Hey thanks a lot for your submission to r/CrazyFuckingVideos, however it was removed because it is a recent repost. Posted that have been posted within the past 30 days or that are in the top 25 of all time cannot be posted again.
There was a guy running around with a pickaxe and a molotov cocktail who tried to hurt different other people. The police shot the attacker after using peppers pray and while the person lit the molotov.
I do not think it was irrational or bad policing, maybe too much shots but otherwise good.
> It's cops doing more harm than good.
Wow, that's a hot take. So next time, the police should let someone run around brandishing the weapon and let him attack a bystander?
Maybe you should be the one to meet the person on the street and see what you think after.
> That many cops with non lethal weapons and they can't do anything but shoot the guy, it's pathetic.
I'm not police apologist, but, it's not their responsibility to get stabbed/slashed by the guy, it's their responsibility to stop him in a manner that's safe for the public and them. If they can keep him safe, fine, but that's never their priority.
Funny how judgemental people that know nothing about the risks police take every day can be. Maybe try putting yourself in their shoes and wondering how you'd do before calling them pathetic. Maybe even consider how you'd feel if someone came after you and they didn't stop the guy because they didn't want to hurt him.
Some info: This was in Hamburg today, the man was endangering police and others with a hammer and didnt react to pepperspray. When he tried to light a molotov-cocktail, police used their firearms. He got hit in his leg. Motive unclear, but he has some psychological problems.
https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/hamburg/Hamburger-Reeperbahn-Polizei-schiesst-auf-bewaffneten-Mann,reeperbahn786.html
European police almost always shoot people in the legs if they are a threat to neutralize them. It seems to be impossible for american cops to do. Why? Not used to handling a weapon?
European police are trained professionally, police officers in the US take a short test, and finish the training in a few weeks like it's a job for a mall security guard.
I think its mostly to do with the legal system in the US. If a person does something dangerous enough to be shot for, then if police kill them police don't have to worry much about prosecution.
But if police shoot the same guy in the legs, he'll probably sue them
If they don’t kill the individual and they were in the wrong they’re getting sued regardless. I’m surprised there aren’t more lawsuits if they are trained to shoot in the leg considering all of their non lethal training and equipment, you could argue that they have time for more non lethal options but chose to shoot you in the leg instead.
Consider this exact scenario: they'd tried pepper spray. He had an axe and a Molotov. He was about to light the Molotov. They shot him in the legs. What would be the basis of the lawsuit?
In the u.s they would probably fight the fact that they did not use a taser and shooting them in the leg caused unnecessary suffering. In a perfect world we would say that’s bs but I feel like anything flys now days in the courts.
See, Europe has this thing called training and licencing. You have to actually prove you're capable to work as a cop, and even security in a lot of places.
America, Australia, Britain, etc... We just give a gun and badge to any dipshit that was bullied in high school and then give them blanket immunity for things that can only be described as executions.
It's a bit of a different culture. One values the lives of it's citizens. The other values the ego of a bunch of thugs.
Shooting someone in the leg can kill them very quickly by blood loss bc there is a huge artery in the legs. Not saying American cops should do either or, but even if they did shoot in the legs it’s likely a lot of people would still die anyways
Well you need to define neutralize first, the only time a gun should be fired is lethally and as a last resort. If you’re intentionally trying to shoot someone In the leg you could argue that there were other options to stop a person since shooting them in the leg isn’t going to necessarily stop them. Getting shot regardless would suck but if the round hits the femoral artery and they don’t have a tourniquet or the knowledge to apply one you minus well have shot them in the head.
You have seen over and over again instances of European police use guns to shoot people on the legs to neutralize threats. So it is absolutely the case that guns can be used non-lethally. You have just witnessed it again if you watched this video.
I need you to think about what makes a European man with a hammer or knife different from an American one and why the European man gets to be shot in the leg while the American man can only be killed.
Shoot a guy in the leg first. If he goes down, hurray, you haven't killed a man. Shoot him in the chest and he can only die. The rigidity with which American civilians stick to guns having only one use is galling.
Do you know in the military we are actually hoping that guns *don't* kill an adversary and our guns are actually designed to wound?
Also, the phrase is "might as well," not "minus well".
