Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Police & Lethal Force
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
nezumi
This is a debate I'm having with my roomies after seeing X-Men 2... When a police officer fires a weapon (uses lethal force), is he supposed to shoot to maim or shoot to kill? IIRC, a police officer is only trained to use lethal force when someone's life is in immediate danger, and then he's supposed to shoot to kill (otherwise, why shoot at all?) Also, are there special rules on when he can draw his weapon?

So I open the debate up to the Dumpshockers, both because if I'm wrong and cops shoot to wound, that means that in my games LS and KE will do the same, and because everyone knows how smart a group you all are.
Tanka
IIRC, LS and KE can not use lethal force. They have to say "Halt!" or something along those lines a few times. If you don't, they can use Stun Rounds/Baton, and if you fire back, then they can use Physical damaging bits.

Some security forces, however, have the right to use lethal force. They can shoot then say "Halt!"
Austere Emancipator
I'm with you on this Nezumi. If they shoot, they shoot to kill.

Sure they generally have to go through the whole Order-Grab-Hold-Hit-PepperSpray-Dog-sequence before they are allowed to fire by law (at least in Finland), and even then they have to fire 2 warning shots first, but if someone aims a gun at them and is clearly going to fire, they will shoot to kill.

If you aim at the guy's arm, you might miss or he might simply be in a good enough condition to return fire. I doubt most police would take that chance. There'd have to be a very special reason for that.

Just IMNSHO, I have no idea how the police use of force works in the US.
Pthgar
How is a warning shot better than a miss? Isn't there a chance the rounds will hit something else?
Tanka
There is, which is why security rarely fires warning shots. The possibility for a lawsuit is too great.
Austere Emancipator
I knew I was being too ambiguous. frown.gif What I meant was that if the target is not a threat to anything at the moment, and the police officers only concern is to move him/her somewhere (off a premise, into jail, whatever), THEN the police will have to go through that whole sequence, and cannot shoot the person until he/she is sure nothing else will work.

If someone is a real threat to the life of the police officer or that of someone else, and it's obvious no other use of force will help (ie person A is aiming a gun at person B, both of which are 10+ meters away from the police, so there's no way the cop can tackle the gunman, etc), the police will shoot, and will shoot to kill.

Obviously when there are loads of civvies around, it's not very likely that there will be warning shots. My MP training didn't really take that into consideration, because we only had the right to use any kind of force inside the military area, where it would be extremely unlikely that a pistol shot would hit anything important.
Connor
In regards to LS an KE, you could also base an assumption off of the security rating of the area. In a A-AAA rated zone most beat cops probably just carry stun rounds and tasers/pepper spray, but once you get below that they probably pack live rounds and when they're forced to shoot, they probably shoot to kill. If for no other reason than to keep the suspect from being able to harm the officers.

Of course, all law enforcement officers are probably going to do all they can to avoid using lethal force if they can help it.
BitBasher
After asking some fellow employees... officers never, EVER shoot to do anything but kill. If they draw a firearm, by the time the firearm is in use they intend to use it to kill someone. Period. A firearm is a lethal weapon, it serves absolutely no other purpose.

<--- Works for the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.
nezumi
Tanka, I don't see where you're coming up with LS and KE not being able to use lethal force at all. After all, the thunderbolt is their standard issue weapon, and I've never seen anything saying specifically they can't. I'd probably agree with Connor, though... If you kill some bigwig's kid, even if he has a gun pointed at you at the time, expect trouble. However, in C and below areas, what's a slag gonna do if you blow away his brother? Not sure how keen they should be to use said lethal force against bums, though... Hm.

Thanks for the answer, BitBasher. Although I did get the response 'oh, that's in Vegas. What about in like Wisconsin? I'll bet they don't do that there...' *sigh* some fights you can never win.
Crimsondude 2.0
Police don't draw their weapons unless there is an imminent threat to their life or the life of someone else, and then they are ONLY to use lethal force. It doesn't matter if it's in Vegas, L.A., or the backwoods of Alabama, or Wisconsin. Police do not shoot to wound because they shouldn't have even drawn their weapons unless it was a matter of life and death. Moreover, there is a serious risk to life if they only wound because they have failed to neutralize an imminent threat. As far as I'm concerned "shoot to wound" is not only a myth, but just stupid, and no police dept. I know of would subscribe to it.
Req
Damn straight. Everything I've ever heard says the only kind of shot you take in a combat situation is a center-mass shot with the most probability of hitting. The idea of shooting out someone's legs or whatever just seems laughable.

