quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Not only that but if he lives he can sue, and win with the right jury.

Well I'll admit to being behind the curve on the legal aspects, but I'm not very comfortable with the argument that it's better to kill someone even if you don't have to.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I am surprised at you taking this tack. You know what happens if you hit a femoral artery. You also know that arms and legs are moving more than the body and a hit there, unless it kills, (see second sentence) is less likely to stop an attacker. Brown was shot repeatedly in the arm and it didn't even slow him down.

I never said anything to suggest that I thought an arm shot would take someone down. But a leg shot is more likely to take a guy off his feet than a center of mass hit, and a tourniquet isn't an option if you hit the heart or an artery in the chest or abdomen. Also, we're not talking about movement across your line of fire. If he's coming straight at you, the movement is in the line of fire, and if the guy doesn't have a gun, you just want him down, not dead. At the ranges we're talking about, it's not a hard shot. Anyone who can't hit a fucking grapefruit less than ten feet in front of them without taking three deep breaths and saying a prayer is incompetent with their firearm.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Actually, studies on police who were killed or injured show that if a person with a knife is within 23 feet of you, he'll get you before you can draw and shoot him. If seen pictures of people slashed with knives bled out. It's a race K. You are racing to the finish line. You're not racing to a grapefruit size spot on the finish line ribbon.

I'd take those odds, being attacked with a knife with 99.9% chance of survival versus a gun with 99.9% chance of death.

Because something is possible does not make it likely to happen which appears to be the grounds for your premise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Not only that but if he lives he can sue, and win with the right jury.

Well I'll admit to being behind the curve on the legal aspects, but I'm not very comfortable with the argument that it's better to kill someone even if you don't have to.

K.

The problem is with the people. Instead of getting a jury trial to insure the stability of our justice system if the man is dead he gets no trial what so ever.

Every person is murdered should have a complete trial exactly as if he were alive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Actually, studies on police who were killed or injured show that if a person with a knife is within 23 feet of you, he'll get you before you can draw and shoot him. If seen pictures of people slashed with knives bled out. It's a race K. You are racing to the finish line. You're not racing to a grapefruit size spot on the finish line ribbon.

I'd take those odds, being attacked with a knife with 99.9% chance of survival versus a gun with 99.9% chance of death.

Because something is possible does not make it likely to happen which appears to be the grounds for your premise.

So if I come after you with a knife you will let me get close enough to carve you up before you do anything. And your percentages are way off.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I am surprised at you taking this tack. You know what happens if you hit a femoral artery. You also know that arms and legs are moving more than the body and a hit there, unless it kills, (see second sentence) is less likely to stop an attacker. Brown was shot repeatedly in the arm and it didn't even slow him down.

I never said anything to suggest that I thought an arm shot would take someone down. But a leg shot is more likely to take a guy off his feet than a center of mass hit, and a tourniquet isn't an option if you hit the heart or an artery in the chest or abdomen. Also, we're not talking about movement across your line of fire. If he's coming straight at you, the movement is in the line of fire, and if the guy doesn't have a gun, you just want him down, not dead. At the ranges we're talking about, it's not a hard shot. Anyone who can't hit a fucking grapefruit less than ten feet in front of them without taking three deep breaths and saying a prayer is incompetent with their firearm.

K.

If I recall correctly, you do NOT aim for anything but head or center of mass because if you are not trying to kill him you are not in fear for your life. Just like you cannot fire a warning shot legally.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Actually, studies on police who were killed or injured show that if a person with a knife is within 23 feet of you, he'll get you before you can draw and shoot him. If seen pictures of people slashed with knives bled out. It's a race K. You are racing to the finish line. You're not racing to a grapefruit size spot on the finish line ribbon.

I'd take those odds, being attacked with a knife with 99.9% chance of survival versus a gun with 99.9% chance of death.

Because something is possible does not make it likely to happen which appears to be the grounds for your premise.

So if I come after you with a knife you will let me get close enough to carve you up before you do anything. And your percentages are way off.

so whats your argument?

cops have to let others get close enough to slash their throat before they can confront someone, is that it?

They cant stand back far enough to to allow some alternative action and shoot to kill is the only option?

Do you feel its unreasonable in most circumstances that a cop should take measures to insure his safety, the same measures that any reasonable person would take in the same situation? Cops get a free pass for damn the torpedoes full speed ahead We Blast'm Inc?

Smart attorneys could easily make a case for 'negligence' on the part of the officer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Actually, studies on police who were killed or injured show that if a person with a knife is within 23 feet of you, he'll get you before you can draw and shoot him. If seen pictures of people slashed with knives bled out. It's a race K. You are racing to the finish line. You're not racing to a grapefruit size spot on the finish line ribbon.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Actually, studies on police who were killed or injured show that if a person with a knife is within 23 feet of you, he'll get you before you can draw and shoot him. If seen pictures of people slashed with knives bled out. It's a race K. You are racing to the finish line. You're not racing to a grapefruit size spot on the finish line ribbon.

I'd take those odds, being attacked with a knife with 99.9% chance of survival versus a gun with 99.9% chance of death.