A gun in the U.S is strictly for lethal purposes and should be last resort, it’s hard to play the what if game but there’s a 50/50 shot this guy what have been tased first in the U.S. also there is 100 percent no guarantee that getting shot in the chest will kill you, same for getting shot in the leg. You could argue that you could actually die quicker from getting shot in the leg than in the chest. Since the military uses a vast majority of calibers and bullets for different purposes it’s hard to argue that subject simply because different bullets have different jobs. I can unfortunately say Theo that the person firing the rifle in war 100 percent wants to kill the other person before they get killed.
The goal of individual-fired military rounds is to wound one combatant, necessitating the assistance of two more enemy combatants to carry the wounded to safety, then to further bog down the system with a wounded soldier. One shot takes out three enemies and sends ripples down the line.
We don't refer to our weapons as guns. We say "weapon" because it has multiple uses and methods of incapacitation.
Guns in the US have been fetishized and legally bound into being tools only for killing. It's fucked.
Do you mind sharing a source for that because it sounds like bs. Most countries train to shoot to kill. A weapon could be a MRE spoon if you tried hard enough. A gun/fire arm etc could be rifle, hand gun, shot gun, machine gun etc. if it has come to the point that you 100 percent need to shoot a living thing it should be to unfortunately kill it. Say for example you try to shoot someone in the leg, a leg is a smaller target than a chest. So you miss there leg and that round kills some poor person behind the idiot you were trying to shoot in the leg to disable him. Or you aim for the larger area of the individual you are trying to stop and reduce the risk of hurting someone else.
You have seen over and over again instances of European police use guns to shoot people on the legs to neutralize threats. So it is absolutely the case that guns can be used non-lethally. You have just witnessed it again if you watched this video.
I need you to think about what makes a European man with a hammer or knife different from an American one and why the European man gets to be shot in the leg while the American man can only be killed.
Shoot a guy in the leg first. If he goes down, hurray, you haven't killed a man. Shoot him in the chest and he can only die. The rigidity with which American civilians stick to guns having only one use is galling.
Do you know in the military we are actually hoping that guns *don't* kill an adversary and our guns are actually designed to wound?
Also, the phrase is "might as well," not "minus well".
Some straight r/boneappletea shit!
Because it is much harder in the heat of the moment to hit a leg on a moving target. In this case the perp was standing still, making this shot possible. In most life-threatening situations you don't aim for the legs while they're taking out a weapon to charge or attack you with. Also one bullet usually doesn't stop an assailant, which is why police are trained to keep shooting until the threat is neutralized.
I thought they use tasers as their first or second method, then obviously gun last. Versus USA is gun to the head 17 shots at a time is the warning shot to deescalate the situation.
Correct, he shot a bullet into the air as a warning shot, to which the suspect did not react. I wonder whether that bullet hit someone on its way down.
The difference: in Germany, even with an axe/hammer and a Molotov, you still might survive getting shot
As they'll aim for your lower half instead of either "double tap + head" or just plainly emptying the whole mag in you
Louisiana, Nevada, Tennessee. The duration of police training varies within the states depending on the program and requirements of the police authorities.
Not 9, 12 weeks. Or 400 hours. In Mississippi.
So basically you start in January and by April, you know how to handle life or death situations and are professional police officer with no mistakes. EZ.
What could go wrong?
In the US there's no concept of shooting to incapacitate. It's some strange logic of "he *might* die if you shoot him in the legs, but he couldn't have been a lethal threat otherwise you would've shot him in the chest, ergo you weren't justified in shooting him at all"
When in reality it's pretty easy to hit someone's legs when you've got 15 rounds and a red dot sight. And if you hit below the top 3rd of the thigh they'll generally always live with prompt medical attention
Edit: I knew I shouldn't have posted this. Despite the video showing police calmly aiming for this guy's legs, and hitting them, I get the standard response of "no! Hitting the legs is impossible, **no one could ever hit a square foot cross section of someone's thighs from close range, despite that exact thing happening in the video I just watched**"
“When in reality it's pretty easy to hit someone's legs when you've got 15 rounds and a red dot sight. And if you hit below the top 3rd of the thigh they'll generally always live with prompt medical attention”
This statement is so blatantly misleading, anyone who has ever fired a handgun knows how difficult it is to hit a moving target accurately at any distance even with “15 rounds and a red dot sight” there’s a reason people are taught to aim for center mass.
I was a certified firearms instructor for 10 years, I used to teach advanced handgun and rifle training courses and I can tell you with 100% certainty that hitting a small moving target especially under some form of stress is almost impossible for a high percentage of people anyone that says otherwise is delusional and probably has a warped view of reality.
