Michigan police reform bill to requires ‘jiu jitsu’ blue belt for all officers

[Godboy]

Its not a bad idea for the cops to learn hand to hand combat

But I was wrong when I previously suggested that it might prevent cop on suspect killings

Because to be effective the cop has to be in good physical shape

And obviously many are not

Besides many criminals just spent years in jail body building 8 hours a day

The opponent cannot be armed with a knife

otherwise the cop must keep his distance rather than closing and taking the bad guy down

martial arts can be helpful but not in all situations

Size and strength matters in physical confrontations, but not as much as you might think when it comes to grappling. In this instance, technique trumps strength. BJJ was literally designed to allow the smaller guy to win fights.

Many people probably dont know this story, but its an important one in MMA history, so i will tell it.

The UFC was started by Rorion Gracie to showcase Gracie Jiu Jitsu. They had been doing underground fights for years before UFC 1. People from other martial arts schools would go to the Gracie school and challenge them to fights. These fights had no rules and no refs. The Gracie's fucked up EVERYONE. If you had no idea what BJJ was, or what an "armbar" was, you were going to be in a world of hurt.

This is what we saw happen at UFC 1. No one knew how to defend armbars or rear naked chokes, so they dropped like flies to little ole Royce Gracie. Rorion made sure that every fighter at that event outweighed Royce, who only weighed 170 pounds. The truth was, Royce wasnt their best fighter, it was Rickson. Rickson was by FAR the best fighter on earth, but they didnt put him in UFC 1 because Rickson was big and buff. If Rickson came in and beat everyone, people would say "well yeah, hes so big and strong, of course he would win", which means their martial art wouldnt get credit. They wanted to show the Gracie BJJ could teach a skinny guy like Royce to beat the biggest meanest fighters in the world, and he did.

I know all about Gracie

As I said martial arts can be helpful in some situations and the cops should learn to use them

but there are rules even in MMA

Such as no knives for instance

And many cops are sadly out of shape which handicaps them

When you encounter a man with a knife, you shoot him. Grappling is for non compliant people who are unarmed.

 

[progressive hunter]

Its not a bad idea for the cops to learn hand to hand combat

But I was wrong when I previously suggested that it might prevent cop on suspect killings

Because to be effective the cop has to be in good physical shape

And obviously many are not

Besides many criminals just spent years in jail body building 8 hours a day

The opponent cannot be armed with a knife

otherwise the cop must keep his distance rather than closing and taking the bad guy down

martial arts can be helpful but not in all situations

Size and strength matters in physical confrontations, but not as much as you might think when it comes to grappling. In this instance, technique trumps strength. BJJ was literally designed to allow the smaller guy to win fights.

Many people probably dont know this story, but its an important one in MMA history, so i will tell it.

The UFC was started by Rorion Gracie to showcase Gracie Jiu Jitsu. They had been doing underground fights for years before UFC 1. People from other martial arts schools would go to the Gracie school and challenge them to fights. These fights had no rules and no refs. The Gracie's fucked up EVERYONE. If you had no idea what BJJ was, or what an "armbar" was, you were going to be in a world of hurt.

This is what we saw happen at UFC 1. No one knew how to defend armbars or rear naked chokes, so they dropped like flies to little ole Royce Gracie. Rorion made sure that every fighter at that event outweighed Royce, who only weighed 170 pounds. The truth was, Royce wasnt their best fighter, it was Rickson. Rickson was by FAR the best fighter on earth, but they didnt put him in UFC 1 because Rickson was big and buff. If Rickson came in and beat everyone, people would say "well yeah, hes so big and strong, of course he would win", which means their martial art wouldnt get credit. They wanted to show the Gracie BJJ could teach a skinny guy like Royce to beat the biggest meanest fighters in the world, and he did.

I know all about Gracie

As I said martial arts can be helpful in some situations and the cops should learn to use them

but there are rules even in MMA

Such as no knives for instance

And many cops are sadly out of shape which handicaps them

When you encounter a man with a knife, you shoot him. Grappling is for non compliant people who are unarmed.

what if hes to close to shoot and all you have is your hands??

 

[SavannahMann]

So the defund the police wants cops to go hand to hand combat now?

sounds reasonable,, it gives them an edge

Uhm we have female cops now they can't use it on a string out person on drugs

maybe,, but we do have cases where two full grown men cant take down a single person,,

and a women would benefit greatly from the training,, it teaches a smaller person how to overpower a larger one,,

I see it as a good thing and another tool in the toolbox of law enforcement,,

Just pull out the gun and shoot to kill

Anyone who "shoots to kill" is improperly trained.

You never "shoot to kill". You shoot in order to stop the behavior which caused you to draw your weapon...

That is absolutely NOT true. Not only are cops trained to kill when they fire their weapon, civilians should only shoot to kill as well. Dont worry about how many bullets you put in your attacker, just as long as he dies. You never try to "wing" someone, like in the movies. Guns are not designed to be non lethal.

Actually no.