If you're trying not to kill someone, don't use a firearm. That's not what they're for.
Maxwell Silverhammer
As both active duty Military police, and as a state law enforcement officer, I can tell you with certainty, that there is no such thing in real world law enforcement as "shoot to wound, maim, or disable." When an officer draws their sidearm it is to "stop the subjects action" If the officer shoots, I.E. uses "Deadly Force" the intention is not to kill, nor to wound the subject, it is to stop the subjects action. The distinction is important.

All law enforcement agencies will have a system of escalation, dependent upon the "subjects action". All law enforcement will follow some form of the "totality Triangle", and "Reasonable Objectiveness" These were established by the US Supreme Court in Graham vs. Connor 490 U.S. 386, 104L.Ed2d 443, 109 S. CT. 1865 (1989

Do a web search on these to find out more about how Law Enforcement handles their basic Use Of Force (UOF) Model. Now you know, and knowing is half the battle. rotate.gif
Abstruse
In Shadowrun, things work a bit differently though. The response an officer can make depends on several things. First, the contract with the city. Usually, it will stipulate under what circumstances lethal force is warranted. Second, company policy. It's bad press to blow away a kid or to fire on a celebrity, so company policy will dictactstuff like this. Third, and most importantly probably, it matters whose story is going to be believed in the end. The KE/LS cop files his report saying the perp drew a weapon and pointed it at the cop, so he drew and fired. Is there anyone to say that the guy was laying on the ground submissive but just so happened to have a history of cop killing on his rap sheet? Nope. Is anyone on the force going to investigate much deeper than that? Doubt it.

And remember, in almost every case in Shadowrun, these are not government agencies. These are CORPORATIONS. The Lone Star sourcebook repeatedly tried to pound this point home. CORPORATIONS don't care about civil duty and drek like that. They care about the bottom line in dollars and cents. Also remember that KE and LS are both have extraterritoriality, therefore their employees answer only to corporate law (and their contract with the city) and corporate law can change at a moment's notice to save a good employee's ass.

The Abstruse One
Grey
Police in America are trained to shoot to kill.

However, my father-in-law did some police work in Germany and they are trained to shoot to maim.
Req
Please define that - "trained to shoot to maim" means shoot someone where, exactly?
Kurukami
Or, at the least, some measure of perceived threat. In San Jose, California, there's recently been much uproar over the shooting of a 4'11" Vietnamese housewife, age 25.

Basically, the woman (Cau Thi Tran) had been trying to open a locked door in her house with a vegetable cleaver/peeler. She had been quite upset about it, and apparently had been screaming in anger (there are questions regarding whether or not she was currently taking her prescribed medications) loud enough for a passerby to become concerned and call the police. The police showed up, came into the house, and (when she shook the kitchen tool angrily from some distance away, apparently making them think she was going to throw it at them) shot her dead without further ado. No words of "halt", "drop the knife", or that sort of thing, from what I remember.

Many in the local Vietnamese community are still outraged, but the officers involved in the incident were cleared.

News link here.
Siege
Prison guards are also required to "shoot to maim", but insofar as I know, that's the only formal instance.

As for the poor angry Vietnamese woman, don't brandish a cleaver at cops. It makes them nervous. That's a life lesson to be sure.

-Siege
Grey
QUOTE (Req)
Please define that - "trained to shoot to maim" means shoot someone where, exactly?

Shoot them in the leg, arm, shoulder, etc.

Shots that will stop them from being able to do more harm, but not kill them outright.
Chodav
Some thoughts about law enforcement in this day and age (in part already expressed by two other LEO's):

1) No cop shoots to kill in the US. They shoot to STOP the subject.

2) Shooting a subject is not a form of killing them. It is a form of arresting them.

3) Warning shots are not allowed (due to the liability - what goes up must come down).