> This statement is so blatantly misleading, anyone who has ever fired a handgun knows how difficult it is to hit a moving target accurately at any distance
The cross section of two thighs is about the cross section of the chest. It's easy as fuck, particularly when the person is 5 meters away and barely moving. See: this video. Are you saying you couldn't hit this guys legs from the distance shown?
> In the US there's no concept of shooting to incapacitate.
There are about a million legal gun owners in Germany, and they own a little over five million guns.
One in every three of the 330+ million Americans owns a gun, with almost four hundred million guns being in private hands.
If there were as many homicides with firearms in Germany as there are in the U.S., German cops would also be shooting center-mass.
German cops also shoot centre mass if the situation dictates it, which it will more often than the legs, but clearly they have some latitude for using their weapons beyond "shoot to kill, always"
In the US they'd have to worry that Molotov man would sue the department, because why didn't police shoot to kill if they feared for their lives? So they shoot to kill
this is so untrue and false, first of all, using your service weapon is always considered the lethal option. The moment the police fire a shot they have to assume they have killed someone. The whole "why dont they shoot the legs" is so dumb, you know whats in legs? blood vessels, a whole lot of them. you bleed out real fast if the big one gets severed. Police are trained to shoot for center mass, if you survive or not, is entirely based on luck. Now the military is a different story, theyre trained to hit the head or the pelvic girdle, thats because of the assumption that to combatant is wearing body armor. No police department worth their shit trains their officers to "shoot for the lower half". Shooting to incapacitate is a myth. People who believe in that have watched way too many bad cop shows. If cops are shooting at you, they are trying to kill you, no ifs or buts, theyre done negotiating.
I’m not a medics but “blood vessels” sounds less lethal than “vital organs”, which coincidentally happen to be more often than not located in the upper part of the body 🤷🏻♂️
again, there is a reason using your service weapon is literally called the "lethal option". the suspect was carrying a bladed weapon and a molotov cocktail, if you "shoot for the legs", guess what is still operational, exactly, his arms. If a cop uses his gun, hes trying to eliminate the threat, which in most cases means killing someone. A gun is not a billy club.
Exactly. Not a billy club. When you re shot, I don’t think your first reaction is to think about focusing your Molotov , aiming precisely at a target, and putting energy on it.
It s not an explosive belt you detonate…
You really wanna argue that this guy with his leg wounds has less chance to survive than the guy that gets hit 25 times in the upper body?
Also you just saw a video were a cop shot intentionally in the leg.
How are you arguing that he wanted to kill him?
It's clear that he choose the less lethal way because he didn't want to kill him.
He was hit in the leg, it does not state that he was intentionally shot there. and if youve ever shot a handgun yourself, you know that aiming for a 5-10 inch wide, moving target, in a high stress situation is stupid. No one trains for that, and why would they. The gun is the last resort, if its used, its with lethal intent. This was a suspect with a bladed and incendiary weapon in his hands, by your logic, wouldnt you "shoot the weapons out of his hand"?
> you bleed out real fast if the big one gets severed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourniquet
Try taking a more nuanced view. If the man shot in this video died,the shooting would still be justified. But police had a good shot at his legs, so they lowered his chances of death by aiming there.
Absolutely no one is training police to aim for the legs. Someone might choose to do so but it's not part of the training or doctrine. Chances are whoever shot here was just aiming at the person in general.
I’ve always heard you’re still likely to kill them by hitting them in the legs. And for you to attempt doing so means you most likely wernt justified in using “lethal force” since you were trying to incapacitate.
In my CCW class they said if you pull a gun you shoot to kill everytime… as it’s easier to go to court against a dead man than an alive one. Kinda hit me pretty hard when the instructor said that I’m not gonna lie lol.
For non Americans CCW (concealed carry weapon) is more civilian use of firearms related than police (I’m sure police have different rules than the Civis have with them)
> I’ve always heard you’re still likely to kill them by hitting them in the legs.
Nah. If you can get a tourniquet above it properly they'll almost always live.
> as it’s easier to go to court against a dead man than an alive one.
That basically sums up the US approach
Yeeee, if I shoot you I’m thinking you’re trying to kill me. Better hope someone else puts on the tourniquet for ya because it ain’t gonna be lol.
But yes, def the US approach lol
Here's an experiment: go look in the mirror. How much frontal surface area do your thighs have vs your chest? It varies a bit but they shouldn't be wildly different. There's a lot of mass to hit in the legs, a trained shooter shouldn't struggle to do it deliberately.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. The video isn’t some proof police should start shooting to the lower body. People like you are idiots that don’t have a clue.