The training is called “Shoot to Stop”. If you shoot the baddie and he falls down you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped. If you shoot him and he drops his weapon you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped.

Why shooting to wound doesn’t make sense scientifically, legally, or tactically

Force Science re-states its case in light of recent 'no-kill bill' proposal

www.police1.com

Nope, that is definitely not true. Once again, i point to Exhibit A.

Hmmm... IN that video, not a single shot is fired after the cop says "He's down!"

You can't stop winning this argument for me any time you want...

Are you fucking retarded? They must have fired a hundred rounds after the guy dropped, and for minutes AFTER he dropped.

The shooting stopped when the cops shouted he’s down. They moved in cautiously calling warnings about the gun. They then handcuffed the man after dragging him away from the gun.

 

[Godboy]

So the defund the police wants cops to go hand to hand combat now?

sounds reasonable,, it gives them an edge

Uhm we have female cops now they can't use it on a string out person on drugs

maybe,, but we do have cases where two full grown men cant take down a single person,,

and a women would benefit greatly from the training,, it teaches a smaller person how to overpower a larger one,,

I see it as a good thing and another tool in the toolbox of law enforcement,,

Just pull out the gun and shoot to kill

Anyone who "shoots to kill" is improperly trained.

You never "shoot to kill". You shoot in order to stop the behavior which caused you to draw your weapon...

That is absolutely NOT true. Not only are cops trained to kill when they fire their weapon, civilians should only shoot to kill as well. Dont worry about how many bullets you put in your attacker, just as long as he dies. You never try to "wing" someone, like in the movies. Guns are not designed to be non lethal.

Actually no.

The training is called “Shoot to Stop”. If you shoot the baddie and he falls down you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped. If you shoot him and he drops his weapon you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped.

Why shooting to wound doesn’t make sense scientifically, legally, or tactically

Force Science re-states its case in light of recent 'no-kill bill' proposal

www.police1.com

Nope, that is definitely not true. Once again, i point to Exhibit A.

Hmmm... IN that video, not a single shot is fired after the cop says "He's down!"

You can't stop winning this argument for me any time you want...

Are you fucking retarded? They must have fired a hundred rounds after the guy dropped, and for minutes AFTER he dropped.

that doesnt prove you right,, now show us where in their training books they are supposed to shoot to kill or shut up,,

No, i know, i know. They are just trained to shoot center mass multiple times. They arent trying to "kill", they are just trying to make his heart stop beating.

 

[progressive hunter]

So the defund the police wants cops to go hand to hand combat now?

sounds reasonable,, it gives them an edge

Uhm we have female cops now they can't use it on a string out person on drugs

maybe,, but we do have cases where two full grown men cant take down a single person,,

and a women would benefit greatly from the training,, it teaches a smaller person how to overpower a larger one,,

I see it as a good thing and another tool in the toolbox of law enforcement,,

Just pull out the gun and shoot to kill

Anyone who "shoots to kill" is improperly trained.

You never "shoot to kill". You shoot in order to stop the behavior which caused you to draw your weapon...

That is absolutely NOT true. Not only are cops trained to kill when they fire their weapon, civilians should only shoot to kill as well. Dont worry about how many bullets you put in your attacker, just as long as he dies. You never try to "wing" someone, like in the movies. Guns are not designed to be non lethal.

Actually no.

The training is called “Shoot to Stop”. If you shoot the baddie and he falls down you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped. If you shoot him and he drops his weapon you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped.

Why shooting to wound doesn’t make sense scientifically, legally, or tactically

Force Science re-states its case in light of recent 'no-kill bill' proposal

www.police1.com

Nope, that is definitely not true. Once again, i point to Exhibit A.

Hmmm... IN that video, not a single shot is fired after the cop says "He's down!"

You can't stop winning this argument for me any time you want...

Are you fucking retarded? They must have fired a hundred rounds after the guy dropped, and for minutes AFTER he dropped.

that doesnt prove you right,, now show us where in their training books they are supposed to shoot to kill or shut up,,

No, i know, i know. They are just trained to shoot center mass multiple times. They arent trying to "kill", they are just trying to make his heart stop beating.

wrong again,, they are trying to stop the threat,, if the heart stops thats just what happened,,

 

[Wyatt earp]

Some people watch to many movies, cops don't aim for the wrist

 

[progressive hunter]

Some people watch to many movies, cops don't aim for the wrist

who said they did??

 

[Godboy]

Its not a bad idea for the cops to learn hand to hand combat

But I was wrong when I previously suggested that it might prevent cop on suspect killings

Because to be effective the cop has to be in good physical shape

And obviously many are not

Besides many criminals just spent years in jail body building 8 hours a day

The opponent cannot be armed with a knife

otherwise the cop must keep his distance rather than closing and taking the bad guy down

martial arts can be helpful but not in all situations

Size and strength matters in physical confrontations, but not as much as you might think when it comes to grappling. In this instance, technique trumps strength. BJJ was literally designed to allow the smaller guy to win fights.