4) Drawing a gun is not using lethal force or even threatening it. It is a safety measure employed by cops in uncertain situations - the first rule of gunfighting is that you cannot outdraw a gun that has already been drawn. Ergo, cops try to get theirs out first.

5) A shooting is justifiable if a reasonable person would have used deadly force in the same circumstance, and if said circumstance meets the legal threshold for deadly force in the first place:

a) Officer's life in danger. (Note that this is pretty flexible - if you attack an officer in a way that might incapacitate him, he can shoot you on the assumption that you'll take his gun and kill him once he's incapacitated. Remember, EVERY conflict a cop participates in is an armed conflict. The cop brings a gun (or two) to every party.)

b) Fellow officer's life in danger. (This includes police canines, by the way. I remember a night when three cops shot a guy for beating on a police canine with a pipe. Dumbasses killed the dog, too, but that's beside the point.)

c) Citizen's life in danger.

d) When deadly force is the only means to stop a violent felony in progress. (i.e. SRT snipers and hostage situations, though 'c' usually applies in those as well.)

e) To prevent the flight of a violent criminal who represents a clear and immediate threat to the community if he is not apprehended, and other forms of apprehension have failed or will fail. (Note that cops can no longer shoot burglars running from them because the cops are out of shape. However, this is the reason many fleeing cop-killers get shot. There's little argument that someone who killed a cop is a clear and immediate threat to the community. Same goes for fleeing armed robbers.)

f) To apprehend (cute, huh?) escaped / escaping inmates. (Not jail prisoners awaiting trial, but escaped / escaping prison inmates who have been convicted of a felony.) Sorry, Siege, but I have never heard of prison guards having to shoot to maim. All the ones I've talked to / worked with were quite blunt about the shoot to kill thing. Most of them didn't even say shoot to stop, in fact. There's a reason why inmates picking up litter on the side of the road don't run off into the bushes. It's not Bubba in the truck following them who fires his sidearm once a year. It's every other cop that will be hunting them, and that is one of the VERY few circumstances where the cops don't have to frag around with warnings and non-lethal attempts to apprehend. (Depending on what the inmate was convicted of - murderers get a lot less slack than check-kiters.)

TWO CAVEATS -

I worked in the South.

This is 2003, not 2063. (But 2003 is usually a good starting point for SR - all you have to do is decide how things will change from where they are now.)
Crimsondude 2.0
QUOTE (Kurukami)
Or, at the least, some measure of perceived threat. In San Jose, California, there's recently been much uproar over the shooting of a 4'11" Vietnamese housewife, age 25.

Basically, the woman (Cau Thi Tran) had been trying to open a locked door in her house with a vegetable cleaver/peeler. She had been quite upset about it, and apparently had been screaming in anger (there are questions regarding whether or not she was currently taking her prescribed medications) loud enough for a passerby to become concerned and call the police. The police showed up, came into the house, and (when she shook the kitchen tool angrily from some distance away, apparently making them think she was going to throw it at them) shot her dead without further ado. No words of "halt", "drop the knife", or that sort of thing, from what I remember.

Many in the local Vietnamese community are still outraged, but the officers involved in the incident were cleared.

News link here.

I can understand. 10-15 ft is AFAIK well within the range of imminent threat when someone is holding a knife.

Of course, the cops here just shot a teenager who was beating someone with a bat in the parking lot of the police academy. Apparently, two cops shot and killed him when they thought he was going to hit the man again.

Not that I'm justifying either. I'm probably one of the last people who will ever say a positive thing about police in general. Just making an observation.
Chodav
QUOTE (Crimsondude 2.0)
I can understand. 10-15 ft is AFAIK well within the range of imminent threat when someone is holding a knife.

Of course, the cops here just shot a teenager who was beating someone with a bat in the parking lot of the police academy. Apparently, two cops shot and killed him when they thought he was going to hit the man again.

The standard for edged weapons is 21 feet - less and the average person can run up and cut you before you can draw and fire an aimed shot.

