No, shooting is..." /> No, shooting is..." /> No, shooting is..." /> No, shooting is..." />
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
KiigelHeart on 28 July 2020
Edit Thread
forest-spirit said:
KLAMarine said:

"Shooting is supposed to disable the suspect, not to kill him outright."

>No, shooting is supposed to kill. Tasers and handcuffs are supposed to disable, shooting is for killing. The only way to make certain an armed suspect can no longer fire their weapon is to kill them.

Shooting is supposed to kill? Either you're lying/misinformed or the US police is truly fucked up. Yes, there are situations where the police has to aim for the torso, which has a high chance of mortally wounding the suspect, but that's because the torso is easier to hit than legs or arms and the suspect is deemed to dangerous for the police to take any chances. It is not done with the intent of killing.

In Finland shooting is supposed to stop the dangerous individual from operating. And torso shots are your best bet to achieve it, as it's easiest to hit and likely effective. You can shoot someone's leg and it might not have any instant effect, so it's done if nobody is in immediate danger and ideally with MP5 or similar gun, for better accuracy. Of course, a leg shot can also kill a person in a matter of minutes. 

So, while we don't say "shoot to kill" we aren't really going for non-lethal shots either if shit hit the fan and weapon must be used. I think it's like this in most EU countries.

It's true though that US cops are more "eager" to shoot but I think it's mostly because of culture,  crime rate and stuff. It would be interesting to be a cop in big US city for a while and see if it would affect on how often I'd pull a gun at duty.