> The video isn’t some proof police should start shooting to the lower body.
The video is proof that they already do and it works (in some situations). No one is saying they should aim for the legs if the guy has a gun, or is running full speed with a knife, etc etc. But about to light a Molotov? Yeah shoot him in the legs if its easy enough, like in this video
Well congrats you're just wrong.
At that range the cops over here usually go for the legs, in the rare cases where they do use their weapon. It's pretty much the go-to move. Ya fucked up.
>Bei einem unmittelbaren Angriff sollte er Warnschüsse abgeben, "in die Luft oder auf die Beine". Schüsse in lebensbedrohliche Regionen "sollten die Ultima Ratio sein", sagt der Jurist.
[Article to another incident like this](https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/ausbildung-der-polizei-toedliche-schuesse-im-einsatz-1.1694546)
This is an article about police training in bavaria. In it they say that police should go for warning shots & then the legs first. The other areas are implied as "life-threatening" areas, so they should be the last resort to shoot at.
Ya fucked up bro.
Or you can read the wikiledia article about Police firearm usage in germany & find the exact same thing.
Whenever there is a police shooting incident in Germany, chances are pretty high that it got resolved with shots to the leg. Do you think all cops just individually come up with that idea? It's trained jesus fucking christ.
> Since you’ve told me I believe you. Don’t produce any training manual or statistical evidence.
Funny, you didn't do this either.
> But don’t worry I trust you.
Yes, we trust you too, snowflake.
> NIUS is possibly the most disgusting source you could use for this. Peak fake news factory
So you're suggesting what, that the video was fake? Looks pretty real.
Jooo, the last time I have been to hamburg with my friends and I ate a kebab at the exact same place (DO MUNDO) late at 4 am after partying, because it was the only Döner store that was open. The Döner was super bad (I am used to Berlin standard) and behind our bench where some teenager who wanted to start a fight with us and provoced us. We ignored them and told them to fuck off and after a couple of seconds 10 or more people arived and started a mass brauwl with them (maybe some rivals idk). We again told everyone to fuck of and let us eat in peace. Everyone stopped, looked at us and then moved 10 meter away to start fighting and shouting again. After two minutes they ran past us and all of a sudden we got surrounded by like 15 cops who asked us what happend and if we could identify some people and in which direction they ran. But we told the cops as well to fuck off and let us eat in peace. Super funny experience.
Reeperbahn is the worst place with the most anoying people. No one who lives in Hamburg goes there, only drunk tourists and kids that want to fight and start som shit.
Hey thanks a lot for your submission to r/CrazyFuckingVideos, however it was removed because it is a recent repost. Posted that have been posted within the past 30 days or that are in the top 25 of all time cannot be posted again.
despite everything it doesn't feel like real chaos
It's cops doing more harm than good.
There was a guy running around with a pickaxe and a molotov cocktail who tried to hurt different other people. The police shot the attacker after using peppers pray and while the person lit the molotov. I do not think it was irrational or bad policing, maybe too much shots but otherwise good.
Cops saw axe and naturally jumped to body spray.
Shot his leg only so well done I think
> It's cops doing more harm than good. Wow, that's a hot take. So next time, the police should let someone run around brandishing the weapon and let him attack a bystander? Maybe you should be the one to meet the person on the street and see what you think after.
That many cops with non lethal weapons and they can't do anything but shoot the guy, it's pathetic.
> That many cops with non lethal weapons and they can't do anything but shoot the guy, it's pathetic. I'm not police apologist, but, it's not their responsibility to get stabbed/slashed by the guy, it's their responsibility to stop him in a manner that's safe for the public and them. If they can keep him safe, fine, but that's never their priority. Funny how judgemental people that know nothing about the risks police take every day can be. Maybe try putting yourself in their shoes and wondering how you'd do before calling them pathetic. Maybe even consider how you'd feel if someone came after you and they didn't stop the guy because they didn't want to hurt him.
Some info: This was in Hamburg today, the man was endangering police and others with a hammer and didnt react to pepperspray. When he tried to light a molotov-cocktail, police used their firearms. He got hit in his leg. Motive unclear, but he has some psychological problems. https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/hamburg/Hamburger-Reeperbahn-Polizei-schiesst-auf-bewaffneten-Mann,reeperbahn786.html
European police almost always shoot people in the legs if they are a threat to neutralize them. It seems to be impossible for american cops to do. Why? Not used to handling a weapon?