They shot him while he was beating / threatening to beat a guy with a baseball bat?! What part of that sounds even remotely non-justifiable? I'd have capped him, too.
Grey
QUOTE (Chodav)
They shot him while he was beating / threatening to beat a guy with a baseball bat?! What part of that sounds even remotely non-justifiable? I'd have capped him, too.

The part were the killed him for it. A shot to the leg or shoulder would have done a fine job of stoping him, I'm sure.
Chodav
QUOTE (Grey)
The part were the killed him for it. A shot to the leg or shoulder would have done a fine job of stoping him, I'm sure.

No disrespect intended, sir, but please read the whole thread. That option was not legally available to them. Additionally, please go shoot a pistol at the range for a few hours and tell me how easy it is to hit a stationary paper target in the shoulder consistently . . . then add in a moving target, poor illumination, adrenalin, screams of fear and pain, etc.

There is exactly one place a cop can aim to maximize his chances of STOPPING the bad guy - CENTER MASS. That's the liver, generally, which coincidentally has the most blood of any organ in the body including the heart and brain. Ever see someone bleed out through the liver? It doesn't take long . . .

If you haven't been there, I have two polite pieces of advice - 1) Don't go. It sucks. Play SR instead. 2) Don't talk about it in a way that makes it sound easy. It isn't.
CanvasBack
For my nuyen, things get worse not better in the SR universe so there's going to be more corp cops getting away with high handed tactics that are clearly over the line today and for the incidents that are kinda in between now are probably just matters of course in 2063.

As for police tactics now... Some cops like to make the distinction in their own minds that shooting someone, even center mass, might not kill a suspect but will most definitely stop them. I have to say that is a tough sell to the general public of today's world but if cops sleep better at night and that lets them do their job better for believing it, well I guess that has to be tolerated to some degree. But any reasonable person should realize that death is on the table anytime a person gets shot, be it in the chest, leg, arm or even earlobe...
Chodav
QUOTE (CanvasBack)
Some cops like to make the distinction in their own minds that shooting someone, even center mass . . .

But any reasonable person should realize that death is on the table anytime a person gets shot, be it in the chest, leg, arm or even earlobe...

On the first point, shooting to stop is something cops are taught to say to keep the lawyers off their case. There's no way to rationalize it so you sleep better. Shootings are not as clean-cut as they are on TV. If a cop shoots a drunk guy in front of his kids because said drunk guy was beating said kids' mom with a fireplace poker, nothing will help the cop sleep better if he has a shred of humanity left, and if he doesn't, he needs to go work for LS in 2063.

On the second point, I wholeheartedly agree! Don't point guns at people unless you are prepared to be responsible for their death. How many gun owners have been confronted by a bad guy, not had the nerve to shoot, and basically given the bad guy a gun? Too many. That's something everyone should think about before they walk into a gunstore to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.

That, and how they'll keep their new toys out of Junior's hands, so he doesn't kill his sister . . .
Siege
QUOTE (Grey)
QUOTE (Chodav @ Dec 3 2003, 12:10 PM)
They shot him while he was beating / threatening to beat a guy with a baseball bat?!  What part of that sounds even remotely non-justifiable?  I'd have capped him, too.

The part were the killed him for it. A shot to the leg or shoulder would have done a fine job of stoping him, I'm sure.

Have you ever fired a handgun before?

-Siege
Siege
QUOTE (Chodav)
QUOTE (Grey @ Dec 3 2003, 03:15 PM)
The part were the killed him for it.  A shot to the leg or shoulder would have done a fine job of stoping him, I'm sure.

No disrespect intended, sir, but please read the whole thread. That option was not legally available to them. Additionally, please go shoot a pistol at the range for a few hours and tell me how easy it is to hit a stationary paper target in the shoulder consistently . . . then add in a moving target, poor illumination, adrenalin, screams of fear and pain, etc.

There is exactly one place a cop can aim to maximize his chances of STOPPING the bad guy - CENTER MASS. That's the liver, generally, which coincidentally has the most blood of any organ in the body including the heart and brain. Ever see someone bleed out through the liver? It doesn't take long . . .

If you haven't been there, I have two polite pieces of advice - 1) Don't go. It sucks. Play SR instead. 2) Don't talk about it in a way that makes it sound easy. It isn't.

