Re: [Official!] Project Horizons Comment Crew Chat thread.

[Tytan]

@Vinyl, No they aren't. I've had a cop tell me they're trained to shoot for the chest twice, the the head once.

While not his exact words, he said aiming to wound is dangerous, dumb, and something you only see from Hollywood.

Edit: Also, if a suspect is within 20 feet of you, and he has a knife, then you don't even have enough time to draw a gun before he's on top of you.

[Guest]

Well Harmony I don't know who taught you to use a firearm. But the rule is if you going to shoot someone you shoot to kill not to wound.  Firearms are lethal and should be used as such. Because chances are, if you shoot to wound someone you're going to end up killing them

[iLateralGX]

Harmony I do agree is was definitely excessive. Their training hopefully does not teach them to empty their magazines into people.

However I also believe the officer did have the right to open fire and defend himself. 12 rounds between the two was maybe more than what was necessary though.

[Harmony Ltd.]

@Vinyl, No they aren't. I've had a cop tell me they're trained to shoot for the chest twice, the the head once.

While not his exact words, he said aiming to wound is dangerous, dumb, and something you only see from Hollywood.

Exactly. Using gun s against other people is a thing you only do when you want to kill someone.

Thus, having it be the first resort during an intervention is what I'm talking about: this shouldn't be. It should have been the Taser to be drawn out first, and then the gun if things go south, not the other way around.

Having your gun drawn means you have already made more than half of the decision of killing someone. All you need is point it toward someone and press the trigger. And killing someone is not a decision that should be taken by the police but by the judicial system. This should be the goal, not the exception.

[Harmony Ltd.]

Well Harmony I don't know who taught you to use a firearm. But the rule is if you going to shoot someone you shoot to kill not to wound.  Firearms are lethal and should be used as such. Because chances are, if you shoot to wound someone you're going to end up killing them

You must have misread, I'm not the one who talked about shooting to harm.

[Harmony Ltd.]

And if the police cannot defend themselves without killing people, if the people tasked to defend the public cannot accomplish their missions without committing extra-judicial murder, then maybe it is they who are the menace?

[iLateralGX]

I think the reason they came out guns drawn is the fact that is was an armed robbery call and they have every reason to assume the man would be more than willing to open fire, because again we don't know the extent they knew about what the man was armed with.

[Guest]

Harmony he does have his hand in his pocket from the start of the video until the police arrived. They can't see what he has until he pulls it out. Expecting the police to have Xray vision is a bit much.

Even then, from what I've seen in the video, they shot to kill, and that was unprovoked.


Take away their guns until they're trained to use them safely. Until then, this is as much as I'd be willing to give them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash-ball

No I didn't you said here shooting to kill was unprovoked. This is what was responding to.

[Harmony Ltd.]

And again, what we saw is that they had a man armed with a knife in front of them, who didn't come closer to them than a few meters, and they shot to kill him without him having made anything truly menacing.

I've been trained in the subject of what is and is not "right of self-defense", directing when we are and aren't legally authorized to use force (lethal and non-lethal) in a situation, and at least in the French interpretation of the subject, what we saw there was most definitely NOT deserving of the use of lethal force.

What would have recommended if he came closer would have been to pull back a few meters while still facing him, or if he came closer still, to kick him in the guts. That's what our training says.


If it's in their training to do as they did, then I will never feel safe around American policemen.

[Frost]

Let's make an attempt at a bottom line:

Are there cases where police, in the line of duty, have to kill? Yes

Are there, however, a lot of police who take "only when absolutely necessary" to mean "at every opportunity"? Certainly

Are police departments in general plagued an exclusionary attitude (thinking of themselves as separate from the community they're in and protecting)? Yes (I'm aware there's a similar attitude in the military, but the military also lives, sleeps, eats and works within its own community, and they travel overseas for months at a time alone. Feeling separated from the community is a bit understandable, I think)

Are police's standards too low, training too rudimentary, and ethical attitude/values-focus too lax? I would say yes. 

