228244 Bullies, 4411 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 21 to 30 of 64
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 123 4567 LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. wetware is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lafayette, IN
    Posts
    1,129

    Posted On:
    3/31/2012 1:39pm


     Style: BJJ/MT

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by tgace View Post
    If you were approaching a possible armed robbery suspect vs a person standing in line at a convenience store which do you think you would be more likely to shoot...justified or otherwise? White, black red or otherwise?
    If I were approaching an armed robbery suspect think I would be more likely to shoot, probably close to 100% on a justified shooting and a fair degree higher on a 'bad shoot'. White, black, red or otherwise.

    However, I'd be if it could be measured I'd likely shoot a black man faster than a white man. The thing is that if the research bears out in the real world, the results carry across race as well. A black shooter is still more likely to shoot a black suspect than a white one.

    Being told it's an armed suspect is just one example of the priming effect I was talking about. However, hearing on your car's radio that a black suspect is wanted in connection with a shooting blocks away is also priming.

    But I asked you what YOU thought would change. I figure the real world results will likely be close to what happened in the research.
  2. nils is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    194

    Posted On:
    3/31/2012 1:46pm


     Style: FormerShotokan,Kickboxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Im a bit puzzled by the way the police has reacted in general - sending only two policemen after a presumed armed criminal?

    I dont know the least about police-tactics in the USA (apart from those action-movies), but in germany they probably would use every policeman in the area plus special units and would do so in a manner that lowers the chances of shots being fired.

    Sending just two officers seems like asking for escalation of violence.

    Edit: secondly, why shoot to kill, instead of aiming for the legs or some other non-lethal target?
    Last edited by nils; 3/31/2012 1:57pm at .
  3. tgace is online now
    tgace's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Western New York
    Posts
    1,329

    Posted On:
    3/31/2012 1:47pm


     Style: Arnis/Kenpo hybrid

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    And I mean REALLY face those situations. I don't know how accurate a person "being told" in a test like this really is.


    Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
  4. wetware is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lafayette, IN
    Posts
    1,129

    Posted On:
    3/31/2012 1:51pm


     Style: BJJ/MT

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by tgace View Post
    And I mean REALLY face those situations. I don't know how accurate a person "being told" in a test like this really is.
    What do you think would change between the research results and the real world with fear of death involved if it could be measured? Why is that so hard to answer?
  5. tgace is online now
    tgace's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Western New York
    Posts
    1,329

    Posted On:
    3/31/2012 2:05pm


     Style: Arnis/Kenpo hybrid

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by wetware View Post
    What do you think would change between the research results and the real world with fear of death involved if it could be measured? Why is that so hard to answer?
    As I'm typing on my phone I cant flesh out as detailed a reply as I would like. For now let me say that I equate these sort of tests to simunition training. While they are great tools, you still know that you are not really going to be killed so while you may be introducing stress into training you are still not likely to make the exact same decisions as you will real world.

    Granted we can only test/train in an as close as possible method, but a click on a button to see how you may react in a real life scenario is more canned than most.

    When it comes down to it, if you are REALLY afraid for your life you are probably more likely to shoot. Training may help some in the decision making process, as will experience, but I'm far more likely to do better in a web based no risk test.

    Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
    Last edited by tgace; 3/31/2012 2:08pm at .
  6. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    34,013

    Posted On:
    3/31/2012 2:09pm

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Wow, I don't think I've seen you dance around a question like this one.
  7. tgace is online now
    tgace's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Western New York
    Posts
    1,329

    Posted On:
    3/31/2012 2:19pm


     Style: Arnis/Kenpo hybrid

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    Wow, I don't think I've seen you dance around a question like this one.
    I'm not clear on what exactly the question is. More people are likely to click "shoot" on a picture of a black male. I think that while interesting...it only shows a small slice of data in comparison to real world circumstances.

    I sort of equate it to all of the "you only stopped me because I'm...." accusations when the fact was that I had no idea who was behind the wheel of a tinted glass car late at night.

    I don't know if this is the answer y'all are looking for, but I think that in a real life scenario with a real fear of death a person will be likely to shoot regardless of race. In a canned internet test apparently a photo of a black male is more likely to elicit a click on a shoot button.

    Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
  8. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    34,013

    Posted On:
    3/31/2012 2:22pm

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Dude stop there is no hidden agenda.

    This is what he asked twice:
    What do you think would change between the research results and the real world with fear of death involved if it could be measured?
    Take off your cop defender cap and have a discussion it could be interesting. You have real world experience and he just broke down your expansive answers into a very specific question.

    Quit attacking the test we all know it isn't conclusive or without bias.
  9. judoka_uk is offline
    judoka_uk's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4,619

    Posted On:
    3/31/2012 2:25pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: Judo

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by nils View Post
    Edit: secondly, why shoot to kill, instead of aiming for the legs or some other non-lethal target?
    British fire-arms police are much more culturally similar to German than American police.

    Bear in mind in the UK if a policemen even fires his weapon, regardless of whether he hits anything. As soon as the operation is over he is immediately suspended and an independent investigation is set into motion to investigate every minutiae of the whys and wherefores of that weapon being fired.

    Here even the super cautious British police explain why 'shoot to wound' is retarded.

    "Hands and arms can be the fastest-moving body parts. For example, an average suspect can move his hand and forearm across his body to a 90-degree angle in 12/100 of a second. He can move his hand from his hip to shoulder height in 18/100 of a second.

    "The average officer pulling the trigger as fast as he can on a Glock, one of the fastest- cycling semi-autos, requires 1/4 second to discharge each round.

    "There is no way an officer can react, track, shoot and reliably hit a threatening suspect's forearm or a weapon in a suspect's hand in the time spans involved.

    "Even if the suspect held his weapon arm steady for half a second or more, an accurate hit would be highly unlikely, and in police shootings the suspect and his weapon are seldom stationary. Plus, the officer himself may be moving as he shoots.

    "Legs tend initially to move slower than arms and to maintain more static positions. However, areas of the lower trunk and upper thigh are rich with vascularity. A suspect who's hit there can bleed out in seconds if one of the major arteries is severed, so again shooting just to wound may not result in just wounding.

    "On the other hand, if an officer manages to take a suspect's legs out non-fatally, that still leaves the offender's hands free to shoot. His ability to threaten lives hasn't necessarily been stopped."

    As to preventing so-called "overkill" from shots that are fired after a threat is neutralized, Lewinski offers these observations:

    "Twenty years ago officers were trained to 'shoot then assess.' They fired 1 or 2 rounds, then stopped to see the effect. This required 1/4 to 1/2 second, during which time the suspect could keep firing, if he hadn't been incapacitated.

    "Now they're taught to 'shoot and assess,' to judge the effect of their shots as they continue to fire, an on-going process. This allows the officer to continually defend himself, but because the brain is trying to do 2 things at once-shoot and assess-a very significant change in the offender's behavior needs to take place in order for the officer to recognize the change of circumstances.

    "A suspect falling to the ground from being shot would be a significant change. But by analyzing the way people fall, we've determined that it takes 2/3 of a second to a full second or more for a person to fall to the ground from a standing position. And that is when they've been hit in a motor center that produces instant loss of muscle tension.
    http://pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound

    Met Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said the idea that you could shoot someone in the arm to disable them was not practical. He said: "The idea of being able to shoot to wound is fictional. For a start if you shoot someone in a limb it does not stop them using the other limb to shoot back.

    "You are only going to be shooting at somebody who is shooting at you who is posing an immediate threat to you or someone else."

    He also dismissed an idea of pouring some kind of gas into the house which would knock out the gunman. "This is just not in our armoury," he said, comparing the plan with the disastrous Russian police operation at the Beslan school siege which ended with the deaths of 331 people.
    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/w...d-6895545.html
  10. nils is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Berlin
    Posts
    194

    Posted On:
    3/31/2012 3:07pm


     Style: FormerShotokan,Kickboxing

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    @judoka_uk: Thats a good answer - and it shows that what I learned in the army is stupid (no surprise there). Still, in this example the suspect did not yet draw the supposed gun, so I thought that a warning shot or a nonlethal one would be in order. On the other hand Im not a policeman.

    Nonetheless, the tactic of just sending two cops (and thus giving the suspect hope of getting out of the situation by violence) seems wrong.
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 123 4567 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.