The Minimum Force Bill

[Tech_Esq]

I just completed my concealed pistol license training,

You shoot to stop the threat .

Right, dick shot.

Typically, Center Mass of Target.

But, if that's his dick, that's where you shoot.

 

[syrenn]

I just completed my concealed pistol license training,

You shoot to stop the threat .

Right, dick shot.

Typically, Center Mass of Target.

But, if that's his dick, that's where you shoot.

I think of it as shooting them where its going to hurt the most. Gang members don't really care if they live or die. But I bet they care about their dicks!

 

[Tech_Esq]

Right, dick shot.

Typically, Center Mass of Target.

But, if that's his dick, that's where you shoot.

I think of it as shooting them where its going to hurt the most. Gang members don't really care if they live or die. But I bet they care about their dicks!

Dunno, gangs are crazy. Start doing that and it might be a requirement to show how much of a man you are

 

[The Rabbi]

Right, dick shot.

Typically, Center Mass of Target.

But, if that's his dick, that's where you shoot.

I think of it as shooting them where its going to hurt the most. Gang members don't really care if they live or die. But I bet they care about their dicks!

In panic you focus on the largest target and shoot. The dick is a very small target and not generally visible.
As mentioned, you shoot to stop a threat of death or severe bodily harm to yourself or another. It doesn't matter whether you are a cop or not. That's the common law. That's why this proposed law is utter bunk.

 

[George Costanza]

How about this. For all male suspect don't go for a kill shot heart/head, aim for the dick! Hows that for sharp shooting?

I would consider a dick shot a minimum force shot. Your not trying to kill them just stop them in their tracks.

You don't know DICK!

Oh I think I could beat you in court

Dick shot- "But judge I was aiming for the leg and missed.

That and I bet I know dick better then you do

Whoa! Not gonna go there . . .

 

[George Costanza]

I just completed my concealed pistol license training,

You shoot to stop the threat .

Right, dick shot.

Typically, Center Mass of Target.

But, if that's his dick, that's where you shoot.

All right. I guess it's OK to hit Big Jerry. But for GOD's sake, don't hit either one of The Twins!

 

[The Rabbi]

Just in passing, I would like to see the text of the entire thing. I can see a bill requiring police to shoot to wound in the event they are shooting at an unarmed suspect for some reason. Of course, it is hard to imagine a situation that would justify shooting at an unarmed suspect in the first place, but I suppose it could happen.

But shoot to wound when the suspect is shooting at you? I don't think so.

How do you know who is unarmed? Unless you strip search the person first there is no way to know.
And if the person is not presenting a threat of death or serious bodily injury then why are you shooting at him to begin with?

 

[George Costanza]

The dick is a very small target . . .

Speak for yourself, Mojambo . . .

. . . and not generally visible.

I would certainly hope not. If it is, then we have still another crime being committed by the perp.

 

[CMike]

Rabbi asks great questions.

 

[syrenn]

Typically, Center Mass of Target.

But, if that's his dick, that's where you shoot.

I think of it as shooting them where its going to hurt the most. Gang members don't really care if they live or die. But I bet they care about their dicks!

In panic you focus on the largest target and shoot. The dick is a very small target and not generally visible.
As mentioned, you shoot to stop a threat of death or severe bodily harm to yourself or another. It doesn't matter whether you are a cop or not. That's the common law. That's why this proposed law is utter bunk.

Right, don't shoot to kill. Aim to maim.

 

[George Costanza]

Rabbi asks great questions.

If you are referring to his Post #27, I will concede you are correct.

But ONLY on that one post. Generally, he sucks.

 

[The Rabbi]

I think of it as shooting them where its going to hurt the most. Gang members don't really care if they live or die. But I bet they care about their dicks!

In panic you focus on the largest target and shoot. The dick is a very small target and not generally visible.
As mentioned, you shoot to stop a threat of death or severe bodily harm to yourself or another. It doesn't matter whether you are a cop or not. That's the common law. That's why this proposed law is utter bunk.

Right, don't shoot to kill. Aim to maim.

Intending to maim is a sure ticket to jail. Sorry.

 

[CMike]

You fire to stop the threat.

 

[The Rabbi]

You fire to stop the threat.

"Neutralize" is the preferred term. But yes, and that goes for LEOs as well.

 

[Sheldon]

Yes I do. A cop should be able to kill in self defense. But now they will have to say "Oops. I missed his thigh". After all a shooter with an injured leg may be able to fire a second shot. Duh.

Kudos to Mr. Biden.

I don't think you do (understand what quotation marks mean when used as you have used them here). You originally wrote:

Absolute madness. This seems to me to be a gift to Sharpton and all the scumbag lawyers who will sue every cop that "accidently" kills a suspect in self defense. Has NY gone out of its freakin mind? Where's Rudy when you need him?

By putting quotes around "accidentally," you are saying that police officers, on occasion, intentionally kill people. I don't think you meant to say that.

Quotation marks are generally used for one of two purposes. Either they are used to designate a direct quote from someone or they are used to indicate that the word(s) in quotation marks really don't mean what they appear to mean and, in fact, mean the opposite. Example: A person is posing as a police officer. He really is not a police officer. The author writes: "And so the 'police officer' enters the room and sits down." The quotation marks around "police officer" are put there to indicate that the person is not really a police officer but, rather, a fake or an imposter.

