Deadly shooting at German school

[Big Orange]

What do you EXPECT the police to when someone has just murdered a dozen or more people, has ammo left, and is still shooting? What alternative course of action do you suggest?

The police have every right to put down demented shooters on the rampage who just can't be arrested like a "normal" criminal, but I just find the uniform reports of self-induced suicide to be contrived, although to be fair the shooters are completely nuts anyway and they want to go out in a blaze of glory. It is not as bad as when you get many eyewitnesses seeing a police officer coldly shoot a suspect that had been safely restrained, like that unfortunate incident in the London Underground.

[Broomstick]

I think it´s standard procedure here to first try to injure them. At least i get that impression because whenever people are shot by the cops they are often only shot in the legs. But i could be wrong on that.

My Uncle Bill, a St. Louis police officer had occasion to shoot two people in the course of his career. He once told me that in both cases he intended a killing shot to the center of the chest, but got one guy in the belly and one in the leg. In both cases the shootee survived (in both cases the shootee also stopped shooting at the cops as soon as he was hit, which was the real intended result). A significant number of those injuries to limbs were probably intended to be killing shots but didn't hit the target. Given that handguns aren't the most accurate of firearms and that these guys are unlikely to be stationary targets that shouldn't be too surprising.

[Thanas]

Under german law, they first have to fire warning, then wounding, then deadly shots unless there is a clear risk that they might be killed.

[Darth Wong]

What if there are other people around? The safest thing for the public is to shoot to kill. Warning shots can ricochet. Wounding shots can miss and ricochet as well, or they can kill. The perp can take a shot at another innocent person. If he does not drop the weapon upon being ordered to do so, is the only prudent action not to kill him?

[Broomstick]

Here in the States I'm not sure the same rule applies. In both cases involving my uncle the bad guy was shooting at the cops with murderous intentions, so it was ruled self-defense as well as a justified shooting. Each and every time a gun is discharged by an on-duty police officer there is an investigation into the circumstances to determine if it was justified or not.

[Darth Wong]

Where I live, the police have to file a full report every time they unholster their guns, never mind firing them.

[Thanas]

What if there are other people around? The safest thing for the public is to shoot to kill. Warning shots can ricochet. Wounding shots can miss and ricochet as well, or they can kill. The perp can take a shot at another innocent person. If he does not drop the weapon upon being ordered to do so, is the only prudent action not to kill him?

In those cases it would come down to the judgement of the officer in question. If he feels it is absolutely necessary to shoot to kill and a reasonable person would have reasons to assume the same, he can absolutely shoot to kill. No question about it.

[[R_H]]

I didn't know that Pfeiffer is/was a conservative. He's SPD, isn't he?

[Furlong]

I think it´s standard procedure here to first try to injure them. At least i get that impression because whenever people are shot by the cops they are often only shot in the legs. But i could be wrong on that.

At least in the US, officers are trained to fire center mass. With one or two exceptions, shooting the gun out of the hand, or wounding someone in the leg is only seen on TV. The thinking being that any situation where deadly force is justified, you want the person you are shooting at to go down as fast as possible.

[Tribun]

I didn't know that Pfeiffer is/was a conservative. He's SPD, isn't he?

It actually doesn't matter if he is. The only important thing is, that as soon as video games are mentioned, he goes on his crusade.

[Coyote]

I suspect the German law about warnings & woundings is a case of political sensitivity overcoming good sense, what with the history of German people in uniforms shooting others and all that.

"Being careful about applying the power of the State" is all well and good, but this may be a case of going too far.

[Thanas]

I suspect the German law about warnings & woundings is a case of political sensitivity overcoming good sense, what with the history of German people in uniforms shooting others and all that.

"Being careful about applying the power of the State" is all well and good, but this may be a case of going too far.

Why? It has not produced any negative cases at all. AFAIK there have been no police shootings like in the USA where cops overreacted and shot up some guy.

[Coyote]

I suspect the German law about warnings & woundings is a case of political sensitivity overcoming good sense, what with the history of German people in uniforms shooting others and all that.

"Being careful about applying the power of the State" is all well and good, but this may be a case of going too far.

