"Stand your Ground" still standing

[Napoleon the Clown]

What percent of the population is armed? Makes a difference in how many people often there will be shots fired.

[Mr. Coffee]

Here is what I think - if we discourage warning shots to be fired, we encourage deadly force to be used.

How? You're in a life or death situation already if it's come to the point you, as a reasonable person, have pulled a firearm to defend yourself. At that point warnings have been reeither been issued or the situation developed to fast for "warnings".

Now, do you, as an average, reasonable, citizen faced with a deadly force threat choose to defend yourself or do you waste time, and possibly your life or the lives of those around you, by shoot a fucking hedge a few feet away?

Are you trained enough that under duress you can confidentally aim and hit that hedge?

Can you still reacquire the actual threat to you after pulling your sights off target to shot that hedge before the threat can hurt you or others?

If the answer to any of that was "no" then you shoot and deal with the consequences afterwards. That way, you're at least still alive to give a statement ot the cops.

(Also, it is somewhat disingenious to compare celebratory gunfire to this as those include much more discharges than a single warning shot).

A bullet shot into the air, sans any target identification or giving of fucks about what's downrange, is still subject to goddamn gravity. It's the same fucking thing if you fire a few into the air for a Happy New Year as it is to shoot a few rounds in the air to warn a threat. In both cases you are discharging your firearm in an unsafe manner and are therefore a fucking idiot.

(Warning shots are required in Germany for regular folks as well. I am getting pretty tired at this constant "WARNING SHOTS ARE DANGEROUS" argument that is being brought up whenever the topic comes up. In over 20 years of police and civilian weapon usage in Germany not a single person was wounded or killed by warning shot. And given how much more densely populated Germany is (not to speak of the Netherlands, which are even more jampacked)...well. Why am I required to repeat myself ad nauseam whenever this topic is brought up despite me having posted the relevant statistics several times already?

I guess every swinging dick in Germany is a thoroughly trained marksman than. There are no such things as "imminent threats", no such thing as "differing training standards", and everyone is a dead-eye shot regardless of stress and circumstance. Everyone, including the criminals, respects authority enough to just stop what they're doing and wait for the warning shot, amiright?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Well, you can't argue with a pure numbers approach. The figures speak for themselves. If in 20 years German Police have not even wounded, let alone killed, an innocent bystander while firing warning shots then they obviously know what they are doing and this approach has passed muster.

It does make me wonder what we would find if we could examine these incidents. For example, what were the circumstances when these warning shots were used? Under these incidents happened in the US would deadly force have been justified? Has anyone died or been wounded by a suspect because they decided on utilizing a warning shot?

[Thanas]

What percent of the population is armed? Makes a difference in how many people often there will be shots fired.

Sure it does. Very few people are armed. BUT NOBODY EVER HAS BEEN KILLED OR SERIOUSLY INJURED.

This is no way proves that warning shots are dangerous in themselves. It proves they can be a useful tool to have.

Of course, if we were able to break it down to specifics I wonder what we would find. What were the circumstances when these warning shots were used?

I can only speak in a general case because I do not have access to Police incident reports. Generally, a warning shot is the last step before a wounding shot (the next required step) or a killing shot (the ultima ratio).

Under these incidents happened in the US would deadly force have been justified?

I strongly suspect that deadly force would be justified in the US. After all, warning shots are only to be used when one suspects an attack to be eminent. In other words, where self defence-laws would apply (or defence in favor of others, e.g. victims of crime). Also note that in some cases police may forego the warning shot to immediately fire at the person (for example, somebody rushing at them with a knife in close quarters. I know of one case where somebody allegedly did that and was met with 14 bullets)

Has anyone died or been wounded by a suspect because they decided on utilizing a warning shot?

This I can definitely say has not happened. Note that police usually works in pairs, so if one fires a warning shot the other keeps his gun trained on target to fire if necessary.

[Napoleon the Clown]

The officers who are given guns all receive training on when it's justified to pull a weapon in the first place, right? And where to fire the warning shots? Most US firearm owners don't have that kind of training. They maybe have a hunter safety course that tells them what to not do, unless they get a concealed carry permit in a state that requires them to have actual training on how to use a gun and when to use a gun.


