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

[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.

You're wrong.

Police are trained to shoot to terminate the threat. In this case, "terminate" does not mean "kill" it means to put an end to the threat. If a suspect is shot and, upon falling to the ground he drops his weapon, the threat is over. The threat has been terminated. There's no reason for the cop to continue shooting the suspect, even if the suspect is still alive

Do you know what the definition for "deadly force" is?

And I never said anything about trying to "wing" anyone. Double tap, center mass. That means you fire two rounds into the largest portion of the body, which is the torso. If the suspect is still standing, you double tap him again. You do that until he's no longer a threat. That may well result in the person's death, but the policeman's goal isn't to kill the suspect, it's to stop the suspect...

This ^ list of nonsense is not taught at any police station in the nation. Where the fuck did you come up with that? Ive seen many videos of cops shooting people who are on the ground, after already being shot.

At 16:20, this cop is about to make a miraculous shot, which drops the guy instantly. Now do a count of how many shots came AFTER he was down from the first devastating shot. They light this motherfucker up for a couple minutes.

you said their job is to shoot to kill,, so back it up, show me where in the law or their job description thats what they are supposed to do,,

When police believe a suspect could harm or kill them, they're usually trained to fire as many gunshots as it takes to bring that suspect down.

Why police shoot so many times to bring down a suspect | CNN

Police shootings are usually high-stress situations where adrenaline takes over an officer's response -- but some factors explain why officers shoot as many times as they do.

www.cnn.com

First, but an article on CNN doesn't take precedent over established law enforcement training.

Now, with that said, that statement is correct. I'll direct your attention to part where it says "bring that suspect down". Nowhere does it say anything about firing until the suspect is dead...

 

[Canon Shooter]

You let me know if you find anything that doesnt say "cops are only supposed to shoot to kill".

That's ignorant. You're asking for proof of something that doesn't exist.

I spent time in military law enforcement. Our deadly force training was exactly the same as what the San Diego Police Department and California Highway Patrol received.

Show me where either is trained to shoot to kill. What doctrine dictates it?

The supreme court ruled that cops can shoot to kill when they fear death or injury from a violent suspect. This isnt a secret.

When did the court do that? What was the case that went before the Court?

 

[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

 

[Mac-7]

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

 

[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.

You're wrong.

Police are trained to shoot to terminate the threat. In this case, "terminate" does not mean "kill" it means to put an end to the threat. If a suspect is shot and, upon falling to the ground he drops his weapon, the threat is over. The threat has been terminated. There's no reason for the cop to continue shooting the suspect, even if the suspect is still alive

Do you know what the definition for "deadly force" is?

And I never said anything about trying to "wing" anyone. Double tap, center mass. That means you fire two rounds into the largest portion of the body, which is the torso. If the suspect is still standing, you double tap him again. You do that until he's no longer a threat. That may well result in the person's death, but the policeman's goal isn't to kill the suspect, it's to stop the suspect...

This ^ list of nonsense is not taught at any police station in the nation. Where the fuck did you come up with that? Ive seen many videos of cops shooting people who are on the ground, after already being shot.

At 16:20, this cop is about to make a miraculous shot, which drops the guy instantly. Now do a count of how many shots came AFTER he was down from the first devastating shot. They light this motherfucker up for a couple minutes.

you said their job is to shoot to kill,, so back it up, show me where in the law or their job description thats what they are supposed to do,,

When police believe a suspect could harm or kill them, they're usually trained to fire as many gunshots as it takes to bring that suspect down.

Why police shoot so many times to bring down a suspect | CNN

Police shootings are usually high-stress situations where adrenaline takes over an officer's response -- but some factors explain why officers shoot as many times as they do.

www.cnn.com

First, but an article on CNN doesn't take precedent over established law enforcement training.

Now, with that said, that statement is correct. I'll direct your attention to part where it says "bring that suspect down". Nowhere does it say anything about firing until the suspect is dead...

You havent proven what is "established law enforcement training". Youre just saying a bunch of horseshit with no proof.

If continued shots arent allowed after a suspect is already down, why havent the cops in the video i just posted gone to jail? I have presented numerous facts to support my claim, while you have presented none.