Damnit, Cho beat me to it.

-Siege
Grey
Yes, and I know it would be damn hard, but I also can't help but ask why they had to shot him in the first place? What about a tazer or some other type of riot control weapon? Don't they make ruber bullets for guns? I just don't like that the first option is to shot him lethally.
Chodav
Actually, that brings up a point where I disagree with New Seattle. Give a cop three different magazines with three different kinds of bullets, and you end up with a confused cop.

Rubber bullets exist, but generally don't work well. And if YOUR life was on the line, would you want rubber bullets in your firearm?

Again, if YOUR life was on the line, would you want to run up to a guy with a baseball bat and try to subdue him with a baton?

Tasers are illegal in many places for cops as well as civilians. Florida, for example.

We're discussing this with incomplete information, to be honest. Maybe they pepper-sprayed him first and it didn't work. Maybe he was flying on meth and ripped the door off a car before beating the guy. Maybe the baseball bat had fifty nails sticking out of it. We don't know all the circumstances. On it's face, however, as described it was highly justifiable.

(My best friend's 14-year-old ex-stepdaughter ripped a car door off under the influence of meth recently.)
Kagetenshi
QUOTE (Grey)
Yes, and I know it would be damn hard, but I also can't help but ask why they had to shot him in the first place? What about a tazer or some other type of riot control weapon? Don't they make ruber bullets for guns? I just don't like that the first option is to shot him lethally.

Hopefully they didn't like it either. Nonetheless, it was and probably will be for the foreseeable future both the first and best option.

~J
Siege
14-year old? Wow.

Anyway, let's hit these in order:

Special rounds -- in a stressful situation, KISS. Otherwise, your rank-and-file cop is, as Cho pointed out, going to get confused without a huge amount of training. I seem to recall rubber bullets or "gel" rounds for shotguns, but I don't know if they ever developed a working model for handguns. Include performance issues as well as budget concerns and this becomes less feasible.

Tasers: hand-held or ranged dart? Engaging a target in melee is simply dangerous -- risking the life of the officer and any subsequent injuries if the officer fails to subdue or contain the suspect. I will also point out that most departments don't spend as much as they should (IMHO) on hand-to-hand combat for their officers. That's a rant for later. Not to mention that even with a highly skilled combatant, there is an unpredictable element that could result in the officer being injured. Which means that entering into melee with a suspect is always kept as a last resort.

Cho pointed out that the laws concerning these weapons vary from State to State and even County to County, not to mention that budget concerns may very well prohibit issuing these weapons as standard gear. These concerns affect both the hand-held taser units and the ranged darts.

Pepper spray, if done in an aerosol vector (meaning a spray), can be just as dangerous to the officers and bystanders. And there isn't a guarantee of it incapacitating the suspect. Gotta hate those pesky breezes -- not to mention if it's still hanging in the air when the officers move to cuff the suspect, they may still get a face full of the spray.

I think the whole "aiming at a limb" issue has been suitably addressed.

-Siege
Req
QUOTE (Chodav)
On the second point, I wholeheartedly agree! Don't point guns at people unless you are prepared to be responsible for their death. How many gun owners have been confronted by a bad guy, not had the nerve to shoot, and basically given the bad guy a gun? Too many. That's something everyone should think about before they walk into a gunstore to exercise their 2nd Amendment right.

...and that's exactly why I don't own a gun. Fear or not, I just don't know if I could shoot someone, because in my mind it's likely to be the same as killing them.
nezumi
QUOTE (CanvasBack)
For my nuyen, things get worse not better in the SR universe so there's going to be more corp cops getting away with high handed tactics that are clearly over the line today and for the incidents that are kinda in between now are probably just matters of course in 2063.

Things got worse for US, the average Joes. Things got a whole lot better for the corps. I still imagine cops would tread lightly when dealing with a rich boy, but with slags of middle class or below...

I have to wonder, why did they make it illegal for cops to have tasers, but legal for them to carry firearms? I can understand it being illegal for normal citizens, but what will a taser do that a .44 won't? (I can also understand not having the cash for tasers, but that's life I guess : ( )
Siege
QUOTE (nezumi)
QUOTE (CanvasBack @ Dec 3 2003, 03:30 PM)
For my nuyen, things get worse not better in the SR universe so there's going to be more corp cops getting away with high handed tactics that are clearly over the line today and for the incidents that are kinda in between now are probably just matters of course in 2063.

