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg."
Under present NYPD training, cops are taught to shoot at the center of their target and fire their weapon until the threat has been stopped.
"These are split-second, spontaneous events -- and officers have to make a full assessment in a fraction of a second," said an angry Michael Paladino, president of the Detectives Endowment Association. "It is not realistic, and it exists only in cartoons."
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/cops_furious_at_don_kill_bill_SkSRn51FKIeHqY85ZHJSYI
Unfortunately, the five-paragraph restriction prevents me from pasting the really good parts of Mr. Weiss' story. This is the mess that is New York State. We have idiots who actually propose shit like this.
-
Somebody's been watching too much TV. Whomever is proposing the bill should be forced to go out to a shooting range and demonstrate this tactic.
KC
-
Best way to shoot to stop... center mass. This is what happens when you let people with no real life experience make the rules. :whatever:
-
Anyone who has ever been to a CCW, hunter safety, or any sort of gun course knows three things:
--Always assume the weapon is loaded. Even if you're SURE it's not, it is.
--Never point a weapon at something you don't intend to shoot.
--Never shoot at something unless you intend to kill them.
-
I've tried many times to explain this--that most police aren't sharpshooters, and even if they were, in a life-and-death gun vs gun situation you don't give the other guy another chance to get off a shot--to Mrs. Godot (who is NOT a lib), but for some reason she still doesn't get it. Like Texacon wrote, too much tv. Too much freakin' Lifetime.
And it's not just the cop's or other police lives at stake, necessarily, which is enough. There can be other civilians around. Is a cop supposed to give the shooter more opportunity to hit unarmed civilians?
I wonder if the DUpes are talking about this. Of course they are so brain-dead dumb that they'd be all for it.
-
if you miss, that bullet is going to hit something or someone else.
-
Right, and I'm sure a criminal who shoots at police just wants to stop them, and not kill them.
-
Solution: Use three DUmmies as body armour......human shields, you know. :-)
-
Wow this is ****ING STUPID!!
I wonder what the DUmmies will think?
-
Wow this is ****ING STUPID!!
I wonder what the DUmmies will think?
lol. I am sure they will love it. Actually they will say it does not go far enough and criminals should be handed body armor by the government.
-
lol. I am sure they will love it. Actually they will say it does not go far enough and criminals should be handed body armor by the government.
Maybe a mole should suggest this. :fuelfire:
-
Somebody's been watching too much TV. Whomever is proposing the bill should be forced to go out to a shooting range and demonstrate this tactic.
KC
Best way to shoot to stop... center mass. This is what happens when you let people with no real life experience make the rules. :whatever:
EXACTLY!!!
I've decided a LONG time ago that IF I were ever forced to shoot someone, they were going to die. There is no "shoot to wound". That leaves the door open for the assailant to either continue to attempt to kill you or sue you. Neither choice is satisfactory in my book. Neutralize the threat is what one wants to do. It can't always be done when the threat is merely wounded. While I'm vehemently against police powers abuse, if they're forced to shoot someone, then, by God, kill the bastards!!! That said, there ARE some instances where a less than lethal means can be used, (e.g., an assailant with a knife, bat, etc), but that all depends on the situation. If one hasn't been in that situation, they are little more than an armchair quarterback.
-
This is totally insane.
:mental:
-
This is totally insane.
:mental:
It goes right along with the "Courageous Restraint" medal for the military. Who knows, maybe this is the next step for our military, shoot to disarm and wound only.
-
I wonder if these idiots expect the cops to simply shoot the gun out of the perps hand?? :mental:
-
More distruction of America! :fuelfire: :mental:
-
The creator of the bill watches too much Law & Order..those cops never kill...they shoot assailants in the legs, shoulders...etc.
Then they get accused of mental problems because they were forced to use their weapon.
Hollywierd.
-
Just like on 24 last night; Chloe shot Jack. Despite what Jack wanted, a kill shot, she shot him in the soft tissue of the shoulder. It wasn't a fatal shot. But, Jack Bauer LIVES!!! :-)
-
I never heard of shoot to wound, it is shoot to kill.
-
So now the guys in blue have to become targets?
-
So now the guys in blue have to become targets?
yes, it's liberal logic dontcha know?
-
And what if the cop intends to shoot the scumbag in the arm but misses and kills him anyway? Is he a murderer?
