We do have different cultures though. While it may seem politically correct to shoot someone in an arm or a leg, the American culture is filled with lawsuits waiting to happen, and doing something like permanently disabling someone trying to kill or harm you will put you in a lot more trouble than killing him.

It was mentioned earlier in the thread, although some of the details were wrong, that a bank robbery suspect got in a 3 minute long shootout with a cop who shot him 14 times in various vital areas across the torso, but still had the suspect shooting at him and had to put 3 shots into his head. Even after that the suspect took a relatively long time to succumb to his wounds.

There is the added of bullets simply going through fat or muscle that wouldn't slow the suspect down, or alternatively, it could hit a vein or an artery and be more fatal than some shots to the torso.

And like I've said before, unarmed doesn't mean anything if a suspect is actively trying to grab a weapon, or is using his body as a weapon.

1. Good pointing out about lawsuits. You're right, people rarely sue the government here (and win rare too), so cops don't have to keep that in mind.

 

2. That's a completely different situation you're describing here. An armed robber firing at people will meet SOBR and their 5,45 bullet in a minute. I'm speaking about a situation when danger is not that imminent. A real-life story too: an officer armed with AK-74 was approached by a person with a knife. The officer told him to keep 2 meter distance, he disobeyed, then the officer fired a warning shot and shot him in the leg. He immediately dropped the knife and lost all the will to resist. 

 

3. Well, if that's enough reason for you to use deadly force, I understand that. Here if suspect is trying to use his body as a weapon he'll get a good kick in a face or a legshot leaving him alive. (I understand that in the US it will cause a lawsuit. I'm just telling how in other places things happen)

1. Good pointing out about lawsuits. You're right, people rarely sue the government here (and win rare too), so cops don't have to keep that in mind.

2. That's a completely different situation you're describing here. An armed robber firing at people will meet SOBR and their 5,45 bullet in a minute. I'm speaking about a situation when danger is not that imminent. A real-life story too: an officer armed with AK-74 was approached by a person with a knife. The officer told him to keep 2 meter distance, he disobeyed, then the officer fired a warning shot and shot him in the leg. He immediately dropped the knife and lost all the will to resist.

3. Well, if that's enough reason for you to use deadly force, I understand that. Here if suspect is trying to use his body as a weapon he'll get a good kick in a face or a legshot leaving him alive. (I understand that in the US it will cause a lawsuit. I'm just telling how in other places things happen)

2. The main point was to demonstrate how adrenaline can affect people and make lethal force necessary.

3. By using a body as a weapon warranting lethal force, I mean attempting to overpower an officer and gain control of his/her weapon, or simply attempting to beat an officer to death.

Edited March 7, 201511 yr by c13