Why shoot to kill?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No, but nor can rats, and they are the subject of ethical controls too. What's your point?

You wouldn't want all the cameramen on strike, due to employing non-union puppys. That's victimisation of a valued section of the labour force.
.

I sometimes wonder if you're a troll.

[mistermack]

The trouble with forums is that once you realise you’ve fucked up, and are losing the argument and try to derail it, along comes one of the folk from earlier on to dredge the thread back to topic:

I mentioned the video, I didn't claim you agreed with me.
Bird gun is exactly what it was. Extremely lethal at very short distances, waste of time over longer distances.
Made for killing birds at forty metres.
I would be FAR more worried by the guy in the video. He could kill you in a split second. The guy with the shotgun had NO WAY of killing anyone except himself.
And the police marksmen are all voluteers, and are paid for what they do. They love this stuff. I have a brother-in-law and two nephews in the met. I know what they say about stuff like this.
.

[mistermack]

I sometimes wonder if you're a troll.

I'm perfectly sure you're a pixie.
.

[Pappa]

I sometimes wonder if you're a troll.

I'm perfectly sure you're a pixie.
.

I'm a Smurf actually.

[mistermack]

I sometimes wonder if you're a troll.

I'm perfectly sure you're a pixie.
.

I'm a Smurf actually.

I have dreams like that. Seriously, I do.
.

[Trolldor]

I'd send in a dog with a video camera.
.

Man shoots dog, shoots hostages, well done you failed.

Alternatively,

The time it takes you to get the dog kitted up and inside, man has bled to death. Well done, you failed.

[FBM]

No time to read the whole thread, but I'd just like to say that dead people can't sue.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Why shoot to kill?

Because you have Mistermack in your sights, obviously! Duh.

[mistermack]

I'd send in a dog with a video camera.
.

Man shoots dog, shoots hostages, well done you failed.

Alternatively,

The time it takes you to get the dog kitted up and inside, man has bled to death. Well done, you failed.

OR :
Dog sits on shotgun. Hostage who doesn't even exist grabs nutter, police rush in and take him into custody. He later reforms and studies medicine and finds a cure for cancer.
SEE, TOLD YOU!!
.

[mistermack]

No time to read the whole thread, but I'd just like to say that dead people can't sue.

They can't find a cure for cancer either, so that's where YOUR logic falls down!!
.

[mistermack]

Why shoot to kill?

Because you have Mistermack in your sights, obviously! Duh.

Thanks very much fatass!!
.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No time to read the whole thread, but I'd just like to say that dead people can't sue.

They can't find a cure for cancer either, so that's where YOUR logic falls down!!
.

*pat, pat, pat*

[Cunt]

Why don't they shoot to wound? Because they blindly follow their TRAINING which is generally military in nature, so of course they shoot to kill.

If I were shooting military people, I would (in most cases - and given time to choose) shoot to wound.

My reason is this - if you shoot to kill, and succeed, you have taken one able from the opposing ranks. If you shoot to wound, and succeed, there you have one able out wounded, and two to six ables out giving him tender mercy.

Just a quibble, and it may have been mentioned before, but there you are.

Here is another - sabot slugs. I have extended range over regular slugs with these babies. Oh, and regular shotgun slugs are PLENTY fucking powerful to take down an able, through good body armor, and another able, across most streets. Did he have slugs? Sabot slugs? Buckshot? 7 1/2 birdshot?

Are you assuming the cops knew exactly what ammunition he had? Cut them a bit of slack if you don't know much about shotguns.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Are you assuming the cops knew exactly what ammunition he had? Cut them a bit of slack if you don't know much about shotguns.

One must always assume loads of shit if one wants to give full reign to one's high horse.

[Thinking Aloud]

My thoughts on the OP (I can't believe it's gone for 5 pages about other situations): I suspect that it's the uncertainty that results in a "shoot to kill". Even after 5 hours, when they were aware the guy only likely had a "bird" gun, when they'd talked to everyone including him and his family, and after all that, they were still uncertain that this unstable individual didn't have a wildcard to play. With hindsight it's clear that the evidence that he wasn't a danger to anyone else was reasonably sound, however until they could guarantee that (and wounding wouldn't guarantee it) they wouldn't be sure he was safe to approach. Maybe.

I know what Mistermack is saying, and I kind of agree given hindsight in this case, but I don't know that there's any way for someone on the ground at the time to be sure enough to make that decision.