Many people probably dont know this story, but its an important one in MMA history, so i will tell it.

The UFC was started by Rorion Gracie to showcase Gracie Jiu Jitsu. They had been doing underground fights for years before UFC 1. People from other martial arts schools would go to the Gracie school and challenge them to fights. These fights had no rules and no refs. The Gracie's fucked up EVERYONE. If you had no idea what BJJ was, or what an "armbar" was, you were going to be in a world of hurt.

This is what we saw happen at UFC 1. No one knew how to defend armbars or rear naked chokes, so they dropped like flies to little ole Royce Gracie. Rorion made sure that every fighter at that event outweighed Royce, who only weighed 170 pounds. The truth was, Royce wasnt their best fighter, it was Rickson. Rickson was by FAR the best fighter on earth, but they didnt put him in UFC 1 because Rickson was big and buff. If Rickson came in and beat everyone, people would say "well yeah, hes so big and strong, of course he would win", which means their martial art wouldnt get credit. They wanted to show the Gracie BJJ could teach a skinny guy like Royce to beat the biggest meanest fighters in the world, and he did.

I know all about Gracie

As I said martial arts can be helpful in some situations and the cops should learn to use them

but there are rules even in MMA

Such as no knives for instance

And many cops are sadly out of shape which handicaps them

When you encounter a man with a knife, you shoot him. Grappling is for non compliant people who are unarmed.

what if hes to close to shoot and all you have is your hands??

In that scenario, you better start doing some hand fighting real quick. Knife fights are ugly. You never see them, but they are hard as fuck to combat for the guy without a knife. You are going to get cut, its just a matter of how bad.

Here is a mock knife fight video made about as real as possible.

 

[Canon Shooter]

So the defund the police wants cops to go hand to hand combat now?

sounds reasonable,, it gives them an edge

Uhm we have female cops now they can't use it on a string out person on drugs

maybe,, but we do have cases where two full grown men cant take down a single person,,

and a women would benefit greatly from the training,, it teaches a smaller person how to overpower a larger one,,

I see it as a good thing and another tool in the toolbox of law enforcement,,

Just pull out the gun and shoot to kill

Anyone who "shoots to kill" is improperly trained.

You never "shoot to kill". You shoot in order to stop the behavior which caused you to draw your weapon...

That is absolutely NOT true. Not only are cops trained to kill when they fire their weapon, civilians should only shoot to kill as well. Dont worry about how many bullets you put in your attacker, just as long as he dies. You never try to "wing" someone, like in the movies. Guns are not designed to be non lethal.

Actually no.

The training is called “Shoot to Stop”. If you shoot the baddie and he falls down you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped. If you shoot him and he drops his weapon you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped.

Why shooting to wound doesn’t make sense scientifically, legally, or tactically

Force Science re-states its case in light of recent 'no-kill bill' proposal

www.police1.com

Nope, that is definitely not true. Once again, i point to Exhibit A.

Hmmm... IN that video, not a single shot is fired after the cop says "He's down!"

You can't stop winning this argument for me any time you want...

Are you fucking retarded? They must have fired a hundred rounds after the guy dropped, and for minutes AFTER he dropped.

Um, no.

I'm trying to be nice here. I really am. But your persistent idiocy is making it difficult.

Counting the number of shots fired by the police is difficult for two reasons: One, rapid, successive shots by multiple officers can overlap and be counted as one and, two, the suspect also had a gun and could've been firing. By my best count, I hear 16 shots in total, all fired prior to the one cop yelling "He's down!". There was nowhere near 100 shots fired. If every gun one the scene was emptied it wouldn't have been 100 shots.

Again, you insist that cops are trained to continue firing until a suspect is dead.

I challenge you to provide proof of that.

I suspect you'll fail...

 

[Canon Shooter]

So the defund the police wants cops to go hand to hand combat now?

sounds reasonable,, it gives them an edge

Uhm we have female cops now they can't use it on a string out person on drugs

maybe,, but we do have cases where two full grown men cant take down a single person,,

and a women would benefit greatly from the training,, it teaches a smaller person how to overpower a larger one,,

I see it as a good thing and another tool in the toolbox of law enforcement,,

Just pull out the gun and shoot to kill

Anyone who "shoots to kill" is improperly trained.

You never "shoot to kill". You shoot in order to stop the behavior which caused you to draw your weapon...

That is absolutely NOT true. Not only are cops trained to kill when they fire their weapon, civilians should only shoot to kill as well. Dont worry about how many bullets you put in your attacker, just as long as he dies. You never try to "wing" someone, like in the movies. Guns are not designed to be non lethal.

Actually no.

The training is called “Shoot to Stop”. If you shoot the baddie and he falls down you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped. If you shoot him and he drops his weapon you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped.

Why shooting to wound doesn’t make sense scientifically, legally, or tactically

Force Science re-states its case in light of recent 'no-kill bill' proposal

www.police1.com

Nope, that is definitely not true. Once again, i point to Exhibit A.

