It’s a hostage situation. It’s not like the cops were harassing another homeless guy. And the cops see two people running out. And the cops need to figure out what’s happening and how to respond. And they screw up and an innocent man dies. It’s easy to blame them since we have 20-20 hindsight, but it’s not likely they’d have done the same thing if they had 20-20 hindsight.
I’m no fan of police departments, I’ve survived police violence while protesting, but I’m not going to call these cops ‘gun-happy idiots’ for this.
You’re right. The ‘gun happy idiots’ comment was painting them all with the same brush. Though…they SEEM to have MANY of them in their employ.
My point was more to the notion that cops (though they are supposed to be trained to do so) CANNOT hit the target they are intending to hit, at a reasonable rate (which would be 100% in a hostage situation) in a stressful situation. Put it this way… A cop was never charged a few years ago in Montreal after he KILLED a nurse riding his bike to work. The man was TWO BLOCKS away from suspect the cop was shooting at. My point is that, as a group, police are NOT paying attention to their surroundings… which makes them dangerous. Toronto ALSO had an incident like this (and this hits closer to home since i wasn’t FAR from the KILLING at the time…). 9 shots fired, 3 hit, NO scene control (also…no need for firing…)
When people run OUT of a hostage situation…unarmed…TOWARD police… it’s a pretty damn good suggestion that they either escaped…or are giving up.
The concept of shooting to wound is akin to “let’s use fatal force to induce a lesser damage”. It’s both extremely difficult as you note, and a fundamental failure in the concept of armed defense. If you have the luxury of not using fatal force, then you simply should not be shooting at your target, and should be de-escalating the level of response to something that does not involve a firearm.
Unfortunately, our Us-ian police forces appear trained to rarely consider anything less than lethal force to deal with any sort of potentially dangerous situation.
I’ve seen references to those studies, but wonder if the “reprogramming” was actually a “deprogramming.” It’s easy enough to shirk when your orders are “fire your rifle vaguely in the direction of that treeline,” but I doubt that soldiers in the more personal era of battle (i.e., almost all of human history) could get away with quailing in the face of an enemy swinging a broadsword at them.
What changed, socially or psychologically, in the transition from swords to conical bullets?
Actually, the book by Grossman covers that. Hand to hand/face to face it is basically kill or be killed and most people choose the former if they can.
Distance creates psychological separation from the reality of the action. It makes it easier to see that person as a target, and also easier to think/hope somebody else will shoot the target.
It is psychologically easier to shoot someone wearing a helmet than a bare head (according to Grossman). It is dramatically easier to pull the lever to drop bombs on a city far below (or far away).
The training soldiers receive now is designed to replace a natural aversion to killing (which most of us have, despite historical evidence to the contrary, most of us are peaceful most of the time). The aversion is replaced with reflex. I suspect the increased separation from the battlefield that modern technology allows creates ever more distance from the reality of the act.
All that said, the original point was that police don’t receive that training, and that’s a good thing.
People, usually Americans, keep saying that. Unfortunately nobody has told our German police. They are trained to do it and they do it. And when they don’t, then they may have to answer for that in court. Of course it is far from harmless and it isn’t always possible, but I am a little wary of the motivations of people ruling it out across the board.
The whole “aim for the legs” thing… I don’t know where people even get that.
Personally, I learned it in a military. It was part of the rules of engagement for guard duty to try stopping a trespassing possible foe without killing him.
I happen to know that a running thigh can be hit at 300 yards with iron sights.
Maybe re-evaluate your view of the physical world too.
One of the problems is that cops barrels are too short and their mags too long.
Being equipped and able to apply a tourniquet makes a leg shot nonlethal.
A target will immediately drop and not, like in the movies, limp for cover, or keep attacking.
Your real life and mine are not congruent.