Things got worse for US, the average Joes. Things got a whole lot better for the corps. I still imagine cops would tread lightly when dealing with a rich boy, but with slags of middle class or below...

I have to wonder, why did they make it illegal for cops to have tasers, but legal for them to carry firearms? I can understand it being illegal for normal citizens, but what will a taser do that a .44 won't? (I can also understand not having the cash for tasers, but that's life I guess : ( )

A .44 is actually a dangerous caliber -- that's a big fragging gun and is way too powerful for the average person.

I've been on the range when someone was using a .44 and my _eyeballs_ pulsed every time he fired a shot.

The guy was twice my size and he still had to use the gun in both hands.

If trolls and orks were actually lumbering around today, the maximum caliber would probably still be a .45, but shotguns or assault rifles would become commonplace in squad cars.

-Siege
Req
I've fired a .44 Mag revolver only once (well, one box of ammo) and my whole arm hurt afterwards. Not much of a fun experience. Honestly outside of big-game handgun hunting it just seems like a waste, at least in today's world. I guess charging orks count as big game though.
Shanshu Freeman
QUOTE (Austere Emancipator)
I'm with you on this Nezumi. If they shoot, they shoot to kill.

Sure they generally have to go through the whole Order-Grab-Hold-Hit-PepperSpray-Dog-sequence before they are allowed to fire by law (at least in Finland), and even then they have to fire 2 warning shots first, but if someone aims a gun at them and is clearly going to fire, they will shoot to kill.

If you aim at the guy's arm, you might miss or he might simply be in a good enough condition to return fire. I doubt most police would take that chance. There'd have to be a very special reason for that.

Just IMNSHO, I have no idea how the police use of force works in the US.

WARNING SHOTS!?!? eek.gif That's insane!
BumsofTacoma
QUOTE (Req)

...and that's exactly why I don't own a gun. Fear or not, I just don't know if I could shoot someone, because in my mind it's likely to be the same as killing them.

Exactly how I feal. Although I own two guns. A 45. and a shotgun. I keep them far away. My uncle gave them to me, and I left them at his home for "safe keeping"

I have a horrible temper. Although it takes a lot to set that temper in motion.
If I had those guns. I would have killed someone by now. No doubt in my mind.

anyway off subject.

Another thing you have to factor in is this. Yes cops in Vegas are trained that way, as are they in many other states. But that is in real life so it doesn't neccesarely translate to SR.

The increase in the danger of being a cop is veary high. Unless there happens to be a magical LS or KE in that squad car, they do not know things like

If the target is magical, can he cast a spell and fry us in our boots? Can he run like the wind and use killing hands to de-brain us?is he wired to the max and just crazy enough to kill us instead of doing the smart thing and running?

So here is the thing. LS is not going to know what kind of threat they are truly up against half the time. Right? So wouldn't you think that half the time they would be a little more eager to unclasp the holster and just maybe get ready to quick draw? and do you think that if they even get a shot off at a sam the are not going to try and put as much lead in his center mass as possible?

Now if they are going up against a small time thief who just robbed a little old lady they would yell HALT, Stop, dont make me run you little bastard, etc.

If they get a call about fullauto fire, the pack the heat, they aim to kill.

Bah, so Really what I mean is it depends on the situation. The time the place the persons involved, and the specific cop himself. Some cops are a little more likely to shoot, some wont. some will shoot to kill some wont. If they dont want you dead they slap in some gel rounds.

PLus LS and KE hire themselves out to corps. if they are working for a corp, on corp property, I seriosly doubt the LS or say Aztech, is going to give a rats ass if the LS blasts a trespasser. Givin that the tresspasser doesnt surrender, or he is armed.

then again this is all my opinion. most likely hard to read and jumbled. but I have had to much coffee, and just smoked my first cigarette of the day. smokin.gif
BumsofTacoma
QUOTE (Siege @ Dec 3 2003, 04:36 PM)
[



A .44 is actually a dangerous caliber -- that's a big fragging gun and is way too powerful for the average person.