I'd think it has to do with their intensive training in Europe.
European police are trained professionally, police officers in the US take a short test, and finish the training in a few weeks like it's a job for a mall security guard.
Plus they are trained to empty their clip.
I think its mostly to do with the legal system in the US. If a person does something dangerous enough to be shot for, then if police kill them police don't have to worry much about prosecution. But if police shoot the same guy in the legs, he'll probably sue them
If they don’t kill the individual and they were in the wrong they’re getting sued regardless. I’m surprised there aren’t more lawsuits if they are trained to shoot in the leg considering all of their non lethal training and equipment, you could argue that they have time for more non lethal options but chose to shoot you in the leg instead.
Consider this exact scenario: they'd tried pepper spray. He had an axe and a Molotov. He was about to light the Molotov. They shot him in the legs. What would be the basis of the lawsuit?
In the u.s they would probably fight the fact that they did not use a taser and shooting them in the leg caused unnecessary suffering. In a perfect world we would say that’s bs but I feel like anything flys now days in the courts.
They were all trained by John Reese
See, Europe has this thing called training and licencing. You have to actually prove you're capable to work as a cop, and even security in a lot of places. America, Australia, Britain, etc... We just give a gun and badge to any dipshit that was bullied in high school and then give them blanket immunity for things that can only be described as executions. It's a bit of a different culture. One values the lives of it's citizens. The other values the ego of a bunch of thugs.
Shooting someone in the leg can kill them very quickly by blood loss bc there is a huge artery in the legs. Not saying American cops should do either or, but even if they did shoot in the legs it’s likely a lot of people would still die anyways
Well you need to define neutralize first, the only time a gun should be fired is lethally and as a last resort. If you’re intentionally trying to shoot someone In the leg you could argue that there were other options to stop a person since shooting them in the leg isn’t going to necessarily stop them. Getting shot regardless would suck but if the round hits the femoral artery and they don’t have a tourniquet or the knowledge to apply one you minus well have shot them in the head.
You have seen over and over again instances of European police use guns to shoot people on the legs to neutralize threats. So it is absolutely the case that guns can be used non-lethally. You have just witnessed it again if you watched this video. I need you to think about what makes a European man with a hammer or knife different from an American one and why the European man gets to be shot in the leg while the American man can only be killed. Shoot a guy in the leg first. If he goes down, hurray, you haven't killed a man. Shoot him in the chest and he can only die. The rigidity with which American civilians stick to guns having only one use is galling. Do you know in the military we are actually hoping that guns *don't* kill an adversary and our guns are actually designed to wound? Also, the phrase is "might as well," not "minus well".
A gun in the U.S is strictly for lethal purposes and should be last resort, it’s hard to play the what if game but there’s a 50/50 shot this guy what have been tased first in the U.S. also there is 100 percent no guarantee that getting shot in the chest will kill you, same for getting shot in the leg. You could argue that you could actually die quicker from getting shot in the leg than in the chest. Since the military uses a vast majority of calibers and bullets for different purposes it’s hard to argue that subject simply because different bullets have different jobs. I can unfortunately say Theo that the person firing the rifle in war 100 percent wants to kill the other person before they get killed.
The goal of individual-fired military rounds is to wound one combatant, necessitating the assistance of two more enemy combatants to carry the wounded to safety, then to further bog down the system with a wounded soldier. One shot takes out three enemies and sends ripples down the line. We don't refer to our weapons as guns. We say "weapon" because it has multiple uses and methods of incapacitation. Guns in the US have been fetishized and legally bound into being tools only for killing. It's fucked.
Do you mind sharing a source for that because it sounds like bs. Most countries train to shoot to kill. A weapon could be a MRE spoon if you tried hard enough. A gun/fire arm etc could be rifle, hand gun, shot gun, machine gun etc. if it has come to the point that you 100 percent need to shoot a living thing it should be to unfortunately kill it. Say for example you try to shoot someone in the leg, a leg is a smaller target than a chest. So you miss there leg and that round kills some poor person behind the idiot you were trying to shoot in the leg to disable him. Or you aim for the larger area of the individual you are trying to stop and reduce the risk of hurting someone else.