Why? It has not produced any negative cases at all. AFAIK there have been no police shootings like in the USA where cops overreacted and shot up some guy.

The thing is, the stated German Police rules means that there's be two more bullets flying through the air-- from the Police. Warning shots & wounding shots are two more shots that don't need to be, IMO. While it may be that the law has produced no negative results as of yet, it is to me a potentially dangerous escalation.

I also don't see a case of 'shooting to kill a mad spree killer' as the same morally problematic situation as, say, the BART shooting, but this is my take on the situation. No doubt there are cultural perceptions at work, here, of course.

[Thanas]

The thing is, the stated German Police rules means that there's be two more bullets flying through the air-- from the Police.

I doubt it. I think the number of incidents that were solved without having to use deadly force is a huge positive effect of this policy.

Warning shots & wounding shots are two more shots that don't need to be, IMO. While it may be that the law has produced no negative results as of yet, it is to me a potentially dangerous escalation.

No, I think you are misunderstanding the law. They are only required to use those steps if they promise success. If it is absolutely clear that the person is a danger to them and that he cannot be stopped with a shot to the tigh or the shoulder. Police are also required to at least shout out that they will deadly force unless the situation demands immediate action.

I also don't see a case of 'shooting to kill a mad spree killer' as the same morally problematic situation as, say, the BART shooting, but this is my take on the situation. No doubt there are cultural perceptions at work, here, of course.

I don't really think it is fair to judge the policy based on this incident and act as if it was the norm, as the vast number of cases in Germany do not involve mad killers. Very few criminals in Germany have guns, which is why the policy on gun use by the police is rightfully very restrictive.

[Broomstick]

The thing is, the stated German Police rules means that there's be two more bullets flying through the air-- from the Police.

I doubt it. I think the number of incidents that were solved without having to use deadly force is a huge positive effect of this policy.

ANY time you fire a gun it is a use of deadly force, whether or not you actually kill anyone.

[Erik von Nein]

The thing is, the stated German Police rules means that there's be two more bullets flying through the air-- from the Police.

I doubt it. I think the number of incidents that were solved without having to use deadly force is a huge positive effect of this policy.

Now, is this a result of the policy or of something else? Is there a study or some sort of evidence backing up this claim?

I'm honestly curious.

[Kamakazie Sith]

And while this may be a scoffed at opinion I get feeling the police put the poor prick down like a mad dog, by shooting to kill, and same goes for most other similar cases where a deranged shooter supposedly "turned the gun on himself". It seems too convenient and common, sorry.

I'll give you a scenario, and then you can tell me how it turned out. In this scenario you're a police officer, and there are a couple of other people. Person A has a wife with a baby on the way. Person B has three kids, and is a single parent. Person C is a college student just starting her life.

Now the scenario is the same as the OP.

You arrive on scene and quickly locate the active shooter. You have a good shot, and decide to shoot to wound. You hit him, and he drops to the ground. This active shooter is determined though and gets off a couple rounds before other officers on scene decide that your decision didn't work and end up killing him anyway.

Now. There are a couple things that could happen with the rounds he was able to get off because you decided to try and save this guys life.

1 - The rounds completely miss, and nobody is hurt.

2 - You're struck in the head. Your brain is blown out the back of your skull. You're now dead. Now what?

3 - One of those three innocents is killed. You get to explain to their families and the world why you decided this guys life was worth saving.

I guess there's a fourth option where you manage to take this guy into custody and nobody else had to die because of your decision. However, that is unlikely because we've already established that he is here to kill as many people as possible.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Under german law, they first have to fire warning, then wounding, then deadly shots unless there is a clear risk that they might be killed.

Does their policy instruct on what a warning shot is? My department specifically prohibits any kind of warning shot due to the risks involved in discharging a firearm.

[salm]

I guess there's a fourth option where you manage to take this guy into custody and nobody else had to die because of your decision. However, that is unlikely because we've already established that he is here to kill as many people as possible.

So now we´d need to know how often such scenarios happen as opposed to scenarios in which wounded people will just stop shooting.