The conclusion I'm drawing from this shit is that something needs to be done--it may not be disarming the police (because guns are everywhere in America. They'd be a bigger joke than they are now if they weren't armed) but something in the way of training and discipline needs to be done.

[Frost]

What would have recommended if he came closer would have been to pull back a few meters while still facing him, or if he came closer still, to kick him in the guts. That's what our training says.

Can't speak for civillian police, but in that situation for troops, we'd advance and either muzzle-thump his teeth in or kick his chest like we're kickin' in a door. We wouldn't back up--you cannot control a situation by yielding, backing up, or showing any sort of weakness at all, really. Especially if there are multiple threats--retreating to one just emboldens the others, even if you outgun them.

[Katarn]

I had thought about this some times..by any chance might there be a this thing, that it's 'cheaper' to kill suspect and then deal with 'might've used too much force', then wound and might deal with been sued and stuff?

Also. Sort of old news, but US police fire more bullets in a month than Germans use in a year.

[Vinylshadow]

Gee, US shooting more than Germany

Not very surprising

I love how we try to pass ourselves off as peacekeepers...by killing everyone else

[Tytan]

@Swicked,

Nebraska.

~10 years ago.

[Harmony Ltd.]

What would have recommended if he came closer would have been to pull back a few meters while still facing him, or if he came closer still, to kick him in the guts. That's what our training says.

Can't speak for civillian police, but in that situation for troops, we'd advance and either muzzle-thump his teeth in or kick his chest like we're kickin' in a door. We wouldn't back up--you cannot control a situation by yielding, backing up, or showing any sort of weakness at all, really. Especially if there are multiple threats--retreating to one just emboldens the others, even if you outgun them.

Well, to be honest, our own hand-to-hand training IS a bit of a joke (Air Force, remember?). Still, I think you'll agree that what the Codex Astartes says military personnel are trained for would have been to go for a non-lethal option first?

Anyway, I agree with your bottom lines.


@Swicked: well, I'm white and middle-class, so I can't say I feel really threatened by policemen when they pass around me. I tend to ignore them. Though I don't know any of my military colleagues, even the ex-Gendarme (who was in mostly for the brawls), who has much respect for our police force. No one likes them, but we don't literally fear for our lives around them.

[Vinylshadow]

Sonic Mage:

Mage designs

[Frost]

What would have recommended if he came closer would have been to pull back a few meters while still facing him, or if he came closer still, to kick him in the guts. That's what our training says.

Can't speak for civillian police, but in that situation for troops, we'd advance and either muzzle-thump his teeth in or kick his chest like we're kickin' in a door. We wouldn't back up--you cannot control a situation by yielding, backing up, or showing any sort of weakness at all, really. Especially if there are multiple threats--retreating to one just emboldens the others, even if you outgun them.

Well, to be honest, our own hand-to-hand training IS a bit of a joke (Air Force, remember?). Still, I think you'll agree that what the Codex Astartes says military personnel are trained for would have been to go for a non-lethal option first?

Absolutely; especially if you were just on a presence or peacekeeping patrol, and stumbled across that guy. Now, if we were raiding a building, where --A.) everything is at high-speed, high-tension, could-get-shot-at-any-moment intensity, and B.) a man with a knife in those quarters could fuck you up just as fast as a man with a gun--then things would be way different. But never out on the street, no. 

Instead, the cops defaulted to what we machine gunners refer to as "Steel Rain"

[Vinylshadow]

Shoot first, ignore questions later

It's easier that way:

[Ketchup]

If it's in their training to do as they did, then I will never feel safe around American policemen.

...I really don't think they're supposed to make you feel safe.
This is going to sound sarcastic, but I'm entirely serious: What is your gut reaction when you see, or are near, a cop in your country? Or any other non-americans here?
Because everyone here is nervous around cops.

I've always felt safer when I see police patrols. Every officer I've interacted with has been pleasant, even during a late-night mischief response I was regrettably involved in 5 years ago.
I don't live in a big city, or in an area where racial tensions or poverty are considered problems, though.

