|
vincentML -> RE: COPS OVERREACTING OR JUSTIFIED KILLINGS (7/8/2016 12:00:08 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre
quote:
ORIGINAL: Stef
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marini
quote:
ORIGINAL: Greta75
I understand that you can shoot them in areas where they won't die.
[sm=agree.gif]
Funny how this is rarely mentioned.
Hummmm
Probably because it's fucking idiotic.
I think what stef is getting at is that it is very difficult in a stressful situation to hit anything other than the centre of mass, even for a highly trained professional. When things get that bad, you're about half as good as your worst range day.
First fallacy is assuming all police officers are highly proficient with their weapons. Not so from what I have read.
Secondly, police are charged with first attempting to reduce the tension, not escalate it. But, as to efficiency . . .
New York City police statistics show that simply hitting a target, let alone hitting it in a specific spot, is a difficult challenge. In 2006, in cases where police officers intentionally fired a gun at a person, they discharged 364 bullets and hit their target 103 times, for a hit rate of 28.3 percent, according to the department’s Firearms Discharge Report. The police shot and killed 13 people last year.
In 2005, officers fired 472 times in the same circumstances, hitting their mark 82 times, for a 17.4 percent hit rate. They shot and killed nine people that year.
SOURCE
From the same article however . . .
Bad marksmanship? Police officials and law enforcement experts say no, contending that the number of misses underscores the tense and unpredictable nature of these situations. For example, a 43 percent hit rate for shots fired from zero to six feet might seem low, but at that range it is very likely that something has already gone wrong: perhaps an officer got surprised, or had no cover, or was wrestling with the suspect.
But hey, 100% if you are sitting on the fucker's chest.
|
|
|
|