I think what my opinion is from comes down to my view that guns should not come out until lethal force is justified. A gun should never be a threat, in my eyes. Especially given the culture I see in the US. There are too many people in this country who are irresponsible morons. Saying it's okay to fire warning shots would increase how often you get fuckheads who think it's okay to pull a gun for trivial shit and start firing. In a country with gun ownership as high as this one, that will lead to accidents.

"Nobody has been seriously injured or killed" in a country where guns don't even enter the equation as often as the US isn't a sign that it should be adopted here, just that it can be done with relative safety. And I suspect that's because police are trained on when it's okay to pull a weapon and where to shoot it when firing a warning shot. Training and how often it happens can make a big difference. Emergency vehicles are allowed to drive in a manner that would get anyone else tossed in jail, when there's an emergency they're responding to. Yeah, they still get in wrecks. But in the same numbers as you'd see if every asshole drove like that?

I'll admit that warning shots can be done safely, but I'm also going to say that a good chunk of making it so it's not as dangerous is training people how and when it is safe-ish to do so.

[Thanas]

I am glad that we have moved away from blanket statements like "warning shots are dumb" and entered into the discussion of problems with US gun culture.

In this case the main problem seams to be the US gun culture itself. If Americans are too stupid to use their weapons responsibly then the question arises if they should own weapons in the first place without receiving training - oh wait, 2nd amendment lol. As for the threat, a gun is a tool. If they were not threatening with guns, those meatheads would be using other weapons instead.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I can only speak in a general case because I do not have access to Police incident reports. Generally, a warning shot is the last step before a wounding shot (the next required step) or a killing shot (the ultima ratio).

I strongly suspect that deadly force would be justified in the US. After all, warning shots are only to be used when one suspects an attack to be eminent. In other words, where self defence-laws would apply (or defence in favor of others, e.g. victims of crime). Also note that in some cases police may forego the warning shot to immediately fire at the person (for example, somebody rushing at them with a knife in close quarters. I know of one case where somebody allegedly did that and was met with 14 bullets)

It sounds like you're drawing the line at a charging person with a knife. I assume this means that a person with a firearm can be met with deadly force immediately if that person takes action, or fails to take action, that would make someone reasonably believe an attack was imminent. I also assume this means that someone with a knife who simply began walking towards an officer would merit a warning shot and then a wounding shot if the warning did not work. Not unreasonable given the success that this policy has had.

This I can definitely say has not happened. Note that police usually works in pairs, so if one fires a warning shot the other keeps his gun trained on target to fire if necessary.

I'm assuming that German media sources provide better coverage. I've encountered quite a bit of difficulty locating articles regarding specific instances of firearm use by German police beyond very basic details.

[His Divine Shadow]

German police fire warning shots all the time and haven't injured or killed anyone while also not killing anyone with them and are killing way less people on average than the US when they use their guns. You are wrong about this.

You're also talking about trained LEOs. There's a lot of difference between average trained professionals and the average civilian. Cop is probably going to be a lot more mindful of where and at what their gun is pointed at than a civilian in a deadly force situation. Once pucker factor kicks in that training (or lack of) really shows.

I just don't buy the trained professional argument. Cops aren't that great at shooting by and large as they don't have the time or motivation to seriously spend on training with a handgun, which is considerable. Most required shooting regulations I've seen (sweden comes to mind) have been quite lax requiring only yearly or bi-yearly qualifications and many didn't pass and still went on working.

I think it has more to do with the fact that it's just a low-risk thing when it comes to down it to fire a warning shot, compounded by that it probably happens very rarely. So it's statistics and random chance that in this instance, german cops haven't killed anyone yet. They still might but firing a bullet into the air is unlikely to kill someone unless they start doing it often. It's a different thing in those countries where they got masses of yahoos firing swarms of bullets into the air on news years eve or the like, that probably drastically increases the chances of someone getting hit.


I wouldn't hold a CCW holder to the same standards as a police officer though, I would find the threshold for taking out your gun to be beyond the warning shot stage. Obviously different if someone is breaking into your house though.

[His Divine Shadow]

I am glad that we have moved away from blanket statements like "warning shots are dumb" and entered into the discussion of problems with US gun culture.

In this case the main problem seams to be the US gun culture itself. If Americans are too stupid to use their weapons responsibly then the question arises if they should own weapons in the first place without receiving training - oh wait, 2nd amendment lol. As for the threat, a gun is a tool. If they were not threatening with guns, those meatheads would be using other weapons instead.

I too, am glad we can bring another thread into the topic of how those americans are fucking dumb lol.