As for the issue of police armament, there have been arguments that the patrol police in Canada don't have sufficient firepower(shotguns sometimes, usually pistols. ERTs have assault weapons) to deal with shooters wielding rifle-caliber semi-automatic weapons. Three were killed last June in my area by such an opponent, which is a big deal because mass shootings in Canada are quite rare.
The community appreciates the police here; there are still signs on businesses saying 'thank you'.

[Vinylshadow]

I'd agree with the fact they're not as appreciated as they should be

[Frost]

Shoot first, ignore questions later

Uh, no. Every engagement that doesn't end in good ol' Battle Drill 3 (Breaking Contact) ends with the squad or platoon at the LOA, with teams going through the bodies searching for A.) survivors, which we are required to take and provide medical aid to under the Laws Of Land Warfare--not likely to be any, considering the procedures for a successful assault will result in every swingin' dick on the objective having been shot at least four times, probably in the general area of the head, after having been taken down by the assault or the proceeding firefight. 2.) intelligence, from maps and notebooks to little clues like unit patches. 3.) sensitive or tactically valuable equipment such as NODs, weapons, radios, ect, which are usually piled up and given a little seasoning of thermite.

[Vinylshadow]

And that is why I am not part of any military

For both my safety as well as those around me

[Frost]

My point is, we don't just "ignore questions later." We're always trying to find intelligence, find out what we can, so we can cut straight to the top and not have to kill everyone along the way.

And unsafety is kind of expected in the military. If you're deployed, you're never safe, not even on the FOB. And if you're downrange of us, well, you're really not safe.

[Tytan]

And that is why I am not part of any military

For both my safety as well as those around me

They may have lowered the psych-eval bar just for the war on terror. (Just ask Frost :P) But I'm pretty sure they're not gonna let someone in if they answer the question "What do you do if an enemy combatant surrenders?" with the words "Shoot the fucker in the face."

...okay they might let you in the marines, but that's it.

[Vinylshadow]

I'm the kind of person that played the Airport level of Modern Warfare 2 and enjoyed it

If they told us there were civilians in the area and not to kill them, I would shoot them on the basis of "You can never be too careful"

I have a lot of trouble with figures of authority

I wouldn't get five feet in the military and I'm fine with that

[Cptadder]

After 11 attempts I've given up on Crash Landing custom map for FTB, or as I call it. The planet where you crash into and is filled with shit that would be tough to fight with diamond armor fully enchanted.

Custom enemies? Like 1 or 2 or 20... 9 of which seems to be creeper varients because super fast creepers are not required when you have explosive creepers, FLYING creepers oh and teleporting creepers which instant kill you if they go off.

[Frost]

Yeah, that's kinda the reason why there are the Laws of Land Warfare. That's less a "career-limiter" and more a "war crime punishable by death" sort of thing. 

Plus, there's just no sport in it. Shooting civilians is like using roofies--they're not fighting back; there's just no fun to be had.

[Vinylshadow]

Pff, I loved war where everyone was a target

It's no fun the way it is now; it's practically a game

[Scyto Harmony]

I'm the kind of person that played the Airport level of Modern Warfare 2 and enjoyed it

If they told us there were civilians in the area and not to kill them, I would shoot them on the basis of "You can never be too careful"

I have a lot of trouble with figures of authority

I wouldn't get five feet in the military and I'm fine with that

Probably not the kind of thing you should brag about.

[Frost]

So, absolutely never? Historically, ancient wars were fought to conquer (it's pretty dumb to depopulate the nation you want to make part of yours) and modern wars are fought to control (and massecres aren't good PR.) Not even the Mongols, Vikings or Huns, despite their reputation, just went around slaughtering everything. The closest real-life equivalent I can think of is the Red Army's revenge-fueled rape-and-butcher rampage through Germany at the end of World War II, which is historically remembered as a pretty huge atrocity and was perpetrated by a nation famous for such atrocities. 

I wouldn't call modern warfare a "game", unless that game is a combination of whack-a-mole and a scavenger hunt, played with hit-and-run insurgents and absurdly-cleverly-hidden IED's, respectively. 

Long story short; know your military history before you start talking about how "things used to be", especially as a civilian discussing military matters.

[Sponsored content]