You've been reading too much Martial Arts Wow literature. Taking a knife off someone is highly likely to get you cut, badly. Police don't aim for 'non lethal' parts of the body, because if you're using the gun, your life is being threatened, and you are using deadly force already - trying to hit anything other than the torso under these conditions (especially if the target is moving, or any real distance away) while your heart is pounding and your hands are shaking is very very difficult.

And the martial arts wow depends on the case; I have only been in knife fights were the knife was pulled by a drunk guy. No problem taking that away. I would imagine this is often the case; depending on the drug it would not be hard, especially with a baton in hand. No guns needed.

The stories I read here today, in the article and generally in the EU press about US shootings just show shoddy police work though. But that's because it's press; they don't really want to publish things that go well; only things that go bad.

> trying to hit anything other than the torso under these conditions (especially if the target is moving, or any real distance away) while your heart is pounding and your hands are shaking is very very difficult.

Real distance away? Talking about someone coming at you with a knife in hand...

Moving => yes but towards you and I would like to bet most (by far) people will run at you in a straight line when attacking.

But yes, of course, if you fear for your or someone else's life, you would shoot to kill. My whole point is that in the US it seems (i'm being careful here not to go with all public opinion :) police is far to trigger happy also in cases were it makes no sense at all.

Edit: also if you read 'ajuc' his comment about Poland (and it's the same in NL and DE and probably the rest of EU); you have to shoot at the legs first. It's how we are raised to think and when there are police shootings here often (mostly) people are just wounded.

You also overestimate the martial arts training most cops receive. If they're interested in martial arts on their own, they might be very good. Otherwise, a few months of training at any martial arts style that teaches immediately practical aspects like holds, joint locks, grappling, etc. will teach more than what cops know. It's not practical. Police procedure is designed to prevent officers from ever needing to get into serious hand to hand fights with criminals.

Most cops do not shoot violent criminals in the knees or shoulders because they are not that accurate.

In the Diallo shooting [1], 4 NYC police officers hit Diallo 19 times out of 41 rounds fired.

If a cop is a good shot, and is not under pressure, he or she can hit a suspect's knee. Most shootings occur under high pressure, and most cops are not good shots. Most cops qualify periodically as required under police regulations and that's all the firearms training they care about.

[1] http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/peopl...

Because a gun, by definition, is lethal force.

Because shooting to wound is a fancy way of saying 'shoot to miss'.

Look: you train to shoot at center mass because that's what it takes to kill a person. If you don't intend to kill that person, then you have no business drawing a weapon.

With a pistol, shooting at anything but center mass is foolish.

If an aspiring police officer is not willing to submit to those rules, he or she will have to look for a different job.

It's easy for you to say that this is foolish, but in the end much less tragedies occur, because neither the offender, nor the police officer will feel like their lives are threatened in those heated situations. They'll catch the criminal anyways later on.

I do wonder where you got that idea, though. You can post the document, I speak German.

What I know is that when I asked years ago about the rules when it is allowed to use a weapon, that I was told, that in most cases it ends bad for the defender, because courts accept the use of fireweapons as justified in rare situations.

So shooting at burglar or somebody attacking you without a gun will cause you major troubles if the attacker should die.

It's just heavily discouraged here to solve any problem by aggression. Even for slapping or insulting someone publicly you'll be held accountable for that in court.

IANAL, and it varies by jurisdiction, but I believe the general standard for using deadly force is ..

'Not allowed to use deadly force against any person except as necessary in self-defense or the defense of another when they have reason to believe they or another are in danger of death or grievous bodily harm'

Paraphrasing from memory.

In other words, I can employ deadly force against an attacker if I believe he could kill me. Doesn't matter if he's armed with a club, a knife, or a bazooka.

I can't shoot a guy if he's running away.

This seems prudent, but that (he smiled) might be a cultural thing.

Where I grew up they used to say 'God made man, Sam Colt made them equal' and I guess I still believe it.

My issue with this is that it abstracts 'gun' into 'non-lethel tool'.

Culture and law aside, a gun exists for one thing, and it's only good for one thing, and that is to kill a person.