[Siege]

I'd be interested to know what the policies and practices are for this, given that there are documented cases of injuries and fatalities from falling bullets, to avoid unintended injury and property damage (which can also occur, though is comparatively less serious).

I could point you to a very extensive study (this one) of the violence protocols of Dutch police but unfortunately (if predictably) it's written in Dutch, and I don't really have the time to translate 600 pages of academic text . Speaking very broadly however it appears these protocols are mostly the same as they are for US police officers: don't draw if the situation doesn't warrant it, don't point a gun at anybody that's not an imminent deeply serious threat, if you shoot know what you're shooting at and what's behind it (p. 52) etc.

Specifically how these policies are implemented depends on each individual situation; police academies presumably train officers in various ways to handle different scenarios but not being a law enforcement officer I'm not familiar with the specifics. My conclusion however is that the only thing that really seems to differ significantly between The Netherlands and the USA is that there are a few more steps inbetween pulling the weapon and shooting to kill. Which leads neatly to the next:

In any event, I'd say Coffee is right: even if we did allow for trained LEOs to fire warning shots, I don't think that should be extended toward, much less encouraged for, your average citizens.

I can easily imagine that without proper training it's dangerous for (relatively) untrained citizens to fire warning shots, but at the same time I'll echo the bafflement expressed upthread by Simon_Jester and others about how citizens are in some cases punished quite harshly for being unwilling to instantly shoot to kill. It's one thing to discourage people from discharging firearms, it's quite another to send people to jail for hesitating to destroy a fellow human being.

I'm from a country where police are expected to issue a "stop or I shoot" warning inbetween pulling a gun and discharging it and it works very well for us, so I disagree with the sentiment that guns cannot ever be a warning or a deterrent. Pulling, pointing and threatening to discharge a firearm can all be intermediary steps on the escalation ladder: there's no inherent reason why pulling should automatically mean discharging with intent to kill, or for that matter that discharging with intent to deter or wound automatically means there wasn't a good reason to pull / discharge to begin with.

Now, let's bear in mind that those steps are supposed to be taken by Dutch police. Dutch citizens aren't supposed to shoot legally owned guns at each other so our law doesn't really deal with that sort of thing (there's some exceptions and precedent I could get into but they're not really relevant here). Considering that in the USA a lot of people are legally armed I can see how it's deeply important to deter citizens from opening fire in all but the most serious of circumstances, lest you end up back in the Wild West where people pull guns on each other for frivolous nonsense. That makes a lot of sense, and that lawmakers consequently would want to heavily fine untrained non-LEOs or even send them to jail for pointing deadly weapons at each other for petty reasons is something I can understand and get behind.

Having said that however I do think it would be sensible to allow some breathing room in your laws for cases where people are legitimately threatened to the point where they would have the right to shoot to kill, but instead choose to fire a warning shot. Killing people is serious business and a major psychological hurdle for people of a healthy mental disposition, so automatically dismissing all such cases with the argument that if they weren't willing to kill they shouldn't have pulled a gun because the situation must not have been serious enough sounds a little simplistic to me. Treat it as a deeply serious matter, yes: investigate promptly, sure: but let's not default to blaming ordinary citizens for being unwilling to justifiably kill each other in the heat of the moment.

[Mr. Coffee]

I just don't buy the trained professional argument. Cops aren't that great at shooting by and large as they don't have the time or motivation to seriously spend on training with a handgun, which is considerable. Most required shooting regulations I've seen (sweden comes to mind) have been quite lax requiring only yearly or bi-yearly qualifications and many didn't pass and still went on working.

Even low training standards is better than none at all. Most LEOs have at least some formal training, most civilians haven't.

I wouldn't hold a CCW holder to the same standards as a police officer though, I would find the threshold for taking out your gun to be beyond the warning shot stage.

Pretty much my exact thoughts, bro.

[Thanas]

It sounds like you're drawing the line at a charging person with a knife. I assume this means that a person with a firearm can be met with deadly force immediately if that person takes action, or fails to take action, that would make someone reasonably believe an attack was imminent. I also assume this means that someone with a knife who simply began walking towards an officer would merit a warning shot and then a wounding shot if the warning did not work. Not unreasonable given the success that this policy has had.