Hmmm... IN that video, not a single shot is fired after the cop says "He's down!"

You can't stop winning this argument for me any time you want...

Are you fucking retarded? They must have fired a hundred rounds after the guy dropped, and for minutes AFTER he dropped.

that doesnt prove you right,, now show us where in their training books they are supposed to shoot to kill or shut up,,

No, i know, i know. They are just trained to shoot center mass multiple times. They arent trying to "kill", they are just trying to make his heart stop beating.

Actually, no, they're not. While it's often the result, that's not the intent of deadly force.

So, you admit that they aren't trained to keep shooting until a suspect is dead?

 

[Godboy]

So the defund the police wants cops to go hand to hand combat now?

sounds reasonable,, it gives them an edge

Uhm we have female cops now they can't use it on a string out person on drugs

maybe,, but we do have cases where two full grown men cant take down a single person,,

and a women would benefit greatly from the training,, it teaches a smaller person how to overpower a larger one,,

I see it as a good thing and another tool in the toolbox of law enforcement,,

Just pull out the gun and shoot to kill

Anyone who "shoots to kill" is improperly trained.

You never "shoot to kill". You shoot in order to stop the behavior which caused you to draw your weapon...

That is absolutely NOT true. Not only are cops trained to kill when they fire their weapon, civilians should only shoot to kill as well. Dont worry about how many bullets you put in your attacker, just as long as he dies. You never try to "wing" someone, like in the movies. Guns are not designed to be non lethal.

Actually no.

The training is called “Shoot to Stop”. If you shoot the baddie and he falls down you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped. If you shoot him and he drops his weapon you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped.

Why shooting to wound doesn’t make sense scientifically, legally, or tactically

Force Science re-states its case in light of recent 'no-kill bill' proposal

www.police1.com

Nope, that is definitely not true. Once again, i point to Exhibit A.

Hmmm... IN that video, not a single shot is fired after the cop says "He's down!"

You can't stop winning this argument for me any time you want...

Are you fucking retarded? They must have fired a hundred rounds after the guy dropped, and for minutes AFTER he dropped.

that doesnt prove you right,, now show us where in their training books they are supposed to shoot to kill or shut up,,

No, i know, i know. They are just trained to shoot center mass multiple times. They arent trying to "kill", they are just trying to make his heart stop beating.

Actually, no, they're not. While it's often the result, that's not the intent of deadly force.

So, you admit that they aren't trained to keep shooting until a suspect is dead?

They keep shooting until he stops moving, and sometimes they wont even stop then. Cops have found that when you shoot people center mass a bunch of times, they pretty much always die, and they always aim for center mass so...

 

[progressive hunter]

So the defund the police wants cops to go hand to hand combat now?

sounds reasonable,, it gives them an edge

Uhm we have female cops now they can't use it on a string out person on drugs

maybe,, but we do have cases where two full grown men cant take down a single person,,

and a women would benefit greatly from the training,, it teaches a smaller person how to overpower a larger one,,

I see it as a good thing and another tool in the toolbox of law enforcement,,

Just pull out the gun and shoot to kill

Anyone who "shoots to kill" is improperly trained.

You never "shoot to kill". You shoot in order to stop the behavior which caused you to draw your weapon...

That is absolutely NOT true. Not only are cops trained to kill when they fire their weapon, civilians should only shoot to kill as well. Dont worry about how many bullets you put in your attacker, just as long as he dies. You never try to "wing" someone, like in the movies. Guns are not designed to be non lethal.

Actually no.

The training is called “Shoot to Stop”. If you shoot the baddie and he falls down you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped. If you shoot him and he drops his weapon you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped.

Why shooting to wound doesn’t make sense scientifically, legally, or tactically

Force Science re-states its case in light of recent 'no-kill bill' proposal

www.police1.com

Nope, that is definitely not true. Once again, i point to Exhibit A.

Hmmm... IN that video, not a single shot is fired after the cop says "He's down!"

You can't stop winning this argument for me any time you want...

Are you fucking retarded? They must have fired a hundred rounds after the guy dropped, and for minutes AFTER he dropped.

that doesnt prove you right,, now show us where in their training books they are supposed to shoot to kill or shut up,,

No, i know, i know. They are just trained to shoot center mass multiple times. They arent trying to "kill", they are just trying to make his heart stop beating.

Actually, no, they're not. While it's often the result, that's not the intent of deadly force.

So, you admit that they aren't trained to keep shooting until a suspect is dead?

They keep shooting until he stops moving, and sometimes they wont even stop then. Cops have found that when you shoot people center mass a bunch of times, they pretty much always die, and they always aim for center mass so...

are you going to post the training or SOP's that prove your claim or not??

 

[Canon Shooter]

So the defund the police wants cops to go hand to hand combat now?

sounds reasonable,, it gives them an edge

Uhm we have female cops now they can't use it on a string out person on drugs

maybe,, but we do have cases where two full grown men cant take down a single person,,

and a women would benefit greatly from the training,, it teaches a smaller person how to overpower a larger one,,

I see it as a good thing and another tool in the toolbox of law enforcement,,

Just pull out the gun and shoot to kill

Anyone who "shoots to kill" is improperly trained.