Because something is possible does not make it likely to happen which appears to be the grounds for your premise.

So if I come after you with a knife you will let me get close enough to carve you up before you do anything. And your percentages are way off.

so whats your argument?

cops have to let others get close enough to slash their throat before they can confront someone, is that it?

They cant stand back far enough to to allow some alternative action and shoot to kill is the only option?

Do you feel its unreasonable in most circumstances that a cop should take measures to insure his safety, the same measures that any reasonable person would take in the same situation? Cops get a free pass for damn the torpedoes full speed ahead We Blast'm Inc?

Smart attorneys could easily make a case for 'negligence' on the part of the officer.

No but you seem to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

If I recall correctly, you do NOT aim for anything but head or center of mass because if you are not trying to kill him you are not in fear for your life. Just like you cannot fire a warning shot legally.

Well I don't buy the premise that if you don't try to kill him then you weren't in fear for your life. But leaving that aside, laws vary from state to state. In Florida, even if you know for a fact that he doesn't intend to kill you, that he just wants to seriously fuck you up, you're entitled to use your firearm to defend yourself. And after the Marissa Alexander case, firing a warning shot became legal. Her conviction has now been overturned and a new trial ordered.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

You are mostly correct. Reasonable fear for your life, that of another, or serious bodily injury to yourself or another. Both military and police taught me not to go for the head shot because it is so much trickier than body mass. In fact in the National Guard they taught us that we were only shoot to disable (we were MPs) and that 3 .45s in the chest tends to be disabling.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Actually, studies on police who were killed or injured show that if a person with a knife is within 23 feet of you, he'll get you before you can draw and shoot him. If seen pictures of people slashed with knives bled out. It's a race K. You are racing to the finish line. You're not racing to a grapefruit size spot on the finish line ribbon.

I've heard this 23 foot thing before. I'm just not buying it entirely. Maybe it has been misinterpreted from *it's possible* for a knife welding attacker to reach and injure you from 23 ft before you can draw and fire. I'm just not seeing it from my perspective though I'm sure any number of factors could influence the outcome. We all know that too many cops are not proficient enough with their sidearms. Is the attacker fast and the cop or whoever slow on the draw. Is the 9mm (common police sidearm) or even a 40 caliber sometimes not powerful enough to stop him as he keeps on coming at you after taking one or two in the chest. What about a plain clothes officer or civilian having his weapon hang up in his clothing on the draw or anything else you can think of. I get that, but as for me, I know I'm not going to miss at 23 feet and at 23 freakin feet, I'm sure I can draw and get at least one accurate shot off before he closes that much distance. A .45 (highest percentage of one shot stops) or even a .357 with 158 grain jacketed hollow points should do the job efficiently.

I'm going with the don't bring a knife to a gun fight rule.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity


The guy in the video fell, it looked like just a couple of feet from the patrol car, with two cops shooting him

One cop on adrenalin might not do that well against someone else on adrenalin and whatever else the person may have used

Some people are very fast and athletic, some are crazier than a banshee

I imagine the 23' rule is just a general guideline. Rule of thumb

One of those 'mileage may vary' sort of things

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Actually, studies on police who were killed or injured show that if a person with a knife is within 23 feet of you, he'll get you before you can draw and shoot him. If seen pictures of people slashed with knives bled out. It's a race K. You are racing to the finish line. You're not racing to a grapefruit size spot on the finish line ribbon.

I've heard this 23 foot thing before. I'm just not buying it entirely. Maybe it has been misinterpreted from *it's possible* for a knife welding attacker to reach and injure you from 23 ft before you can draw and fire. I'm just not seeing it from my perspective though I'm sure any number of factors could influence the outcome. We all know that too many cops are not proficient enough with their sidearms. Is the attacker fast and the cop or whoever slow on the draw. Is the 9mm (common police sidearm) or even a 40 caliber sometimes not powerful enough to stop him as he keeps on coming at you after taking one or two in the chest. What about a plain clothes officer or civilian having his weapon hang up in his clothing on the draw or anything else you can think of. I get that, but as for me, I know I'm not going to miss at 23 feet and at 23 freakin feet, I'm sure I can draw and get at least one accurate shot off before he closes that much distance. A .45 (highest percentage of one shot stops) or even a .357 with 158 grain jacketed hollow points should do the job efficiently.

I'm going with the don't bring a knife to a gun fight rule.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Pause to aim for an attacker's arms or legs? Ah, no, ain't no fool here.

Fuck the "pause" shit, aiming is aiming. Where depends on circumstances, range, and how much you're enjoying the chance to kill somebody.

K.
i

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Pause to aim for an attacker's arms or legs? Ah, no, ain't no fool here.

Fuck the "pause" shit, aiming is aiming. Where depends on circumstances, range, and how much you're enjoying the chance to kill somebody.

K.
i

Reading through some of the more categorical proclamations coming from a section of our resident gun nuts, I wonder how much they are influenced by the last of the factors you identified...... Rightly or wrongly I get the impression that some people posting here would positively relish the opportunity to kill someone they regard as a 'bad person' or criminal