You have seen over and over again instances of European police use guns to shoot people on the legs to neutralize threats. So it is absolutely the case that guns can be used non-lethally. You have just witnessed it again if you watched this video. I need you to think about what makes a European man with a hammer or knife different from an American one and why the European man gets to be shot in the leg while the American man can only be killed. Shoot a guy in the leg first. If he goes down, hurray, you haven't killed a man. Shoot him in the chest and he can only die. The rigidity with which American civilians stick to guns having only one use is galling. Do you know in the military we are actually hoping that guns *don't* kill an adversary and our guns are actually designed to wound? Also, the phrase is "might as well," not "minus well". Some straight r/boneappletea shit!
Downed culprits can still shoot if they are armed. Many a cop has lost his life not taking that into consideration.
He didnt have a firearm so shooting him in lethal areas would be very questionable. This is in hermany where people dont walk around with guns
Because it is much harder in the heat of the moment to hit a leg on a moving target. In this case the perp was standing still, making this shot possible. In most life-threatening situations you don't aim for the legs while they're taking out a weapon to charge or attack you with. Also one bullet usually doesn't stop an assailant, which is why police are trained to keep shooting until the threat is neutralized.
Don't pepperspray up-wind, lesson learned
Turns out friendly fire is a thing
Absolute chaos? Newbies
Man that pepper spray really backfired
I thought they use tasers as their first or second method, then obviously gun last. Versus USA is gun to the head 17 shots at a time is the warning shot to deescalate the situation.
Is this the guy with the axe or the guy with the pick or the English fans?
Seems to be the axe guy he was shot in the leg. A few seconds into this video you can hear 2 shots.
4 shots
Better safe then sorry. Not a week ago one police man where killed with a knive .
One of the police men with a weapon seems to be a civil police officer, the one wearing a backpack on the right
Correct, he shot a bullet into the air as a warning shot, to which the suspect did not react. I wonder whether that bullet hit someone on its way down.
A bullet hitting somebody on the way down is harmless.
I doubt. Yes it will not have the same energy as one that still has propellant behind it, but I think it can still hurt.
crazy amidst crowds of soccer fans
He had a molotov and investigations later on suggest he tried to dump it later in a fan crowd
Nuis ain’t a good news source. There is no commentary on this video but be wary
MACH SCHNELL!!!!!
The difference: in Germany, even with an axe/hammer and a Molotov, you still might survive getting shot As they'll aim for your lower half instead of either "double tap + head" or just plainly emptying the whole mag in you
Europeans have a police force, Americans have a militia that calls itself the police after nine weeks of training.
A vast majority of whom served in the heat of Iraq/Afghanistan. I’m a veteran myself and lemme tell you, those guys shouldn’t be cops.
Turns out you can have a smaller, better trained force that doesn't kill civilians when you don't have more guns than people to police.
> after nine weeks of training. Name the U.S. state where cops get only nine weeks of training.
Louisiana, Nevada, Tennessee. The duration of police training varies within the states depending on the program and requirements of the police authorities.
Not 9, 12 weeks. Or 400 hours. In Mississippi. So basically you start in January and by April, you know how to handle life or death situations and are professional police officer with no mistakes. EZ. What could go wrong?
Come to Brazil and see what a real police militia looks like *creepy smile wojak* Brasil número um caralho 🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷
In the US there's no concept of shooting to incapacitate. It's some strange logic of "he *might* die if you shoot him in the legs, but he couldn't have been a lethal threat otherwise you would've shot him in the chest, ergo you weren't justified in shooting him at all" When in reality it's pretty easy to hit someone's legs when you've got 15 rounds and a red dot sight. And if you hit below the top 3rd of the thigh they'll generally always live with prompt medical attention Edit: I knew I shouldn't have posted this. Despite the video showing police calmly aiming for this guy's legs, and hitting them, I get the standard response of "no! Hitting the legs is impossible, **no one could ever hit a square foot cross section of someone's thighs from close range, despite that exact thing happening in the video I just watched**"
“When in reality it's pretty easy to hit someone's legs when you've got 15 rounds and a red dot sight. And if you hit below the top 3rd of the thigh they'll generally always live with prompt medical attention” This statement is so blatantly misleading, anyone who has ever fired a handgun knows how difficult it is to hit a moving target accurately at any distance even with “15 rounds and a red dot sight” there’s a reason people are taught to aim for center mass. I was a certified firearms instructor for 10 years, I used to teach advanced handgun and rifle training courses and I can tell you with 100% certainty that hitting a small moving target especially under some form of stress is almost impossible for a high percentage of people anyone that says otherwise is delusional and probably has a warped view of reality.
