From: RustyBullethole, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>The point about whether it was an airgun I don't think is relevant.
>If I was two yards from the guy and I could read the make and model
>I would still treat it as a lethal threat. You have no idea what
>the guy could have done to it to increase the power of the gun.
>For all you know he could have bought it in France or somewhere
>where they have a much higher muzzle energy.
>If it's an air _pistol_, okay, fair enough, but air rifle?
>No way, I'd shoot him! How many of you lot would volunteer to
>be shot at close range with a 12 ft/lb air rifle?
>Steve.
Come on Steve, tucked up in a nice bit of kevlar and wearing proper headgear
and visor (or one of the shields with a gun port) - I trust Cornwall has
them available? there isn't an airgun on earth that is going to cause you a
lethal injury. Although few people would volunteer to be shot with an air
rifle (I've been shot half a dozen times with various airweapons - it hurts
like hell), properly equiped you would be at little risk of injury.
I sure as hell would not put a 9mm SP into some pathetic wretch's torso just
because he's waving an air rifle around - bit of a one sided exchange. Two
or three officers in suitable armour/shields could simply circle him, run in
and flatten him - end of story.
The end result would be one alive plonker and a team of officers who could
get on with their lives without the trauma of having shot a "unarmed" man
hanging over them.
Set a dog on him, shoot him in the leg, back off and negotiate, but don't
execute him because you have no other solution.
In fact any officer who has shot dead someone in the UK as a result of the
wholly inappropriate training and equipment used when dealing with such
situations, stands a very good chance of winning substantial damages for the
trauma caused to their own lives.
How long will it take the police to realise the mantra of "total domination"
will simply bag them more of societies unfortunates whilst at the same time
alienate them yet further. If we sat back and looked at the last 15 years
you would see a scandalous catalogue of unnecessary deaths. The accompanying
"lawfully killed" verdicts serve simply to compound the publics perception
that there is something seriously amiss with these shootings.
Rusty
--
Kevlar only protects the torso. They had no dog, and shooting someone
intentionally in the leg at night is a very low percentage option.
The intention when you shoot someone is to stop them, not execute
them. Shooting someone with the express intent to kill them is
very poor tactics in fact, because they may well still have the
time to kill you.
What effect does it have if you shoot someone through the heart?
None whatsoever, at least for the 15 seconds they have at a
minimum, long enough for them to kill you.
Remember the K9 officer who did set his dog on a guy armed
with a rifle not so long ago, his dog ended up dead, he ended
up in hospital with a gunshot injury.
Sorry, Rusty, but what you're saying just is not realistic.
Somebody threatens you with lethal force, you respond with
lethal force, that is the surest way to survive. We pay
police officers to protect the public, not to be sandbags.
Steve.
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