 

[Godboy]

You let me know if you find anything that doesnt say "cops are only supposed to shoot to kill".

That's ignorant. You're asking for proof of something that doesn't exist.

I spent time in military law enforcement. Our deadly force training was exactly the same as what the San Diego Police Department and California Highway Patrol received.

Show me where either is trained to shoot to kill. What doctrine dictates it?

The supreme court ruled that cops can shoot to kill when they fear death or injury from a violent suspect. This isnt a secret.

When did the court do that? What was the case that went before the Court?

Deadly force - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[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.

 

[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.

You just proved my point. Idiot.

 

[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.

You're wrong.

Police are trained to shoot to terminate the threat. In this case, "terminate" does not mean "kill" it means to put an end to the threat. If a suspect is shot and, upon falling to the ground he drops his weapon, the threat is over. The threat has been terminated. There's no reason for the cop to continue shooting the suspect, even if the suspect is still alive

Do you know what the definition for "deadly force" is?

And I never said anything about trying to "wing" anyone. Double tap, center mass. That means you fire two rounds into the largest portion of the body, which is the torso. If the suspect is still standing, you double tap him again. You do that until he's no longer a threat. That may well result in the person's death, but the policeman's goal isn't to kill the suspect, it's to stop the suspect...

This ^ list of nonsense is not taught at any police station in the nation. Where the fuck did you come up with that? Ive seen many videos of cops shooting people who are on the ground, after already being shot.

At 16:20, this cop is about to make a miraculous shot, which drops the guy instantly. Now do a count of how many shots came AFTER he was down from the first devastating shot. They light this motherfucker up for a couple minutes.

you said their job is to shoot to kill,, so back it up, show me where in the law or their job description thats what they are supposed to do,,

When police believe a suspect could harm or kill them, they're usually trained to fire as many gunshots as it takes to bring that suspect down.

Why police shoot so many times to bring down a suspect | CNN

Police shootings are usually high-stress situations where adrenaline takes over an officer's response -- but some factors explain why officers shoot as many times as they do.

www.cnn.com

not seeing where that says shoot to kill,, in fact it supports what cannon and I have been saying and the opposite of what you said,,

 

[progressive hunter]

You let me know if you find anything that doesnt say "cops are only supposed to shoot to kill".

That's ignorant. You're asking for proof of something that doesn't exist.

I spent time in military law enforcement. Our deadly force training was exactly the same as what the San Diego Police Department and California Highway Patrol received.

Show me where either is trained to shoot to kill. What doctrine dictates it?

The supreme court ruled that cops can shoot to kill when they fear death or injury from a violent suspect. This isnt a secret.

that dpoesnt mean they are supposed to shoot to kill,,

 

[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 is, Royce wasnt their best Gracie 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 that Gracie BJJ could teach a skinny guy like Royce to beat the biggest meanest fighters in the world, and he did.

UFC 1 was simply designed to be an ad for Gracie Jiu Jitsu schools. It worked and now there are over 700 Gracie Barra BJJ schools in the world.

 

[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.

You're wrong.

Police are trained to shoot to terminate the threat. In this case, "terminate" does not mean "kill" it means to put an end to the threat. If a suspect is shot and, upon falling to the ground he drops his weapon, the threat is over. The threat has been terminated. There's no reason for the cop to continue shooting the suspect, even if the suspect is still alive

Do you know what the definition for "deadly force" is?

And I never said anything about trying to "wing" anyone. Double tap, center mass. That means you fire two rounds into the largest portion of the body, which is the torso. If the suspect is still standing, you double tap him again. You do that until he's no longer a threat. That may well result in the person's death, but the policeman's goal isn't to kill the suspect, it's to stop the suspect...

This ^ list of nonsense is not taught at any police station in the nation. Where the fuck did you come up with that? Ive seen many videos of cops shooting people who are on the ground, after already being shot.

At 16:20, this cop is about to make a miraculous shot, which drops the guy instantly. Now do a count of how many shots came AFTER he was down from the first devastating shot. They light this motherfucker up for a couple minutes.

you said their job is to shoot to kill,, so back it up, show me where in the law or their job description thats what they are supposed to do,,

When police believe a suspect could harm or kill them, they're usually trained to fire as many gunshots as it takes to bring that suspect down.