You never "shoot to kill". You shoot in order to stop the behavior which caused you to draw your weapon...

That is absolutely NOT true. Not only are cops trained to kill when they fire their weapon, civilians should only shoot to kill as well. Dont worry about how many bullets you put in your attacker, just as long as he dies. You never try to "wing" someone, like in the movies. Guns are not designed to be non lethal.

Actually no.

The training is called “Shoot to Stop”. If you shoot the baddie and he falls down you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped. If you shoot him and he drops his weapon you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped.

Why shooting to wound doesn’t make sense scientifically, legally, or tactically

Force Science re-states its case in light of recent 'no-kill bill' proposal

www.police1.com

Nope, that is definitely not true. Once again, i point to Exhibit A.

Hmmm... IN that video, not a single shot is fired after the cop says "He's down!"

You can't stop winning this argument for me any time you want...

Are you fucking retarded? They must have fired a hundred rounds after the guy dropped, and for minutes AFTER he dropped.

that doesnt prove you right,, now show us where in their training books they are supposed to shoot to kill or shut up,,

No, i know, i know. They are just trained to shoot center mass multiple times. They arent trying to "kill", they are just trying to make his heart stop beating.

Actually, no, they're not. While it's often the result, that's not the intent of deadly force.

So, you admit that they aren't trained to keep shooting until a suspect is dead?

They keep shooting until he stops moving, and sometimes they wont even stop then. Cops have found that when you shoot people center mass a bunch of times, they pretty much always die, and they always aim for center mass, so...

You said that's what they're trained to do. Now, I'll again challenge you to prove the veracity of that statement and provide actual proof that law enforcement agencies train their officers to do that. Hell, prove that even one does it and that would impress me.

But you want to rely on videos as if they are doctrine.

You're uneducated on the subject. You're just too ignorant to realize it...

 

[Godboy]

So the defund the police wants cops to go hand to hand combat now?

sounds reasonable,, it gives them an edge

Uhm we have female cops now they can't use it on a string out person on drugs

maybe,, but we do have cases where two full grown men cant take down a single person,,

and a women would benefit greatly from the training,, it teaches a smaller person how to overpower a larger one,,

I see it as a good thing and another tool in the toolbox of law enforcement,,

Just pull out the gun and shoot to kill

Anyone who "shoots to kill" is improperly trained.

You never "shoot to kill". You shoot in order to stop the behavior which caused you to draw your weapon...

That is absolutely NOT true. Not only are cops trained to kill when they fire their weapon, civilians should only shoot to kill as well. Dont worry about how many bullets you put in your attacker, just as long as he dies. You never try to "wing" someone, like in the movies. Guns are not designed to be non lethal.

Actually no.

The training is called “Shoot to Stop”. If you shoot the baddie and he falls down you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped. If you shoot him and he drops his weapon you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped.

Why shooting to wound doesn’t make sense scientifically, legally, or tactically

Force Science re-states its case in light of recent 'no-kill bill' proposal

www.police1.com

Nope, that is definitely not true. Once again, i point to Exhibit A.

Hmmm... IN that video, not a single shot is fired after the cop says "He's down!"

You can't stop winning this argument for me any time you want...

Are you fucking retarded? They must have fired a hundred rounds after the guy dropped, and for minutes AFTER he dropped.

that doesnt prove you right,, now show us where in their training books they are supposed to shoot to kill or shut up,,

No, i know, i know. They are just trained to shoot center mass multiple times. They arent trying to "kill", they are just trying to make his heart stop beating.

Actually, no, they're not. While it's often the result, that's not the intent of deadly force.

So, you admit that they aren't trained to keep shooting until a suspect is dead?

They keep shooting until he stops moving, and sometimes they wont even stop then. Cops have found that when you shoot people center mass a bunch of times, they pretty much always die, and they always aim for center mass so...

are you going to post the training or SOP's that prove your claim or not??

I need to show proof that cops shoot for center mass? You want me to show proof that "deadly force" doesnt mean death?

 

[Canon Shooter]

So the defund the police wants cops to go hand to hand combat now?

sounds reasonable,, it gives them an edge

Uhm we have female cops now they can't use it on a string out person on drugs

maybe,, but we do have cases where two full grown men cant take down a single person,,

and a women would benefit greatly from the training,, it teaches a smaller person how to overpower a larger one,,

I see it as a good thing and another tool in the toolbox of law enforcement,,

Just pull out the gun and shoot to kill

Anyone who "shoots to kill" is improperly trained.

You never "shoot to kill". You shoot in order to stop the behavior which caused you to draw your weapon...

That is absolutely NOT true. Not only are cops trained to kill when they fire their weapon, civilians should only shoot to kill as well. Dont worry about how many bullets you put in your attacker, just as long as he dies. You never try to "wing" someone, like in the movies. Guns are not designed to be non lethal.