I've been on the range when someone was using a .44 and my _eyeballs_ pulsed every time he fired a shot.

The guy was twice my size and he still had to use the gun in both hands.

If trolls and orks were actually lumbering around today, the maximum caliber would probably still be a .45, but shotguns or assault rifles would become commonplace in squad cars.

-Siege

I have seen cop cars with AR's in Santa Barbara, Bakersfield, and LA California. Granted its California, i dont know about other places. I have seen a couple with SMG's.
these were not cops in the middle of a riot, they were just crusing around, or sitting at a coffee shop, or taking a break at the gas station i used to work at.

Some cops have pretty messed up stories, one told me that he has pulled his gun 8 times. almost all were in the event of "domestic disputes with drunk rednecks"

Most squad cars have shotguns. the average police pistol in SO california is 40.ca
I have talked to cops who are happy about this because, " Those beretta's were peices of crap."

also. I fired a 44.mag for the first time when i was 15. Yes it is loud, yes it kicks
but i was only 130 pounds and i handled it pretty damn well. I have fired lots of pistols, shotguns but the most fun ever was the Thompson. I only got to fire a short burst, and then my uncle took it away. hahaha i was 15 or 16, guy let me fire it, i hit the trigger and i dont even know how many rounds i fired. but it was begining to point over head.
I did not expect that much recoil, hell I could fire shotguns no problem. anyway my uncle took it from me and gave it back to the owner. he said "at least you didnt fall on your ass, or drop it, or hurt yourself."

anyway enough of that i talk to much talker.gif

as a side note REG, your qoute, Im a huge Tom Waits fan, your qoute rings a bell but witch song is it? its driving me nuts.
Req
OK, I totally have to change my sig to reflect that MY NAME IS REQ. It rhymes with wreck, and it comes from Johannes Brahms' Ein Deutsches Requiem. Stupid font.

The lyrics are from "A Sweet Little Bullet From A Pretty Blue Gun," btw.
BitBasher
As I seid in a previous thread, Officers here can and are encouraged to carry self purchased AR-15 or equivalents. In bordering Henderson or North Las Vegas they are issued and there's one for every Officer in the car.

There is a "Less Lethal" shotgun round and that's the ONLY type of ammo allowed inside the jail here, period. Shotguns are never loaded with anything else. This round is still lethal a statistically significant percentage of the time. Officers have to check guns in gun lockers at the door.
BaronJ
IIRC, in the LoneStar book, it is stated that, under most circumstances, in a zone of less than A, it's shoot after giving verbal warning, which means "LONESTAR!!! *bang*" In an A+ zone, it's shoot only when damage is observed, as in *crash* LONESTAR!! *bang*. Otherwise, it's call for backup when they don't comply with the demand to stop. The Backup is heavily armed and is there in a minute, tops.

As for Knight Errant, the SOP is supposedly the same, but Hard Corps (the paramillitary unit within KE) is shoot first, worry about lawsuits later.
HMHVV Hunter
QUOTE (BitBasher)
As I seid in a previous thread, Officers here can and are encouraged to carry self purchased AR-15 or equivalents. In bordering Henderson or North Las Vegas they are issued and there's one for every Officer in the car.

There is a "Less Lethal" shotgun round and that's the ONLY type of ammo allowed inside the jail here, period. Shotguns are never loaded with anything else. This round is still lethal a statistically significant percentage of the time. Officers have to check guns in gun lockers at the door.

Those AR-15s are semi-auto M-16s, right?

What about fixing them so that they're full-auto? Is that legal for cops?
Chodav
Police departments may legally possess and issue full-auto armaments, but few do. Full auto is a recoil-intensive waste of ammunition, and every round fired ends up somewhere. In this day and age, lawsuits over stray rounds are very common.

I've always liked the SR rules for full-auto. They did a nice job of showing it to be a waste of time . . . unless you play in the sort of game where trolls walk aorund with gyro-mounts. (Why don't those GM's make judicious use of the signature rules and the LoneStar Yellowjackets?)
Bulldrek
I think Bit Basher and some of the others covered this pretty well, but a few things to keep in mind.

