Handgun calibers...

OK munk, I think I see where you're coming from a little more clearly now. I agree that a Police officer needs to use extreme discretion with lethal force. I certainly hope they don't ever go around blasting away willy-nilly! Every responsible, armed citizen needs to use discretion and restraint with their weapons. That's what it always comes down to. Someone who just 'shoots to wound' in circumstances that do not justify lethal force is just as wrong as someone who shoots to kill in the same situation. Don't shoot unless the target presents an imminent, deadly threat. If you can remove the threat without killing the target, great! But you can't shoot unless you're ready to kill, because nobody is good enough to gaurantee that a shot won't be deadly. The objective isn't necessarily death of the target, but it's a strong possibility and that has to be factored in to the decision.
 
Sams, there is so much truth in what you said-

Thank God there are good men and women too.

>>>>>>>>>>>


Never fight when you can talk or leave, never wound when you can fight, never maim when you can wound, never kill when you can maim.

When you pull a gun you're ready to kill.
That's the only way it can be.
The rest is up to God, good judgement, quick wits, chance, luck, and whether you paid the electric bill.


munk
 
Shoot to stop. Period.

Stop shooting when the threat is no longer threatening.

One never "shoots to kill" in self-defense.

Deliberately targeting a limb is a crime in some states- it's called "shooting to maim". In general, one should hit the center of the target. If the target does not respond after at least two hits to center, and is still a threat, one should shift to either CNS (specifically, head) or pelvic shots, depending on how the threat is standing, whether he is ocluded, backdrop, etc.

John
 
Alright, I'll start putting up hypotheticals that are between absolutes. (Absolutely, btw, Spectres post was very good. No one said it better. I couldn't say it better.)

Drug/loon/brain damage, City of Hope- take your pick-guy has a knife. He's too far off to reach the Officer right away- we won't say how far, because I don't wish another thread, but it's measured in feet-. The officer says, stop, blaa blaa blaa. Guy keeps coming. Now, the guy is out to lunch, he's walking like a Zombie. The Officer does not wish to take the knife from him manually and risk serious injury to himself. He could just wait one more moment, perhaps a second, and stop the threat and shoot the guy, kill him. He'd be legal. Maybe he's an old sheriff, and knows this guy. He shoots low, and Billy Bob falls to the pavement. Billy is still alive. When he recovers, he finds another way to make meth. Sheriff kills him a year later. (and so it goes...)

There are no absolutes. You do the best you can. I expect more from police than simple execution. You can always quote some more procedure- mace, shoulda done this or that- but every once in awhile life isn't like that. I strapped violent psychotics down for ten years, and there are strange things that happen.

Why are all of you simplifying this? What need is being met I can't see? Bad guy- two bullets to center of mass.

There are times when you can't let the guy go, but can do other than execute him. That is why we were outraged at Waco, remember?

Interesting discussion. You see how terse and positive everyone is becoming? Well, certainly me- I've been affected. Why is that?

There is a girl in Florida who is about to die. She's lost her appeals and the feeding tube is to be removed. So, under the law, she will slowly STARVE to death, with no intervention being allowed. Now, we know that is not what man's best intentions with law were meant to achieve. But somehow, that is what it is coming down to. Why am I bringing this up? Because Life is funny, and shows us events and reality between the cracks. A Judge down in florida is doing exactly and concretly what he is convinced he should do. (two to the center mass) Police have been shooting/stabbing/clubbing people and letting them live for a long time.
We do the best we can.

munk
 
Thanks all again for the thought provoking discussion.

Hey there, munk. Just wanted to get back to you on that load data you asked about. It's from the Hodgdon manual, but since I don't have that manual I'm afraid I can't point out the page number. The gentleman I mentioned was getting this velocity from the max published load of 14.5 grains of IMR-800X. It's a double compression load though. 14.2 grains fit in the case easier, which produces that 1800 fps mentioned earlier. Now, even though the pressures are still safe, there are other things to account for, so I hope no one here attempts this without other mods needed to account for increased slide velocity, etc. Oh, and I'm still not trying to argue this load over the .357 or any other caliber. I simply find it interesting.
 
Possum;
Probaby the newer Hogden than I own. Mine shows a 155 gr 10 mm with 8.7 gr and 1289 fps

also shows a 357 125 gr with H110 at 1822fps
and a 137 tp 140 gr jacketed bullet at 1687fps

1800 fps is different than the 1900 plus you were on, isn't it?
I think the 357 is safe from the 10mm attack.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Spectre- That's right about stopping.

munk
 
Hey- I just noticed- I've become, "one to behold".

Is that annoying one to behold?
snazzin frazzin razzin one to behold?

This beholding ain't what it's cracked up to be.



munk
 
WE made you one to behold, Munk. It's one of those heady experiences you're just going to have to live with. Kind of like being an elected official. ;)

As far as Rules of Engagement are concerned: a LEO is no different from you and me when it comes to stopping a deadly confrontation. As with anyone carrying a deadly weapon, he has to exercise great judgement regarding its use. If there is an appropriate level of force available to stop the fight that does not require drawing a firearm, he should use it. This includes such tools as OC spray and the Taser, both of which are highly effective at saving lives - officers and suspects both.

You and I probably don't carry Tasers and OC spray. So we fight or flee, and risk our actions being judged by a jury of our peers. The officer does not have that "flee" option in most cases, but still faces that same judgement (in addition to the scrutiny of his department).

He's also a human being, usually with a mortgage, a wife, children and all the other worries that go along with life. Just like you & me. There's NO mention anywhere in his job description of dying in order to give some lunatic the benefit of the doubt.

And Sams, your standing with me just dropped from brother to neutral.
 
Raghorn, don't officers occasionally spare our lives?