Actually no.

The training is called “Shoot to Stop”. If you shoot the baddie and he falls down you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped. If you shoot him and he drops his weapon you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped.

Why shooting to wound doesn’t make sense scientifically, legally, or tactically

Force Science re-states its case in light of recent 'no-kill bill' proposal

www.police1.com

Nope, that is definitely not true. Once again, i point to Exhibit A.

Hmmm... IN that video, not a single shot is fired after the cop says "He's down!"

You can't stop winning this argument for me any time you want...

Are you fucking retarded? They must have fired a hundred rounds after the guy dropped, and for minutes AFTER he dropped.

that doesnt prove you right,, now show us where in their training books they are supposed to shoot to kill or shut up,,

No, i know, i know. They are just trained to shoot center mass multiple times. They arent trying to "kill", they are just trying to make his heart stop beating.

Actually, no, they're not. While it's often the result, that's not the intent of deadly force.

So, you admit that they aren't trained to keep shooting until a suspect is dead?

They keep shooting until he stops moving, and sometimes they wont even stop then. Cops have found that when you shoot people center mass a bunch of times, they pretty much always die, and they always aim for center mass so...

are you going to post the training or SOP's that prove your claim or not??

I need to show proof that cops shoot for center mass?

No, dummy.

You claimed that police officers are trained to continue shooting until a suspect is dead.

Provide proof of THAT...

 

[progressive hunter]

So the defund the police wants cops to go hand to hand combat now?

sounds reasonable,, it gives them an edge

Uhm we have female cops now they can't use it on a string out person on drugs

maybe,, but we do have cases where two full grown men cant take down a single person,,

and a women would benefit greatly from the training,, it teaches a smaller person how to overpower a larger one,,

I see it as a good thing and another tool in the toolbox of law enforcement,,

Just pull out the gun and shoot to kill

Anyone who "shoots to kill" is improperly trained.

You never "shoot to kill". You shoot in order to stop the behavior which caused you to draw your weapon...

That is absolutely NOT true. Not only are cops trained to kill when they fire their weapon, civilians should only shoot to kill as well. Dont worry about how many bullets you put in your attacker, just as long as he dies. You never try to "wing" someone, like in the movies. Guns are not designed to be non lethal.

Actually no.

The training is called “Shoot to Stop”. If you shoot the baddie and he falls down you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped. If you shoot him and he drops his weapon you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped.

Why shooting to wound doesn’t make sense scientifically, legally, or tactically

Force Science re-states its case in light of recent 'no-kill bill' proposal

www.police1.com

Nope, that is definitely not true. Once again, i point to Exhibit A.

Hmmm... IN that video, not a single shot is fired after the cop says "He's down!"

You can't stop winning this argument for me any time you want...

Are you fucking retarded? They must have fired a hundred rounds after the guy dropped, and for minutes AFTER he dropped.

that doesnt prove you right,, now show us where in their training books they are supposed to shoot to kill or shut up,,

No, i know, i know. They are just trained to shoot center mass multiple times. They arent trying to "kill", they are just trying to make his heart stop beating.

Actually, no, they're not. While it's often the result, that's not the intent of deadly force.

So, you admit that they aren't trained to keep shooting until a suspect is dead?

They keep shooting until he stops moving, and sometimes they wont even stop then. Cops have found that when you shoot people center mass a bunch of times, they pretty much always die, and they always aim for center mass so...

are you going to post the training or SOP's that prove your claim or not??

I need to show proof that cops shoot for center mass?

no you need to prove they are trained to shoot to kill as you claimed,,,

shouldnt be hard since all LE training manuals are online

 

[Godboy]

So the defund the police wants cops to go hand to hand combat now?

sounds reasonable,, it gives them an edge

Uhm we have female cops now they can't use it on a string out person on drugs

maybe,, but we do have cases where two full grown men cant take down a single person,,

and a women would benefit greatly from the training,, it teaches a smaller person how to overpower a larger one,,

I see it as a good thing and another tool in the toolbox of law enforcement,,

Just pull out the gun and shoot to kill

Anyone who "shoots to kill" is improperly trained.

You never "shoot to kill". You shoot in order to stop the behavior which caused you to draw your weapon...

That is absolutely NOT true. Not only are cops trained to kill when they fire their weapon, civilians should only shoot to kill as well. Dont worry about how many bullets you put in your attacker, just as long as he dies. You never try to "wing" someone, like in the movies. Guns are not designed to be non lethal.

Actually no.

The training is called “Shoot to Stop”. If you shoot the baddie and he falls down you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped. If you shoot him and he drops his weapon you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped.

Why shooting to wound doesn’t make sense scientifically, legally, or tactically

Force Science re-states its case in light of recent 'no-kill bill' proposal

www.police1.com

Nope, that is definitely not true. Once again, i point to Exhibit A.

Hmmm... IN that video, not a single shot is fired after the cop says "He's down!"