I very much try to avoid drawing a line because there is no line. It is a grey area where depending on the circumstances things can be justified or not. What I am saying is what Siege does as well - steps in the escalation ladder which are supposed to be taken unless immediate danger. For example, if someone is pointing a gun at you you are not supposed to just waste the guy as a police officer. Try your deescalation training first. Risky? Sure, but that is why we have very rigorous police selection trials.

Things which might be ok in one instance are not okay in the other. Like killing people with knifes. For example, in another case police are currently being investigated by the prosecution for having killed a person with a knife (they broke into the house by mistake, guy came at them, they shot him without trying to deescalate or using their nonlethal means or giving a warning).

[Kamakazie Sith]

I very much try to avoid drawing a line because there is no line. It is a grey area where depending on the circumstances things can be justified or not.

Actually, there is a line. You can find this line using objective thinking. For example, what is the threat? Man with a knife? How far away is this man with the knife? How many officers do you have with you? What other tools do you have at this moment? I understand this line moves based off of the circumstances but you're making it sound like nobody knows where it starts or ends.

A personal example. I was dispatched to a suicidal male that just attacked his wife and children with a butcher knife. They managed to escape with minor injuries before we arrived. When we arrived he met us outside with knife in hand. There were three of us. I went to taser while the other two maintained lethal cover. We maintained enough distance that had the taser failed lethal force could still be used. He was safely brought into custody.

What I am saying is what Siege does as well - steps in the escalation ladder which are supposed to be taken unless immediate danger. For example, if someone is pointing a gun at you you are not supposed to just waste the guy as a police officer. Try your deescalation training first. Risky? Sure, but that is why we have very rigorous police selection trials.

This statement is contradictory. Here you say that steps in the escalation ladder can be skipped if immediate danger exists but then you go on to say that police can't use lethal force against someone pointing a gun at them until they have tried deescalation. Under German law what constitutes an immediate threat because the only thing more immediate than someone pointing a firearm at you would be bullets missing or hitting you and frankly that seems idiotic. Especially, since your government invests a lot of time and money into training these officers.

Things which might be ok in one instance are not okay in the other. Like killing people with knifes. For example, in another case police are currently being investigated by the prosecution for having killed a person with a knife (they broke into the house by mistake, guy came at them, they shot him without trying to deescalate or using their nonlethal means or giving a warning).

Earlier you stated that you know of one instance of a man with a knife being shot at with 14 bullets. You seem to have implied that this was a justified shoot. The difference seems to be that the police in this second situation were in the wrong place. That's likely the primary focus of the investigation with the escalation steps always looked at for deadly force situations.

[Thanas]

Actually, there is a line. You can find this line using objective thinking. For example, what is the threat? Man with a knife? How far away is this man with the knife? How many officers do you have with you? What other tools do you have at this moment? I understand this line moves based off of the circumstances but you're making it sound like nobody knows where it starts or ends.

You don't know where it ends or starts. It is all based on the circumstance of the specific situation. General principle is that you are allowed to use some level of force to defend yourself or the others. What level of force that is depends on a number of variables.

This statement is contradictory. Here you say that steps in the escalation ladder can be skipped if immediate danger exists but then you go on to say that police can't use lethal force against someone pointing a gun at them until they have tried deescalation. Under German law what constitutes an immediate threat because the only thing more immediate than someone pointing a firearm at you would be bullets missing or hitting you and frankly that seems idiotic.

Like I said, it would depend on the variables. For example, has the guy shot someone before? What weapon does he have? Is he a trained shot? How aggressive is his behaviour? Is he just a drunk waving his gun around or is he on a shooting spree?

Especially, since your government invests a lot of time and money into training these officers.

Which is why we expect them to make good judgement calls based on a lot of variables.

Earlier you stated that you know of one instance of a man with a knife being shot at with 14 bullets. You seem to have implied that this was a justified shoot. The difference seems to be that the police in this second situation were in the wrong place. That's likely the primary focus of the investigation with the escalation steps always looked at for deadly force situations.

Yeah but the thing in this case is if shooting him was justified at all considering he was a mentally challenged guy. For example, the police officers could (and should) have gone outside his place and locked him in until the backup arrived as there was plenty of space and time to retreat.

So again, variables.

[Simon_Jester]

I think what my opinion is from comes down to my view that guns should not come out until lethal force is justified. A gun should never be a threat, in my eyes. Especially given the culture I see in the US. There are too many people in this country who are irresponsible morons. Saying it's okay to fire warning shots would increase how often you get fuckheads who think it's okay to pull a gun for trivial shit and start firing. In a country with gun ownership as high as this one, that will lead to accidents.