Frankly, (you like that word? How about, 'honestly',?) We are looking at doctrine. I think the reason no one wants to budge is because it's life and death, and the stakes are not only high if you survive, but high if you live given today's litigation.

Spectre said it best when he outlined the 'stop' doctrine. That's not 'kill'.

>>>>>>>>>>>


NO one has answered why the post emotion factor is running high. (I feel like the little kid who asks embarressing questions the adults don't want heard.)

You know, Raghorn, many suspects live through police shootings. There's a reason for that, not related to chance. Some suspects they just naturally want to 'stop' more than others.

When Spectre outlined the 'stop- not kill' view, in my mind I was mumbling the 'homeowner's exception'. Mostly two things: one, is the outrage many people are going to have at being threatened by a bad guy in their homes, and the resulting vindictiveness. Now, I've heard more bravado about this than I've read. Maybe I need to read court documents, because the NRA accounts usually show persons very reluctant to use lethal force, and when they did, rarely crowing about it.
Two, is the very real fear and reaction- bad guy is not going to have a lot of chance, because a whole lot of bullets are coming his way, and the fourth fifth and sixth rounds aren't going to stop and ask the first three how they did.

Anyway, in my old age I'm less interested in lethal force. Ten years ago, the three times I had a potential life and death situation with a firearm I kept my head. Two of those times the gun was in my hands ( or close) and once the gun was in the bad guy's hands, ( and being fired into my apartment, and past my body by a couple inches.)

Everyone tells me; "anyone breaks into my home is leaving on the meat wagon."


munk
 
Raghorn- I thought these designations would run out of clarity; how can a beam of light be less than a name known to all, or one to behold?

It's time the administration here listened to me. The next level should be;
"is a South American General, wrapped in Glory"

>>>>>>>>>>>>




munk
 
munk said:
Raghorn- I thought these designations would run out of clarity; how can a beam of light be less than a name known to all, or one to behold?

It's time the administration here listened to me. The next level should be;
"is a South American General, wrapped in Glory"

>>>>>>>>>>>>
munk
Click to expand...

:D :D :D

Just poking fun at the reputation system, Munk. I'd like it best if the descriptions were randomized. That way each day we'd find ourselves bestowed with a new, and even more mystifying title than the day before.

"raghorn is an obsequious gatherer of small yellow twigs"

Regarding my other comments: I'm no stranger to the negative aspects of police work. I'm in a position that requires me to make regular policy and personnel decisions on the operation of a small-town police department. This tiny 5-person department absorbs nearly half of the City's labor budget and presents probably 90% of our personnel issues in any given year. Cops are disproportionately high-maintenance employees when compared to any other public sector workers. I can only imagine how difficult it must be to effectively manage a large metropolitan department in a high crime area.

What distresses me, though, is the willingness to offer up an example of negative behavior and use it as a broad brush to tar an entire group of people. The example today may be cops, but we've also seen it applied in this forum to other groups as well. More often than not the stereotype is false, but for some reason people just can't resist that urge to pile on the bandwagon and go for a ride. We're all people, folks, and when we go home at the end of the day and take our masks off we're pretty much all the same.

Bad behavior should be exposed and dealt with quickly and harshly, but let's dump the stereotypes and deal with the real sources of the problems.
 
Raghorn,
keeping us square from generalizations is one good reason why we need you around.





munk
 
Yeah. Add to that, the human body's occasional reluctance to stop resisting even under fire.

J
 
Amen

I have kind of avoided this thread for several reasons.
It would be nice if skill levels ,intentions, andrenaline levels and whatever else can muck up a real life shooting situations were controllable to the point that shooting to wound was an option. In the real world it is not.Hell in most cases you are lucky to hit them
When an officer draws his weapon and pulls the trigger his entire series of actions can be reviewed by a murder ( gaggle)? of attornies at their leisure. It is a big crap shoot.
A friend of mine, a veteran of 20 plus years in law enforcment and two tours in Nam pulled a vehicle over on a backroad in the middle of the night. The driver shot holes in his patrol car and one through his jacket that hit his beeper.
He shot back, called it in, all according to proper procedure. They never found the vehicle that matched his description.
Politics got involved. The GBI got involved. He was tricked into signing his resignation and had to hire an attorney.
Anyway to make a long story a little shorter he ended up serving three years
losing his certification and working cutting grass to fund his retirement.
The case boiled down to his memory of the events differing from what the GBI said happened. This Despite the fact that under studies of people who have lived through traumatic events have proven that their memories are very seldom accurate concerning the events they witnessed.
This man swore to me under no type of duress that the events happened
exactly as he described them and I believed him.

To boil everything down that I am trying to say
1 If it is important enough to draw your firearm then someones safety must be involved.
2. If you draw it you must prepared to shoot until the threat stops. Period.
3. No matter what happens right or wrong you can change your life and your childrens lives by an unbelievable amount by pulling the trigger.
4 Our Criminal Justice system is a crap shoot that can turn OJ free but send a
cop doing what he thinks is his job (a definition that can change from day to day) off to do time in disgrace.
5. As politically incorrect as it may seem the officer is usually better off if the perp expires. reason being. I dont care who you think you may be doing a favor by wounding them. I promise you that the perp will not appreciate being
wounded and will sue your eyes out if he can. Also as an old veteran told me one time. Your chances are a lot better if only one person is telling the story.

In todays litigeous and propagandized society if the perp isnt standing over
a warm body you had better think seriously about whatever options present themselves before shooting. Sometimes it takes the nerves of a Riverboat gambler to pull it off without a killing. but you are generally better off.
The days of officers being given latitude and freedom of action to perform
their jobs is over and has been relegated to some small towns and certain areas.
Please excuse the length of this post but I this is the shortest way I found to express my opinion on the difference between our expectations and reality
of what an officer faces
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top