Why police shoot so many times to bring down a suspect | CNN

Police shootings are usually high-stress situations where adrenaline takes over an officer's response -- but some factors explain why officers shoot as many times as they do.

www.cnn.com

First, but an article on CNN doesn't take precedent over established law enforcement training.

Now, with that said, that statement is correct. I'll direct your attention to part where it says "bring that suspect down". Nowhere does it say anything about firing until the suspect is dead...

You havent proven what is "established law enforcement training". Youre just saying a bunch of horseshit with no proof.

If continued shots arent allowed after a suspect is already down, why havent the cops in the video i just posted gone to jail? I have presented numerous facts to support my claim, while you have presented none.

You say cops are trained to keep shooting until the suspect is dead. Fine.

Back that up. Show me LEO training manuals which promote that.

Don't back it up with videos, though. That makes you look really stupid.

This is from the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School:


Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (e.g. sabotage of an occupied facility by explosives).

(3) Nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive device.

(4) Special nuclear material. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of special nuclear material from an area of a fixed site or from a shipment where Category II or greater quantities are known or reasonably believed to be present.

(5) Apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to apprehend or prevent the escape of a person reasonably believed to: (i) have committed an offense of the nature specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 1 of this section; or (ii) be escaping by use of a weapon or explosive or who otherwise indicates that he or she poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the protective force officer or others unless apprehended without delay.


1 These offenses are considered by the Department of Energy to pose a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm.

(b) Additional Considerations Involving Firearms. If it becomes necessary to use a firearm, the following precautions shall be observed:


(1) A warning, e.g. an order to halt, shall be given, if feasible, before a shot is fired.


(2) Warning shots shall not be fired.

Now, nowhere in any of that piece on the employment of deadly force does it say anything about continuing to fire until the suspect is dead. You will find that nowhere in any official training materials for any law enforcement organization anywhere in the United States.

You think you're proving your case with You Tube videos and you're not. Hell, I can find videos of people driving into brick walls, but that doesn't mean that's how you're supposed to stop a car...

 

[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.

You're wrong.

Police are trained to shoot to terminate the threat. In this case, "terminate" does not mean "kill" it means to put an end to the threat. If a suspect is shot and, upon falling to the ground he drops his weapon, the threat is over. The threat has been terminated. There's no reason for the cop to continue shooting the suspect, even if the suspect is still alive

Do you know what the definition for "deadly force" is?

And I never said anything about trying to "wing" anyone. Double tap, center mass. That means you fire two rounds into the largest portion of the body, which is the torso. If the suspect is still standing, you double tap him again. You do that until he's no longer a threat. That may well result in the person's death, but the policeman's goal isn't to kill the suspect, it's to stop the suspect...

This ^ list of nonsense is not taught at any police station in the nation. Where the fuck did you come up with that? Ive seen many videos of cops shooting people who are on the ground, after already being shot.

At 16:20, this cop is about to make a miraculous shot, which drops the guy instantly. Now do a count of how many shots came AFTER he was down from the first devastating shot. They light this motherfucker up for a couple minutes.

you said their job is to shoot to kill,, so back it up, show me where in the law or their job description thats what they are supposed to do,,

When police believe a suspect could harm or kill them, they're usually trained to fire as many gunshots as it takes to bring that suspect down.

Why police shoot so many times to bring down a suspect | CNN

Police shootings are usually high-stress situations where adrenaline takes over an officer's response -- but some factors explain why officers shoot as many times as they do.

www.cnn.com

not seeing where that says shoot to kill,, in fact it supports what cannon and I have been saying and the opposite of what you said,,

At some point it is time for you to admit that you are wrong. Cops shoot to kill all the time and they dont go to jail. Shut up now, you bore me.

 

[Canon Shooter]

You let me know if you find anything that doesnt say "cops are only supposed to shoot to kill".

That's ignorant. You're asking for proof of something that doesn't exist.

I spent time in military law enforcement. Our deadly force training was exactly the same as what the San Diego Police Department and California Highway Patrol received.