I don't know- because you'd still lose if you couldn't pass the usual bar for self defense- that a reasonable person would think they were in fear of their lives. You might even add an extra condition of the form "did this person ignore a warning?" or "did this person continue to advance on the suspect even after a gun was drawn?"

So no, you wouldn't see this letting every fuckhead expecting to get away with blazing away in the general direction of vaguely alarming people. Excepting of course fuckheads who already pull guns on people, and feel no compunction about shooting to kill, because they'd "rather be judged by twelve than carried by six" or whatever lunatic obsession with MUST PROTECT MYSELF BY KILLING is in their heads.

Also, keeping the status quo raises an interesting problem- if you DID fire a warning shot, then your best legal defense is to claim you were trying to kill the target, and missed. Because you can use "self defense" to justify shooting to kill, but not to justify shooting NOT to kill.

It's hard for me to grasp how we are better off with a system that handles armed self defense by incentivizing people to plead "I was trying to kill him and missed" over "I was trying to scare him off without killing him" as a way to explain the same action.

I wouldn't hold a CCW holder to the same standards as a police officer though, I would find the threshold for taking out your gun to be beyond the warning shot stage. Obviously different if someone is breaking into your house though.

The set of circumstances under which I can imagine a warning shot being justified as a self-defense measure is very narrow- cases where, thinking you were in danger of your life, you drew a gun but did not fire it.

That would be a reasonable act for a person trying to defend themselves- because they're trying to see if the other person will go away when they see a gun pointed at them. That is exactly what I would HOPE someone would do if they were merely interested in defending themselves- give the other party a chance to flee.

If the other party continues to advance/threaten, and you reasonably are fearing for your life, then under standard self defense rules you'd have cause to shoot them dead. Presumably, this defense would also hold if you shot and missed, and they ran away- you could use "self defense" to defend yourself against an assault with deadly weapon or attempted murder charge in that case.

Only in such situations, where you would be within your rights to try to kill someone (and possibly miss) do I think it would be defensible to fire a warning shot. Thus, the option of warning shots doesn't let anyone get away with attempted murder who wouldn't have gotten away with it already, and no one would get away with randomly discharging a firearm unless they were in imminent personal danger.

[Kamakazie Sith]

You don't know where it ends or starts. It is all based on the circumstance of the specific situation. General principle is that you are allowed to use some level of force to defend yourself or the others. What level of force that is depends on a number of variables.

I'm not sure because your examples are making it sound like you're not sure. They sound this way because your examples contradict each other. What you just said here is what you should have said at the start instead of citing specific examples and not including those specific variables.

Like I said, it would depend on the variables. For example, has the guy shot someone before? What weapon does he have? Is he a trained shot? How aggressive is his behaviour? Is he just a drunk waving his gun around or is he on a shooting spree?

These variables seem unreasonable to me. You're basically playing a probability game with the life of another person. I'll attempt to explain why.

Whether a person has shot someone before or not is likely information police would not have in a situation and doesn't really matter because plenty of cop killers are first time killers and every murderer has a first time.

Sure, the weapon type is a reasonable consideration. However, you did say "pointing a gun at you".

A persons training is also likely information that police will not have and even if they do have it that information can be out of date and even if it is accurate an untrained person isn't guaranteed to miss.

Your last two questions don't match the scenario you setup. You said "for example, if someone is pointing a gun at you you are not supposed to just waste the guy as a police officer." You said pointing a gun at you...not waving it around...not holding it down at their side. Pointing it at you. Yeah, if there's a drunk person waving a gun around then containing that person is the next reasonable step.

I think most places consider pointing a firearm at someone a form of active aggression. You know considering how fast bullets travel.

I'm not asking you to clarify these. I'm pointing out why I said it seemed like you don't know where the line begins or ends.

Which is why we expect them to make good judgement calls based on a lot of variables.

I believe you. Your examples left me with questions. The variables you list down below leave me with more.

Yeah but the thing in this case is if shooting him was justified at all considering he was a mentally challenged guy. For example, the police officers could (and should) have gone outside his place and locked him in until the backup arrived as there was plenty of space and time to retreat.

So again, variables.