The reason most areas train you to shoot center mass isn't to disable, or kill-its simply the easiest spot on the human body to hit. In most studies I have read, most combat engagements for Police Officers using handguns take place from 12 feet or less. Sure center mass can kill just as easy as any gun shot wound could (As was pointed out.)

And yes I think wounding someone is probably preferable to killing them, but realistically trying to train someone to make the distinction is a risky propostion at best-most people's eyes dialate when they get in a stressful situation, which a shoot out is definitely one of, and that creates a tunnel like vision which in turn affects how well you shoot.

I read somewhere once that most combat engagements lower your ability to hit the target by upwards of 35%-that means if you are a greta shot, who hits lets say 85% of the time, in a fire fight you might hit 50% of the time, or worse. How many of you are expert shots? Most of us aren't right? So that means we subtract from our already limited skills. while cops may be trained at a lvel above us, even they have varying levels of competency.

Now as for the SR portion of this, i guess it depends on how lethal you want your game to be. I do however, hardly think a game that concerns a distopian vision of the future is a shoot to "wound" world.
BumsofTacoma
QUOTE (Req)
OK, I totally have to change my sig to reflect that MY NAME IS REQ. It rhymes with wreck, and it comes from Johannes Brahms' Ein Deutsches Requiem. Stupid font.

The lyrics are from "A Sweet Little Bullet From A Pretty Blue Gun," btw.

i was arguing to myself it was a g or q and just hit both keys at the same time and let fate decide.

your qoute is great no need to change.

in my games i have LS act depending on time,place,threat level. but if they shoot they shoot to kill.

aside even if they aim to maim (they wouldnt most likely) its just as possible to die from a leg shot as it is one to the chest.

Kagetenshi
When in doubt, copy/paste smile.gif

~J
Siege
California is fairly cutting-edge in terms of equipping it's law enforcement. If memory serves, they were the first to start carrying 9mm.

Atlanta PD used to carry 9mm as standard issue -- they're supposed to be stepping up to .40 S&W.

As for the .44, remember that is such a level of overkill that it borders on the absurd -- a .45 is enough to ensure a certain level of lethality. The .44 should be rated for vehicles and big game animals -- deer, elk and bear.

Although as far as I know, the standard issue weapon is either a handgun for personal carry and a shotgun in the car. I've never seen an assault rifle or SMG outside of a SWAT action.

Although I freely admit, I don't work with police on a daily basis so if they are encouraged to buy and carry AR-15s, I wouldn't know it.

Full auto for law enforcement is, pardon the expression, overkill. At no point should a cop be laying down full auto fire in an urban setting because of the obvious risks to bystanders.

-Siege
Maxwell Silverhammer
Just some more information for you all, AR-15's are identical to M-16's, and M-16A2's. M-16's were issued in Vietnam era, but are generally not issued anymore, nor have been for well over 15 years. M-16A2's are what is now issued to the military, the primary distinction between the two is the rifling in the barrel, and the M-16A2 is semi automatic and 3 rd burst, the original M-16 was semi automatic, and full auto. The military determined that full auto was to wasteful, and a significant majority of soldiers we incapable of effectivly using it, (READ the recoil was to much) For all intensive purposes all three weapons are identical, the only actual difference is in the trigger assembly.

Tyros
QUOTE (Siege)
California is fairly cutting-edge in terms of equipping it's law enforcement.

Although I freely admit, I don't work with police on a daily basis so if they are encouraged to buy and carry AR-15s, I wouldn't know it.

Probably has something to do with a certain high-profile bank robbery. The robbers were wearing ballistic armor and the police were helpless until they raided a nearby gun shop.
Pavlov
This thread has been really instructive, although mostly for RL stuff. In my Shadowrun campaign, Lone Star, when if fires, fires to kill. Luckily, unless the officer is a SWAT sniper or the target an Otaku, that generally ends up being shooting to maim against most of the PCs. Thunderbolts are still rarer than Predators IMC, mostly because I don't want the headache of "now you have an uber gun you can't really use." 2P-E...yikes!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012