Show me where either is trained to shoot to kill. What doctrine dictates it?

The supreme court ruled that cops can shoot to kill when they fear death or injury from a violent suspect. This isnt a secret.

When did the court do that? What was the case that went before the Court?

Deadly force - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That link hurts your argument and supports mine.

Sure that's what you meant to do?

 

[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.

You're wrong.

Police are trained to shoot to terminate the threat. In this case, "terminate" does not mean "kill" it means to put an end to the threat. If a suspect is shot and, upon falling to the ground he drops his weapon, the threat is over. The threat has been terminated. There's no reason for the cop to continue shooting the suspect, even if the suspect is still alive

Do you know what the definition for "deadly force" is?

And I never said anything about trying to "wing" anyone. Double tap, center mass. That means you fire two rounds into the largest portion of the body, which is the torso. If the suspect is still standing, you double tap him again. You do that until he's no longer a threat. That may well result in the person's death, but the policeman's goal isn't to kill the suspect, it's to stop the suspect...

This ^ list of nonsense is not taught at any police station in the nation. Where the fuck did you come up with that? Ive seen many videos of cops shooting people who are on the ground, after already being shot.

At 16:20, this cop is about to make a miraculous shot, which drops the guy instantly. Now do a count of how many shots came AFTER he was down from the first devastating shot. They light this motherfucker up for a couple minutes.

you said their job is to shoot to kill,, so back it up, show me where in the law or their job description thats what they are supposed to do,,

When police believe a suspect could harm or kill them, they're usually trained to fire as many gunshots as it takes to bring that suspect down.

Why police shoot so many times to bring down a suspect | CNN

Police shootings are usually high-stress situations where adrenaline takes over an officer's response -- but some factors explain why officers shoot as many times as they do.

www.cnn.com

not seeing where that says shoot to kill,, in fact it supports what cannon and I have been saying and the opposite of what you said,,

At some point it is time for you to admit that you are wrong. Cops shoot to kill all the time and they dont go to jail. Shut up now, you bore me.

you said it was their job to shoot to kill,, so show us the SOP that supports that,,

 

[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...

 

[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.

You're wrong.

Police are trained to shoot to terminate the threat. In this case, "terminate" does not mean "kill" it means to put an end to the threat. If a suspect is shot and, upon falling to the ground he drops his weapon, the threat is over. The threat has been terminated. There's no reason for the cop to continue shooting the suspect, even if the suspect is still alive

Do you know what the definition for "deadly force" is?

And I never said anything about trying to "wing" anyone. Double tap, center mass. That means you fire two rounds into the largest portion of the body, which is the torso. If the suspect is still standing, you double tap him again. You do that until he's no longer a threat. That may well result in the person's death, but the policeman's goal isn't to kill the suspect, it's to stop the suspect...

This ^ list of nonsense is not taught at any police station in the nation. Where the fuck did you come up with that? Ive seen many videos of cops shooting people who are on the ground, after already being shot.

At 16:20, this cop is about to make a miraculous shot, which drops the guy instantly. Now do a count of how many shots came AFTER he was down from the first devastating shot. They light this motherfucker up for a couple minutes.

you said their job is to shoot to kill,, so back it up, show me where in the law or their job description thats what they are supposed to do,,

When police believe a suspect could harm or kill them, they're usually trained to fire as many gunshots as it takes to bring that suspect down.

Why police shoot so many times to bring down a suspect | CNN

Police shootings are usually high-stress situations where adrenaline takes over an officer's response -- but some factors explain why officers shoot as many times as they do.

www.cnn.com

not seeing where that says shoot to kill,, in fact it supports what cannon and I have been saying and the opposite of what you said,,

At some point it is time for you to admit that you are wrong. Cops shoot to kill all the time and they dont go to jail. Shut up now, you bore me.

All you're being asked for is to cite some training materials which state that they're trained to do that. You, instead, post You Tube videos.

Now, please note: I'm not saying that cops don't do it. I'm saying they're not trained to.

I challenge you to prove me wrong...

 

[Mac-7]

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

 

[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.

 

[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,,