Right, variables. Same thing in the states without the expectation of warning or wounding shots when that line is crossed. That's why I gave you that personal example. Since I had two others with me we were expected to try a less lethal method. In your example if he came at them in a slow walk I imagine these officers will be in a great deal of trouble, especially since Germany holds their officers accountable far more than the US does. However, if he came at them full sprint and they were unable to retreat then the situation isn't so clear...at least as far as the use of force is concerned.

It sounds like you know more about this situation then you've revealed in this thread. Like you know how close he was to them when he came at them with a knife and/or how he came at them with a knife. If we are talking about a reasonably fit person inside a standard home and running at full sprint that standard home becomes awfully small.

Based upon what I've read via various media sources your laws regarding the use of deadly force aren't all that different from the US with the exemption of requiring warning/wounding shots when there is not an imminent threat. Here is an example. In the video below a police officer is confronted by a large out of shape man holding a knife. This subject comes running at the officer at a pretty slow speed. The officer fires once hitting the man in the chest. Watch the video below. If I'm on the same page as you now then this officer would be in trouble for failing to fire a wounding shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp0KoNmczho

Now watch this video. In this example this old man points a rifle at a trooper. Based upon the variables you listed it appears that this man has very little training with a rifle since he is holding it completely wrong. He's also retreating and therefore does not appear to be actively aggressive. The trooper even issues a verbal warning and then fires at the man...missing him. Not a warning shot but that's what I warning shot is isn't it? A shot that misses. This old man responds with a fatal shot to the troopers head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpmp13ePolI

[Thanas]

First I have to clarify something after I went back and looked at my criminal law materials. A warning shot can be used but is not an absolute requirement. A wounding shot however is a requirement. You are not allowed to just straight shoot to kill, you always have to try and hit non-lethal areas. Also, you have to give at least a verbal warning before shooting ecxept in the case of kidnappers (see below). Most departments will use warning shots. You are only allowed to kill if there is no other way at all.

BTW, I don't know how it is in the USA but in Germany several times a year there will be shooting training for police officers with actors, video sequences and simulators to prepare for such situations. Not just pure aim training.

I'm not sure because your examples are making it sound like you're not sure. They sound this way because your examples contradict each other. What you just said here is what you should have said at the start instead of citing specific examples and not including those specific variables.

Like I said, it is in flux. General principle is one thing. The special situation is another and that is why I included some (but not all, as it is impossible to list all specific variables that could influence a situation) examples to try and help getting the point across. Sorry if these caused confusion.

These variables seem unreasonable to me. You're basically playing a probability game with the life of another person.

Of course. That is the risk police officers take. We expect them to be very, very careful with shooting people and with escalating force. If this places them at a higher risk, so be it. It is not like cops are getting killed every year or so. Deaths on the job are very, very rare.

Every police action is always a probability game. That is why I tried to show how in some examples it was justified, in others less so.

Whether a person has shot someone before or not is likely information police would not have in a situation and doesn't really matter because plenty of cop killers are first time killers and every murderer has a first time.

It should be self-evident that such info would only come into play if the police know about it or reasonably should have known about it. Unless you think we have telepaths as cops or are so stupid to require our police to be omniscient?

Your last two questions don't match the scenario you setup. You said "for example, if someone is pointing a gun at you you are not supposed to just waste the guy as a police officer." You said pointing a gun at you...not waving it around...not holding it down at their side. Pointing it at you. Yeah, if there's a drunk person waving a gun around then containing that person is the next reasonable step.

I think most places consider pointing a firearm at someone a form of active aggression. You know considering how fast bullets travel.

I'm not asking you to clarify these. I'm pointing out why I said it seemed like you don't know where the line begins or ends.

Well, like I tried to point out several times, it depends on the situation. If the guy is pointing a gun at you 5 meters away obviously the level of threat is relatively greater as if he is pointing a revolver at you eighty yards away. If you are behind cover or wearing armour also makes a difference. It all depends on the level of the specific threat at the specific situation.

Are you allowed to kill people? Yes. For example, killing kidnappers with snipers is allowed (even if they are not pointing weapons at somebody right at the time of the shot). However, just when the snipers are allowed to shoot and under what circumstances (option exhaustion being one) are again different and in fact a large matter of debate among German legal minds.

Right, variables. Same thing in the states without the expectation of warning or wounding shots when that line is crossed. That's why I gave you that personal example. Since I had two others with me we were expected to try a less lethal method. In your example if he came at them in a slow walk I imagine these officers will be in a great deal of trouble, especially since Germany holds their officers accountable far more than the US does.