You can't stop winning this argument for me any time you want...

Are you fucking retarded? They must have fired a hundred rounds after the guy dropped, and for minutes AFTER he dropped.

that doesnt prove you right,, now show us where in their training books they are supposed to shoot to kill or shut up,,

No, i know, i know. They are just trained to shoot center mass multiple times. They arent trying to "kill", they are just trying to make his heart stop beating.

Actually, no, they're not. While it's often the result, that's not the intent of deadly force.

So, you admit that they aren't trained to keep shooting until a suspect is dead?

They keep shooting until he stops moving, and sometimes they wont even stop then. Cops have found that when you shoot people center mass a bunch of times, they pretty much always die, and they always aim for center mass so...

are you going to post the training or SOP's that prove your claim or not??

I need to show proof that cops shoot for center mass?

No, dummy.

You claimed that police officers are trained to continue shooting until a suspect is dead.

Provide proof of THAT...

No, you said "cops arent trained to shoot to kill", yet we know that they are trained to shoot center mass. We also know that the best way to kill a man is by shooting him at center mass. You want this debate to be about semantics because, your argument is shit. Cops of course arent going to say "we shoot to kill", instead they say "we shoot center mass until the threat is removed", which is another way of saying "we shoot to kill", only they dont get law suits this way. When a cop aims center mass and pulls the trigger, he is shooting to kill. Any dishonest argument otherwise is fucking dumb and not worth my time.

I showed you a video of cops shooting a man who is down and not moving, and not one of them has been charged with a crime, so you can take your weak ass debate technique and kick rocks.

 

[progressive hunter]

So the defund the police wants cops to go hand to hand combat now?

sounds reasonable,, it gives them an edge

Uhm we have female cops now they can't use it on a string out person on drugs

maybe,, but we do have cases where two full grown men cant take down a single person,,

and a women would benefit greatly from the training,, it teaches a smaller person how to overpower a larger one,,

I see it as a good thing and another tool in the toolbox of law enforcement,,

Just pull out the gun and shoot to kill

Anyone who "shoots to kill" is improperly trained.

You never "shoot to kill". You shoot in order to stop the behavior which caused you to draw your weapon...

That is absolutely NOT true. Not only are cops trained to kill when they fire their weapon, civilians should only shoot to kill as well. Dont worry about how many bullets you put in your attacker, just as long as he dies. You never try to "wing" someone, like in the movies. Guns are not designed to be non lethal.

Actually no.

The training is called “Shoot to Stop”. If you shoot the baddie and he falls down you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped. If you shoot him and he drops his weapon you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped.

Why shooting to wound doesn’t make sense scientifically, legally, or tactically

Force Science re-states its case in light of recent 'no-kill bill' proposal

www.police1.com

Nope, that is definitely not true. Once again, i point to Exhibit A.

Hmmm... IN that video, not a single shot is fired after the cop says "He's down!"

You can't stop winning this argument for me any time you want...

Are you fucking retarded? They must have fired a hundred rounds after the guy dropped, and for minutes AFTER he dropped.

that doesnt prove you right,, now show us where in their training books they are supposed to shoot to kill or shut up,,

No, i know, i know. They are just trained to shoot center mass multiple times. They arent trying to "kill", they are just trying to make his heart stop beating.

Actually, no, they're not. While it's often the result, that's not the intent of deadly force.

So, you admit that they aren't trained to keep shooting until a suspect is dead?

They keep shooting until he stops moving, and sometimes they wont even stop then. Cops have found that when you shoot people center mass a bunch of times, they pretty much always die, and they always aim for center mass so...

are you going to post the training or SOP's that prove your claim or not??

I need to show proof that cops shoot for center mass?

No, dummy.

You claimed that police officers are trained to continue shooting until a suspect is dead.

Provide proof of THAT...

No, you said "cops arent trained to shoot to kill", yet we know that they are trained to shoot center mass. We also know that the best way to kill a man is by shooting him at center mass. You want this debate to be about semantics because, your argument is shit. Cops of course arent going to say "we shoot to kill", instead they say "we shoot center mass until the threat is removed", which is another way of saying "we shoot to kill", only they dont get law suits this way. When a cop aims center mass and pulls the trigger, he is shooting to kill. Any dishonest argument otherwise is fucking dumb and not worth my time.

now your just pathetic,,

 

[Wyatt earp]

So the defund the police wants cops to go hand to hand combat now?

sounds reasonable,, it gives them an edge

Uhm we have female cops now they can't use it on a string out person on drugs

maybe,, but we do have cases where two full grown men cant take down a single person,,

and a women would benefit greatly from the training,, it teaches a smaller person how to overpower a larger one,,

I see it as a good thing and another tool in the toolbox of law enforcement,,

Just pull out the gun and shoot to kill

Anyone who "shoots to kill" is improperly trained.

You never "shoot to kill". You shoot in order to stop the behavior which caused you to draw your weapon...