How could they even enforce this rule?
If someone is trying to kill you it only makes sense to try to kill them!
This is so stupid on so many levels :thatsright: :thatsright: :thatsright:
-
A kinder, more gentle police force. That's the type of change we are all looking for. I think the officers should first try to hug the assailant prior to drawing their weapon. Some people just need a hug.
As long as the armed criminals don't know (that they can no longer be killed by police) this really should not be a problem.
-
As long as the armed criminals don't know (that they can no longer be killed by police) this really should not be a problem.
As long as they don't watch TV, listen to radio, get online, read newspapers or talk to other people, then it should be okay. lol.
-
Today, the sponsor of the bill has a shocking admission:
"Don't kill" pol in a cop-out
Admits: I'm no expert
By BRENDAN SCOTT Post Correspondent
Last Updated: 10:22 AM, May 26, 2010
Posted: 3:57 AM, May 26, 2010
ALBANY -- An assemblywoman under fire for sponsoring a bill that asks cops to shoot gun-wielding suspects in the arms and legs brushed off the outrage yesterday -- although she admitted she is no expert on police work.
Asked about her critics' contention that the proposed legislation will put police lives at risk, Annette Robinson (D-Brooklyn) told The Post: "I understand that."
She insisted that cops use too much force, but acknowledged she is unqualified to assess the issue.
"Not being a police officer, I would not be able to discuss the instance or the time that happens, but I do know that it happens, most often in the communities that I represent, and it happens too often," she said.
The "shoot to wound" bill would require cops to aim for a suspect's arms or legs instead of their midsection, where wounds would more likely be fatal.
The very next sentence details what the Brooklyn DA has to say. Hint: It ain't supportive of the bill.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/brooklyn/don_kill_pol_in_cop_out_ON5i6Kd8MKdseXrnvvbokK
-
There ya go......... she has admitted that she is totally CLUELESS about how police officers have to do their jobs.
-
As long as they don't watch TV, listen to radio, get online, read newspapers or talk to other people, then it should be okay. lol.
That's my point. :-)
-
I think that is ridiculous. Shoot to stop. Whatever that means. It doesn't mean aim for the arm, that is for sure. You eliminate the danger. Plus isn't that what tasers are for? Cops are in enough danger out there.
-
People actually elect boneheads like this to office???? I really hope a petition is going around to get her out of office ASAP.
-
Why don't they just teach cops Matrix Drunken Boxing Fu? Then they can just run in at super high speed, and grab the gun out of the assailant's hand, and kick him in the nuts, in the blink of an eye.
-
I remember reading many years ago that one of the designers of the Sykes Fairbairn commando knife served as a police captain in the orient. One of his officers confronted a knife-wielding thief who was hopped up on narcotics. The officer emptied a M1911 into the perpetrator but the theif ultimately had to be pistol-whipped into submission. For those not readily up on their handgun know-how the .45 is generally a gun that will take grown men off their feet.
Research into the episode convinced Fairbairn that only a shot that hit the heart, brain, spinal column or femurs would be reasonably certain to subdue an opponent.
Now these would require very accurate shots--against moving targets--in the highest of all high stress situations.
Perhaps one *might* say if the officer was defending only him/herself they should attempt minimal force (I wouldn't but an "assumed risk" argument could be made at DU or other suitable asylum), but to ask a police force to take those chances when defending the citizenry?
Unconscionable.
-
I remember reading many years ago that one of the designers of the Sykes Fairbairn commando knife served as a police captain in the orient. One of his officers confronted a knife-wielding thief who was hopped up on narcotics. The officer emptied a M1911 into the perpetrator but the theif ultimately had to be pistol-whipped into submission. For those not readily up on their handgun know-how the .45 is generally a gun that will take grown men off their feet.
Research into the episode convinced Fairbairn that only a shot that hit the heart, brain, spinal column or femurs would be reasonably certain to subdue an opponent.
Now these would require very accurate shots--against moving targets--in the highest of all high stress situations.
Perhaps one *might* say if the officer was defending only him/herself they should attempt minimal force (I wouldn't but an "assumed risk" argument could be made at DU or other suitable asylum), but to ask a police force to take those chances when defending the citizenry?
Unconscionable.
Real simple--use a shotgun. :fuelfire:
I doubt that this one is going anywhere because of public outcry.