[Thanas]

Under german law, they first have to fire warning, then wounding, then deadly shots unless there is a clear risk that they might be killed.

Does their policy instruct on what a warning shot is? My department specifically prohibits any kind of warning shot due to the risks involved in discharging a firearm.

Upon checking the law, the officer has in question has the choice of firing a warning shot or shouting a verbal warning. The law does not describe what a warning shot is. I bet internal police procedures do, nay I am quite certain of it, but I don't have those at hand.

Now, is this a result of the policy or of something else? Is there a study or some sort of evidence backing up this claim?

I'm honestly curious.

I can only offer statistics. For 2004, 63 incidents were recorded in which warning shots were fired, 43 of them being in self-defence. 53 incidents are recorded in which shots were fired with the aim of hitting a person, all in self defence. In 23 cases people were wounded, with 9 deaths total. No innocent bystanders were ever hit by police shots in that year. Note that those are national statistics.

So I would say the policy works, based on the very low number of incidents in which police actually had to fire shots in order to wound people. If firing warning shots was enough in 63 incidents to stop or save the police's bacon and police only had to shoot at people in 53 cases, that means that warning shots were enough to do the job in the majority of cases.

[Thanas]

The thing is, the stated German Police rules means that there's be two more bullets flying through the air-- from the Police.

I doubt it. I think the number of incidents that were solved without having to use deadly force is a huge positive effect of this policy.

ANY time you fire a gun it is a use of deadly force, whether or not you actually kill anyone.

Not according to german law. Under german law, you use a weapon. You do not use deadly force unless it is aimed against a person.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Upon checking the law, the officer has in question has the choice of firing a warning shot or shouting a verbal warning. The law does not describe what a warning shot is. I bet internal police procedures do, nay I am quite certain of it, but I don't have those at hand.

In justifiable circumstances we don't even have to give a verbal warning before using deadly force. An example would be coming up behind an active shooter.

[Kamakazie Sith]

So now we´d need to know how often such scenarios happen as opposed to scenarios in which wounded people will just stop shooting.

Once is too many when you take into consideration the fact that shooting to wound is an effort made to increase the chances of taking a violent criminal into custody. You're basically saying that this violent criminal life is equal to that of those who are innocent. Keep in mind that this violent criminal is someone who has choosen to use deadly force to either escape or accomplish his/her goals. That's simply not worth the chance that you're in combat with someone that is not going to surrender.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I can only offer statistics. For 2004, 63 incidents were recorded in which warning shots were fired, 43 of them being in self-defence. 53 incidents are recorded in which shots were fired with the aim of hitting a person, all in self defence. In 23 cases people were wounded, with 9 deaths total. No innocent bystanders were ever hit by police shots in that year. Note that those are national statistics.

So I would say the policy works, based on the very low number of incidents in which police actually had to fire shots in order to wound people. If firing warning shots was enough in 63 incidents to stop or save the police's bacon and police only had to shoot at people in 53 cases, that means that warning shots were enough to do the job in the majority of cases.

The policy works for now. What will you, and other say the day it doesn't work and someone is killed, or even wounded, by a ricochet? Sounds like a tragedy in the making...

[salm]

I can only offer statistics. For 2004, 63 incidents were recorded in which warning shots were fired, 43 of them being in self-defence. 53 incidents are recorded in which shots were fired with the aim of hitting a person, all in self defence. In 23 cases people were wounded, with 9 deaths total. No innocent bystanders were ever hit by police shots in that year. Note that those are national statistics.

So I would say the policy works, based on the very low number of incidents in which police actually had to fire shots in order to wound people. If firing warning shots was enough in 63 incidents to stop or save the police's bacon and police only had to shoot at people in 53 cases, that means that warning shots were enough to do the job in the majority of cases.

The policy works for now. What will you, and other say the day it doesn't work and someone is killed, or even wounded, by a ricochet? Sounds like a tragedy in the making...

The same thing we´re going to say as we would if a cop shot a kid because the kid was carrying a replica. Actually there have been reports that cops almost shot kids playing with bbguns. Had the shooting policy been a bit laxer they might be dead. You´ve got a point, too, of course. There are up- and downsides to both methods.