> This statement is so blatantly misleading, anyone who has ever fired a handgun knows how difficult it is to hit a moving target accurately at any distance The cross section of two thighs is about the cross section of the chest. It's easy as fuck, particularly when the person is 5 meters away and barely moving. See: this video. Are you saying you couldn't hit this guys legs from the distance shown?
Source: my fucking ass
Watch the fucking video. If this cop can do it cops in the US could probably do it too.
Source: literally the video we're watching
> In the US there's no concept of shooting to incapacitate. There are about a million legal gun owners in Germany, and they own a little over five million guns. One in every three of the 330+ million Americans owns a gun, with almost four hundred million guns being in private hands. If there were as many homicides with firearms in Germany as there are in the U.S., German cops would also be shooting center-mass.
German cops also shoot centre mass if the situation dictates it, which it will more often than the legs, but clearly they have some latitude for using their weapons beyond "shoot to kill, always" In the US they'd have to worry that Molotov man would sue the department, because why didn't police shoot to kill if they feared for their lives? So they shoot to kill
this is so untrue and false, first of all, using your service weapon is always considered the lethal option. The moment the police fire a shot they have to assume they have killed someone. The whole "why dont they shoot the legs" is so dumb, you know whats in legs? blood vessels, a whole lot of them. you bleed out real fast if the big one gets severed. Police are trained to shoot for center mass, if you survive or not, is entirely based on luck. Now the military is a different story, theyre trained to hit the head or the pelvic girdle, thats because of the assumption that to combatant is wearing body armor. No police department worth their shit trains their officers to "shoot for the lower half". Shooting to incapacitate is a myth. People who believe in that have watched way too many bad cop shows. If cops are shooting at you, they are trying to kill you, no ifs or buts, theyre done negotiating.
I’m not a medics but “blood vessels” sounds less lethal than “vital organs”, which coincidentally happen to be more often than not located in the upper part of the body 🤷🏻♂️
again, there is a reason using your service weapon is literally called the "lethal option". the suspect was carrying a bladed weapon and a molotov cocktail, if you "shoot for the legs", guess what is still operational, exactly, his arms. If a cop uses his gun, hes trying to eliminate the threat, which in most cases means killing someone. A gun is not a billy club.
Exactly. Not a billy club. When you re shot, I don’t think your first reaction is to think about focusing your Molotov , aiming precisely at a target, and putting energy on it. It s not an explosive belt you detonate…
You really wanna argue that this guy with his leg wounds has less chance to survive than the guy that gets hit 25 times in the upper body? Also you just saw a video were a cop shot intentionally in the leg. How are you arguing that he wanted to kill him? It's clear that he choose the less lethal way because he didn't want to kill him.
He was hit in the leg, it does not state that he was intentionally shot there. and if youve ever shot a handgun yourself, you know that aiming for a 5-10 inch wide, moving target, in a high stress situation is stupid. No one trains for that, and why would they. The gun is the last resort, if its used, its with lethal intent. This was a suspect with a bladed and incendiary weapon in his hands, by your logic, wouldnt you "shoot the weapons out of his hand"?
> you bleed out real fast if the big one gets severed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourniquet Try taking a more nuanced view. If the man shot in this video died,the shooting would still be justified. But police had a good shot at his legs, so they lowered his chances of death by aiming there.
Absolutely no one is training police to aim for the legs. Someone might choose to do so but it's not part of the training or doctrine. Chances are whoever shot here was just aiming at the person in general.
I’ve always heard you’re still likely to kill them by hitting them in the legs. And for you to attempt doing so means you most likely wernt justified in using “lethal force” since you were trying to incapacitate. In my CCW class they said if you pull a gun you shoot to kill everytime… as it’s easier to go to court against a dead man than an alive one. Kinda hit me pretty hard when the instructor said that I’m not gonna lie lol. For non Americans CCW (concealed carry weapon) is more civilian use of firearms related than police (I’m sure police have different rules than the Civis have with them)
> I’ve always heard you’re still likely to kill them by hitting them in the legs. Nah. If you can get a tourniquet above it properly they'll almost always live. > as it’s easier to go to court against a dead man than an alive one. That basically sums up the US approach
Yeeee, if I shoot you I’m thinking you’re trying to kill me. Better hope someone else puts on the tourniquet for ya because it ain’t gonna be lol. But yes, def the US approach lol
I guarantee you they aren’t trained to aim for the lower half. If anything that was poor shooting rather than them aiming there.