Your laws can say otherwise, but that law is an ass.

But hey - your country, your rules.

It does depend on a countries situation and culture, how excessively such weapons are used, and in which situations. When a countries population on average tends to not escalate situations, and shoot burglars or people running away, you can end up in a situation where it is hardly justifiable to use such weapons against persons.

And then such laws are okay. I mean there are criminals here like everywhere, but I honestly don't know anyone personally here that has ever been threatened with a gun or a knife, though I know of one case, where someone was beat up by a burglar. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't see a lot of use for a gun as a tool for protection if you lived here.

Good point. You can kill animals for food, and I myself have enjoyed punching holes in paper.

But this ...

You could shoot the tires of a fleeing car, or you could stop a person by shooting into his leg.

No, no, no.

Shooting at a moving target is real hard. Shooting at a tire is stupid - the bullet is going to hit the rim, and be flung into who knows what direction.

You're not getting this: if you shoot a bullet into a person, anywhere, you run the risk of killing him, or at the least crippling him for life. A shoot into the knee is a life-changing crippling event. Tear into the femoral artery and your target is going to be dead in just a few minutes.

a civilian probably wont be able to pull this off successfully in stressful situations

I think you are imagining the cops have a lot more juju with firearms than they do. To attain the kind of skill you are a talking about - reliably hitting a guy in the legs - takes way more range time than is going to be practical.

If people tell you something long enough you start to believe it right? That's the same for both sides. I've been raised in television, papers etc (and real life to an extend) that you shoot to disarm, not to kill. You have been taught by the same media (and real life?) that you have no choice. Why is yours right? It seems a bit weird saying that comparing police kills by guns (and violence in general) on both sides to me. I think you have a choice but you are taught not to even consider it; is that a possibility?

Edit: It's a serious question, not something other than that. I'm curious as to the way I was raised and have lived and the way you were. I have been to the US a lot of times, but never more than a few months. I read global news (try to read from not too bad sources), but i've been taught & raised in the EU and even the reactions from non-EU give me the feeling there is something just very different in your attitude towards 'shooting people'. The 'no other choice' thing is very strange to me.

Could be. Although I tend to think in mechanical terms: switch A goes into tab B the same way in German, or English. Guns is guns, and the laws of physics apply no matter what the jurisdiction is.

You have been taught by the same media (and real life?) that you have no choice.

The latter. Though it's by the Grace of God that the single time I did draw my weapon that I was not compelled to use it.

In other words - he put his hands right up in the air.

I think you have a choice but you are taught not to even consider it; is that a possibility?

I believe you mis-understood.

You are not _forced_ to use your weapon if it comes out of the holster. But one never draws it as a threat, without intending to shoot. You deploy the weapon only if deadly force is warranted.

I'm curious as to the way I was raised and have lived and the way you were.

Middle class suburbs of Oklahoma. Then I joined the Marines for eight years, did some time at a Navy base where we had top secret clearance and got a lot of classes on how and when to use deadly force.

even the reactions from non-EU give me the feeling there is something just very different in your attitude towards 'shooting people'. The 'no other choice' thing is very strange to me.

The US - as you know - is a big place. Lots of room for cultural differences. A guy from California, who never handled a firearm outside of a video game is going to have a much different attitude than a guy from the midwest who is comfortable and familiar with 'guns'.

Worth repeating: it's not that one does not have a choice, but that one should never, ever, never deploy a weapon unless the circumstnances justify killing. You can always -not- shoot, but recongize that pulling it from it's holster is only done under dire circumstances.

A gun is a tool, is all. A very, very specialized tool.

Another way to put it - and this might be a money-grubbing attitude unique to Americans - is to internalize that -if- one deploys a firearm as a civilian one should expect to pay out $20,000 bucks minimum. That's the average legal bill a guy faces if he shoots someone in the US.

Wow :) That's really interesting to put it like that. I didn't know that. But police would have a different outlook on that right?

I believe this to be so.

Downside is these plates aren't flexible (conformt is an issue if have to wear your vest all day at 30° C in summer) and they become heavier and more bulky.

But again, that's what if been told by some german cops and I'm no expert in that.