Generally speaking, yes.

However, if he came at them full sprint and they were unable to retreat then the situation isn't so clear...at least as far as the use of force is concerned.

If they were likely to be unable to overpower him with non-lethal means they absolutely could (and should) have shot him then. Preferably in a disabling non-lethal area like the leg or shoulder, but obviously nobody would fault them if they were not able to aim accurately in such a situation or if they killed him while trying to stop him.

But if there were more of them vs one fat guy with a knife, they probably would be asked why they did not simply beat him down with their larger batons, given that we expect our police to get good training in that regard and all that. One such example was that there was an investigation into a police officer who put several rounds into a young men who had caused a small wound on his partner with a kitchen knife. Again, variables, specific situation and all that.

Based upon what I've read via various media sources your laws regarding the use of deadly force aren't all that different from the US with the exemption of requiring warning/wounding shots when there is not an imminent threat. Here is an example. In the video below a police officer is confronted by a large out of shape man holding a knife. This subject comes running at the officer at a pretty slow speed. The officer fires once hitting the man in the chest. Watch the video below. If I'm on the same page as you now then this officer would be in trouble for failing to fire a wounding shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp0KoNmczho

Indeed he would be.

Now watch this video. In this example this old man points a rifle at a trooper. Based upon the variables you listed it appears that this man has very little training with a rifle since he is holding it completely wrong. He's also retreating and therefore does not appear to be actively aggressive. The trooper even issues a verbal warning and then fires at the man...missing him. Not a warning shot but that's what I warning shot is isn't it? A shot that misses. This old man responds with a fatal shot to the troopers head.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpmp13ePolI

Yeah. I don't disagree that personally the trooper would have been better off shooting the guy immediately. But it comes down to probabilities. In Germany, we just do not get these cases that often that it would be worth it to change the general policy. In short, our police officers are not being put at risk too often to justify policies that would raise the risk of death to non-policemen or criminals. Like we agreed on in another thread, mental illness care, a social safety net and general unavailability of guns means that the risk of something like this happening is a lot less on German roads.

In the above example, if the police officer had yelled "Drop the weapon or I'll shoot" and then put a bullet into the leg or shoulder of the guy he probably would have gotten a well done.

But like I said, in general the guys who really own guns and would point them at the police are the sort of hardened criminals you don't send the normal patrol guys after anyways. Instead you sent in the SEK and even these guys very rarely have to use their guns.

In all of Germany 8 persons died last year in shootouts with the police.

[Lonestar]

I could point you to a very extensive study (this one) of the violence protocols of Dutch police but unfortunately (if predictably) it's written in Dutch, and I don't really have the time to translate 600 pages of academic text . Speaking very broadly however it appears these protocols are mostly the same as they are for US police officers: don't draw if the situation doesn't warrant it, don't point a gun at anybody that's not an imminent deeply serious threat, if you shoot know what you're shooting at and what's behind it (p. 52) etc.

Fun fact(or not so fun), 20 years ago the American Police had guidelines that required them to have a lot more defensive gun use other than "shooting". It use to be standard practice for LEOs in the US to pull their sidearms out and put their fingers on the trigger early, early in a confrontation.

What changed was there was a big transition from heavy/long trigger pull revolvers to Glocks(and Glock imitators) which have light/short trigger pulls. As a result there were literally hundreds of instances of LEOs shooting themselves, other LEOs, suspects, etc. More than once a PD would try to pass the buck to Glock whenever they got sued in wrongful death suits, and Gaston Glock himself has testified a lot on the stand in the US...usually with him commenting that the reason why there were so many accidental shootings is because American law enforcement practice shitty trigger discipline, not because of the guns.

As it is, the NYPD(and others) actually modify their Glocks to have trigger pulls more like the old service revolvers, and new rules about TD and drawing your sidearm has been universally applied in the US.

[LaCroix]

I guess every swinging dick in Germany is a thoroughly trained marksman than.

Well, considering that German has general conscription (at least until they put a moratorium on that in 2011), yes, they are.

[His Divine Shadow]

Where you conscripted? Because I was (in Finland tho) and the amount of training we got (on rifles, not handguns) mainly allowed the average person to aim in the general eastern direction and not shoot his dick off.

And when it comes to pistols all it takes is a few months of not shooting to degrade your skills, I haven't had time to shoot in months (building house, kids, etc, busy) and I will definitely suffer for it. Probably gonna have to retrain to not flinch.

