Vince, the undercover Sirc.
Vince, the undercover Sirc.
You fail from the outset for trying to extrapolate from what happens in Belgian society and policing to American society and policing. Maybe only one offender has needed to be shot in your adorable little country this year. Or maybe hundreds of cases warranted lethal force but police were forced to take unneccessary risks because they were hamstrung by policy.
You fail for assuming that all leg shots are on a downward trajectory. Unlike westerns where Black Hat and White Hat square off face to face, real shootings are dynamic and messy. Officers often have to shoot from a crouching or prone position, from behind cover, while moving. Also consider disparities in terrain, both natural and man-made.
I never said that patrol officers never miss center mass shots or that limb shots were impossible. I said the likelihood of hitting the former over the latter was greater. Look at a human being sometime. What would you aim for if your life depended on hitting either a target the width of a leg or one the width of a torso?
Vince never said that it was standard policy for every officer to empty his/her gun in every shooting. He said it was policy to shoot until the threat was neutralized OR until ammunition was exhausted.
Your invocation of Occam's Razor fails because you don't grasp the distinction between "simple" and "simplistic". It's simplistic for you to assume that every officer involved in a shooting fires an equal number of shots like some kind of synchronized shooting team. Look into a few shootings and you may find that the number of shots fired per officer varies widely based on things like proximity to the threat. In fact, let me give you an actual case to ponder involving a cop I know. A cokehead led cops on a chase, sideswiped one squad, and then aimed his Jeep at the three cops who caught up with him. My friend fired seven shots,the other two zero. What does that do to your formula? Oh, but let me guess, Belgian cops are trained to shoot out tires A-Team style. Jerk.
Question. If that's okay, that is.
Should those of us who, over years of doing things like---oh, I don't know--nightclub security, who've had to deal with a few sharp-weapon-wielding bugs per year while armed with nothing more than steel-toed boots and whatever we could pick up around us (if anything)...should we disregard the scars on our arms from jabbing/hooking/headspiking these bugs and consider ourselves already dead because we weren't groups of armed cops?
'Cause, if I'm already dead, I don't need to worry about being able to afford retirement.
Thanks for any insights.
In other notes, I didn't intend to start a grade A ca-ca storm, I really was curious about how policemen who aren't allowed to carry firearms deal with an armed suspect. Private gun ownership may be highly restricted across the pond, but I would imagine societal deviants still have ready access to knives, screwdrivers, large sticks, hatchets, meat cleavers, crowbars, etc.
I was well aware that over here we meet deadly force with deadly force, but if that options off the table, what then?
On the very rare occasions that they think firearms are involved they would summon armed support.
However, if in the normal course of duties someone pulls a gun on them then they essentially have two options,
1) Be very polite
2) Back off as fast as they can and get armed support
Only happened to me once and scared the **** out of me.
It is worth pointing out that large urban areas (such as London) do have a larger proportion of armed officers to call on.
I left the UK Police over 15 years ago so if anyone can offer a more up to date synopsis then go ahead.
Hope this helps.