Another example: A restaurant posts a sign which says: "Be sure and try our 'fresh' fish today." Not good. By putting quotes around "fresh," the restaurant is announcing that their fish isn't fresh at all - quite the opposite.

The improper use of quotation marks has come into vogue during the past twenty years or so. The main reason people misuse quotation marks in this manner is an attempt to emphasize the word being placed in quotes, without realizing what they are actually doing.

And so, when you talk about a police officer "accidentally" killing someone in self defense, you are, in effect, winking your eye at the readers and telling them just the opposite - that the killing is not accidental at all.

BTW - kudos to you for giving kudos to Joe Biden. See - even a "liberal idiot" can do something right now and then. (Quotation marks intentional.)

Your post made me think of this picture:

 

[George Costanza]

Yes I do. A cop should be able to kill in self defense. But now they will have to say "Oops. I missed his thigh". After all a shooter with an injured leg may be able to fire a second shot. Duh.

Kudos to Mr. Biden.

I don't think you do (understand what quotation marks mean when used as you have used them here). You originally wrote:

Absolute madness. This seems to me to be a gift to Sharpton and all the scumbag lawyers who will sue every cop that "accidently" kills a suspect in self defense. Has NY gone out of its freakin mind? Where's Rudy when you need him?

By putting quotes around "accidentally," you are saying that police officers, on occasion, intentionally kill people. I don't think you meant to say that.

Quotation marks are generally used for one of two purposes. Either they are used to designate a direct quote from someone or they are used to indicate that the word(s) in quotation marks really don't mean what they appear to mean and, in fact, mean the opposite. Example: A person is posing as a police officer. He really is not a police officer. The author writes: "And so the 'police officer' enters the room and sits down." The quotation marks around "police officer" are put there to indicate that the person is not really a police officer but, rather, a fake or an imposter.

Another example: A restaurant posts a sign which says: "Be sure and try our 'fresh' fish today." Not good. By putting quotes around "fresh," the restaurant is announcing that their fish isn't fresh at all - quite the opposite.

The improper use of quotation marks has come into vogue during the past twenty years or so. The main reason people misuse quotation marks in this manner is an attempt to emphasize the word being placed in quotes, without realizing what they are actually doing.

And so, when you talk about a police officer "accidentally" killing someone in self defense, you are, in effect, winking your eye at the readers and telling them just the opposite - that the killing is not accidental at all.

BTW - kudos to you for giving kudos to Joe Biden. See - even a "liberal idiot" can do something right now and then. (Quotation marks intentional.)

Your post made me think of this picture:

Absolutely! PERFECT example. Thank you.

 

[chanel]

Thank you for that punctuation lesson George, but I used the quotation marks "intentionally" and correctly. I am an English teacher.

Yes. Shooting to kill is an intentional action, and in many police depts. (like NYC) that is policy. They do kill intentionally when being shot at. That is the point of the OP and why the police are opposed.

I'm sure everyone else reading this thread knew exactly what I meant. Cops would have to choose lying over dying.

Kudos for the grammar lesson.

 

[CMike]

They don't shoot to kill, they shoot to stop the threat.

 

[rikules]

City cops are livid over a legislative proposal that could handcuff the brave officers involved in life-and-death confrontations every day -- requiring them to shoot gun-wielding suspects in the arm or leg rather than shoot to kill, The Post has learned.

The "minimum force" bill, which surfaced in the Assembly last week, seeks to amend the state penal codes' "justification" clause that allows an officer the right to kill a thug if he feels his life or someone else's is in imminent danger.

The bill -- drafted in the wake of Sean Bell's controversial police shooting death -- would force officers to use their weapons "with the intent to stop, rather than kill" a suspect. They would be mandated to "shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg."

Read more: City cops oppose bill that would require them to shoot to wound - NYPOST.com

Sean Bell deserved to die.

government agents shoud NEVER USE their weapons on any person or organization that is associated with conservatives or the right wing...

waco and ruby ridge being two prime examples of where the government behaved like jack booted nazis in trying to stop these heavily armed anti-government right wingers from peacefully organizing their plots of violence to wage war on the legitimate government of the U.S., kill their liberals enemies and start a new civil war from which would emerge a greater nation....the Conservative Chistian Confederate States of America! no homos, atheists, feminists, liberals, democrats, wiccans etc allowed.

however
we conservatives realize that police duty can be dangerous
so
if a cop sees a black woman with a cell phone in her hand and think it may be a gun then it is perfectly understandable that they should shoot her dead...

or if a minority is taken into custody and the police, being all stressed out, think that putting a broom stick up his ass might relieve some of the tension and pressure then that is perfectly understandable.

 

[chanel]

"Use of deadly force" is often granted to police forces when the person or persons in question are believed to be an immediate danger to people around them. For example, an armed man in a shopping mall shooting at random without regard to the safety of the people around him, and refusing or being unwilling to negotiate, would likely warrant usage of deadly force, as a means to prevent further danger to the community. In the United States this is governed by Tennessee v. Garner, which said that "deadly force...may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

Deadly force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Civilians may use deadly force. But cops should not. Hmmmm.