That is absolutely NOT true. Not only are cops trained to kill when they fire their weapon, civilians should only shoot to kill as well. Dont worry about how many bullets you put in your attacker, just as long as he dies. You never try to "wing" someone, like in the movies. Guns are not designed to be non lethal.

Actually no.

The training is called “Shoot to Stop”. If you shoot the baddie and he falls down you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped. If you shoot him and he drops his weapon you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped.

Why shooting to wound doesn’t make sense scientifically, legally, or tactically

Force Science re-states its case in light of recent 'no-kill bill' proposal

www.police1.com

Nope, that is definitely not true. Once again, i point to Exhibit A.

Hmmm... IN that video, not a single shot is fired after the cop says "He's down!"

You can't stop winning this argument for me any time you want...

Are you fucking retarded? They must have fired a hundred rounds after the guy dropped, and for minutes AFTER he dropped.

that doesnt prove you right,, now show us where in their training books they are supposed to shoot to kill or shut up,,

No, i know, i know. They are just trained to shoot center mass multiple times. They arent trying to "kill", they are just trying to make his heart stop beating.

Actually, no, they're not. While it's often the result, that's not the intent of deadly force.

So, you admit that they aren't trained to keep shooting until a suspect is dead?

They keep shooting until he stops moving, and sometimes they wont even stop then. Cops have found that when you shoot people center mass a bunch of times, they pretty much always die, and they always aim for center mass so...

are you going to post the training or SOP's that prove your claim or not??

I need to show proof that cops shoot for center mass?

No, dummy.

You claimed that police officers are trained to continue shooting until a suspect is dead.

Provide proof of THAT...

No, you said "cops arent trained to shoot to kill", yet we know that they are trained to shoot center mass. We also know that the best way to kill a man is by shooting him at center mass. You want this debate to be about semantics because, your argument is shit. Cops of course arent going to say "we shoot to kill", instead they say "we shoot center mass until the threat is removed", which is another way of saying "we shoot to kill", only they dont get law suits this way. When a cop aims center mass and pulls the trigger, he is shooting to kill. Any dishonest argument otherwise is fucking dumb and not worth my time.

now your just pathetic,,

I don't see what you see, please explain

 

[Godboy]

So the defund the police wants cops to go hand to hand combat now?

sounds reasonable,, it gives them an edge

Uhm we have female cops now they can't use it on a string out person on drugs

maybe,, but we do have cases where two full grown men cant take down a single person,,

and a women would benefit greatly from the training,, it teaches a smaller person how to overpower a larger one,,

I see it as a good thing and another tool in the toolbox of law enforcement,,

Just pull out the gun and shoot to kill

Anyone who "shoots to kill" is improperly trained.

You never "shoot to kill". You shoot in order to stop the behavior which caused you to draw your weapon...

That is absolutely NOT true. Not only are cops trained to kill when they fire their weapon, civilians should only shoot to kill as well. Dont worry about how many bullets you put in your attacker, just as long as he dies. You never try to "wing" someone, like in the movies. Guns are not designed to be non lethal.

Actually no.

The training is called “Shoot to Stop”. If you shoot the baddie and he falls down you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped. If you shoot him and he drops his weapon you are supposed to stop shooting. The threat has been stopped.

Why shooting to wound doesn’t make sense scientifically, legally, or tactically

Force Science re-states its case in light of recent 'no-kill bill' proposal

www.police1.com

Nope, that is definitely not true. Once again, i point to Exhibit A.

Hmmm... IN that video, not a single shot is fired after the cop says "He's down!"

You can't stop winning this argument for me any time you want...

Are you fucking retarded? They must have fired a hundred rounds after the guy dropped, and for minutes AFTER he dropped.

that doesnt prove you right,, now show us where in their training books they are supposed to shoot to kill or shut up,,

No, i know, i know. They are just trained to shoot center mass multiple times. They arent trying to "kill", they are just trying to make his heart stop beating.

Actually, no, they're not. While it's often the result, that's not the intent of deadly force.

So, you admit that they aren't trained to keep shooting until a suspect is dead?

They keep shooting until he stops moving, and sometimes they wont even stop then. Cops have found that when you shoot people center mass a bunch of times, they pretty much always die, and they always aim for center mass so...

are you going to post the training or SOP's that prove your claim or not??

I need to show proof that cops shoot for center mass?

No, dummy.

You claimed that police officers are trained to continue shooting until a suspect is dead.

Provide proof of THAT...

No, you said "cops arent trained to shoot to kill", yet we know that they are trained to shoot center mass. We also know that the best way to kill a man is by shooting him at center mass. You want this debate to be about semantics because, your argument is shit. Cops of course arent going to say "we shoot to kill", instead they say "we shoot center mass until the threat is removed", which is another way of saying "we shoot to kill", only they dont get law suits this way. When a cop aims center mass and pulls the trigger, he is shooting to kill. Any dishonest argument otherwise is fucking dumb and not worth my time.

now your just pathetic,,

...and you STILL have no effective argument.