[Tiriol]

I guess every swinging dick in Germany is a thoroughly trained marksman than.

Well, considering that German has general conscription (at least until they put a moratorium on that in 2011), yes, they are.

No they are not. The ones who were conscripted into military service (and did not opt for civil service) received basic training with guns and ammunition, nothing more. Unless you want to argue that six months of conscription equals trained marksman all across the board and that without any further training and re-training those skills remain at the peak level.

[Simon_Jester]

Even military basic training is likely to be more rigorous than what most civilians get if they never join the military. If nothing else, as Shadow mentioned, it includes instruction on how not to injure yourself with a firearm, and probably on how to be careful and responsible when holding and using them- because in a society with universal conscription, bad gun safety could get unpopular in a hurry since it means literally everyone is in danger if Private Schmidt can't handle his weapon safely.

Now, Coffee's original remark was simply a sarcastic comment that to him the German police rules of engagement sounded unrealistic, because they seem to be saying "you cannot shoot to kill unless you have done XYZ," when there will not always be time to do XYZ. I think that may be a misunderstanding.

At the same time, the idea that basic firearm safety was taught to most German men at some point in their lives casts an interesting light on all this. In the US, it is not uniformly required or true that everyone (male or female) has been taught this. Police and military have, a lot of civilian gun owners have... but it's not like there's a uniform requirement for safety training, or for that matter any training, before you buy a gun.
_________________________________

And, hm. The requirement that police "shoot to wound" in Germany strikes me as if anything trickier than firing a warning shot- because it places more active demands on the officer's marksmanship in a dangerous situation. Firing and deliberately missing almost has to be easier and more likely to go correctly than firing and hitting a small area of the body where (hopefully) the target won't suffer fatal injury.

The idea of having training for the use of guns every few months is good; I am curious what Kamikaze Sith's experience is there.

Fun fact(or not so fun), 20 years ago the American Police had guidelines that required them to have a lot more defensive gun use other than "shooting". It use to be standard practice for LEOs in the US to pull their sidearms out and put their fingers on the trigger early, early in a confrontation.

What changed was there was a big transition from heavy/long trigger pull revolvers to Glocks(and Glock imitators) which have light/short trigger pulls. As a result there were literally hundreds of instances of LEOs shooting themselves, other LEOs, suspects, etc. More than once a PD would try to pass the buck to Glock whenever they got sued in wrongful death suits, and Gaston Glock himself has testified a lot on the stand in the US...usually with him commenting that the reason why there were so many accidental shootings is because American law enforcement practice shitty trigger discipline, not because of the guns.

As it is, the NYPD(and others) actually modify their Glocks to have trigger pulls more like the old service revolvers, and new rules about TD and drawing your sidearm has been universally applied in the US.

That's very interesting. And modifying automatic pistols for a heavier trigger pull seems like a sensible move too. The Glock pistol line was born as a military sidearm. While in military applications a light trigger pull isn't necessarily a bad thing, for law enforcement, you don't really want the policeman's gun on a hair trigger.

This does not negate the need for better trigger discipline, so Mr. Glock had every right to criticize American police for lacking it. But surely it's better to have good trigger discipline and a pistol that "fails safe" if the officer's finger twitches slightly on the trigger, than to have either of them separately, let alone neither of them.

[His Divine Shadow]

The week of civilian marksmanship training I had in 2007 was more comprehensive, required more shooting, testing and verficiation of skills than the 6 months of military training I got.

You could literally teach any moron what they did by drilling the three rules into them for a few days and going shooting a few times.

[Lonestar]

Well, considering that German has general conscription (at least until they put a moratorium on that in 2011), yes, they are.

Uh, that would depend strongly on where they end up as conscripts, even for their unit if they are combat arms.

Of the 4 major services, only the USMC really hammers marksmanship and firearm handling boot camp regardless of ultimate job. In the USAF and USN, for example, it's a brief 30 minute instruction and then off to printer tech school or nuke school after Boot camp, where you likely won't use a firearm again during the line of duty.

[Thanas]

No, in Germany everyone gets the 8 weeks (six?) basic training regardless of where they go later on. Even the supply crews get basic training in house to house combat etc.

We also have one of the largest reserve forces there are where guys get at least some kind of remedial training every year or so.

But conscription has been abolished since the last 3 years so this would no longer apply.