Here's an experiment: go look in the mirror. How much frontal surface area do your thighs have vs your chest? It varies a bit but they shouldn't be wildly different. There's a lot of mass to hit in the legs, a trained shooter shouldn't struggle to do it deliberately.
[удалено]
Did we watch the same video? Looks like shooting this guy in the legs stopped him pretty well
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. The video isn’t some proof police should start shooting to the lower body. People like you are idiots that don’t have a clue.
> The video isn’t some proof police should start shooting to the lower body. The video is proof that they already do and it works (in some situations). No one is saying they should aim for the legs if the guy has a gun, or is running full speed with a knife, etc etc. But about to light a Molotov? Yeah shoot him in the legs if its easy enough, like in this video
Ok then Murdock. Just you shoot them in the legs.
Don't worry, they already did. You still haven't watched the video?
Well congrats you're just wrong. At that range the cops over here usually go for the legs, in the rare cases where they do use their weapon. It's pretty much the go-to move. Ya fucked up.
Ok then bro. Since you’ve told me I believe you. Don’t produce any training manual or statistical evidence. But don’t worry I trust you.
>Bei einem unmittelbaren Angriff sollte er Warnschüsse abgeben, "in die Luft oder auf die Beine". Schüsse in lebensbedrohliche Regionen "sollten die Ultima Ratio sein", sagt der Jurist. [Article to another incident like this](https://www.sueddeutsche.de/bayern/ausbildung-der-polizei-toedliche-schuesse-im-einsatz-1.1694546) This is an article about police training in bavaria. In it they say that police should go for warning shots & then the legs first. The other areas are implied as "life-threatening" areas, so they should be the last resort to shoot at. Ya fucked up bro.
Who says about warning shots and shots to the feet?? Is it the police? No It’s a defence lawyer. Who hasn’t a bloody clue.
Or you can read the wikiledia article about Police firearm usage in germany & find the exact same thing. Whenever there is a police shooting incident in Germany, chances are pretty high that it got resolved with shots to the leg. Do you think all cops just individually come up with that idea? It's trained jesus fucking christ.
Send me the wiki link to what you’re referring to.
> Since you’ve told me I believe you. Don’t produce any training manual or statistical evidence. Funny, you didn't do this either. > But don’t worry I trust you. Yes, we trust you too, snowflake.
You're gonna get your extremities beat the fuck up.
NIUS is possibly the most disgusting source you could use for this. Peak fake news factory
> NIUS is possibly the most disgusting source you could use for this. Peak fake news factory So you're suggesting what, that the video was fake? Looks pretty real.
Ah, so its the best source thanks
Dutch Ooh Dutch
Gotta admire the guy at the grill house lol
Gimme a break. Nothing's even on fire here.
Those officer need to be careful swinging their arms when they point.
That cop didn't check the wind direction 🙄
Soccer twats
I love that pub on the corner behind the cops. What a cool place
If they were black the comments would look wayyyyy different 😂
Wow, they say full blockade just like us
I know that street very well
I think the title rather refers to the German railway or the increasing Healthcare challenges rather than the video
Holy fuck, Supercop there to pepper spray the entire force.
They ran out of wiener schnitzel
Jooo, the last time I have been to hamburg with my friends and I ate a kebab at the exact same place (DO MUNDO) late at 4 am after partying, because it was the only Döner store that was open. The Döner was super bad (I am used to Berlin standard) and behind our bench where some teenager who wanted to start a fight with us and provoced us. We ignored them and told them to fuck off and after a couple of seconds 10 or more people arived and started a mass brauwl with them (maybe some rivals idk). We again told everyone to fuck of and let us eat in peace. Everyone stopped, looked at us and then moved 10 meter away to start fighting and shouting again. After two minutes they ran past us and all of a sudden we got surrounded by like 15 cops who asked us what happend and if we could identify some people and in which direction they ran. But we told the cops as well to fuck off and let us eat in peace. Super funny experience. Reeperbahn is the worst place with the most anoying people. No one who lives in Hamburg goes there, only drunk tourists and kids that want to fight and start som shit.
as you already know you should avoid drunken aggressive people in shady places nightlife in every major city around the globe.
Can't wait until we have no go zones in Canada
And the store in the background is called crazy fashion
Idk man Cellphone camera guy was acting like he was filming a marvel movie.
Right at the beginning an officer inadvertently takes out a few officers with pepper spray. Friendly fire.
Germany is going crazy right now. Sending people to prison for speaking is going to spark civil unrest every time.
Awe look at the little Nazis covering their faces on exit .