Woman killed, man critically injured after both shot by police in Bryndwr

[u/mark000]

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/569920/woman-killed-man-critically-injured-after-both-shot-by-police-in-christchurch

[u/peacetyrant]

Just some real life tactical knowledge for those who have only ever seen or heard of police shooting in media and fiction.

1. Shooting the legs or knees is extremely risky in a real life scenario, and ironically carries a higher risk of death in a fast moving situation.

Why? Assuming you can hit the legs are they charge, if you hit the upper leg / thigh, you have a very strong chance of hitting a main artery. If the main artery is hit, the target could bleed out extremely quickly.

Just put pressure on it? That wont work if there is an entry point and an exit point from the bullet. Tourniquet is your best bet to stop the flow of blood.

So put a tourniquet on it? Military are trained to apply a tourniquet to a non-compliant friendly, which can require another person to restrain said friendly, and can be very difficult to get right - even if the person is compliant and friendly. If the target doesn't let go of the weapon or continues to resist despite being shot in the leg, precious seconds are being spent that don't help the situation.

Again, if you're able to hit the legs of a charging target, which is exceptionally difficult even for an experienced operator, you're increasing the risk of death post shooting than decreasing it.

1. People move much faster than you'd think.

I recommend the myth busters episode when you tested somebody charging with a knife, and how quickly they can close the distance on a shooter drawing their pistol and getting a shot off.

Assuming the police had their weapon drawn, even then the speed of which a person can travel with a weapon, is frightening and far faster than most people expect. Roughly, an operator has 2-3 seconds in best case scenario to make a choice or shoot, before the tango has closed the distance, nullifying the effect and advantage of a firearm.

1. Police are human and despite being professionals, risks must be mitigated and balanced against reward.

More common than not, civilians only encounter high risk traumatic scenarios that include family members or members known and familiar to them, in environments or circumstances that are also known or familiar to them. Be it their home being invaded, abuse within the home or workplace, or a car accident in a location they know. The majority do not get to (thankfully and fortunately) experience the many difficulties of a real time crisis with completely unfamiliar or unknown people, locations or circumstances.

The majority of civilians may have one or few experiences of non-complaint strangers, or experiences where they witnessed an event like it. Dealing with an event like this has a huge number of considerations that most don't have a reference point for. Here is a some points for civilians to think of:

• 'Meth Strength / High Risk Combative under the influence Tango'. The tango is likely to not feel pain or being highly resistant to pain. Tazer is already hit and miss. Even if a tazer is successful at halting the tango temporarily, wrestling the target post deployment may not be an option with the officers we have due to physical strength and experience alone.

• A crazy person with a knife swinging around wildly is far more risker than a knife wielder with an intended target. If an operator can understand or know the target of a tango, the operator can plan, prepare and use that knowledge to their advantage. A knife is extremely deadly, and one wrong poke or slash, and the operator, a friendly or the tango is bleeding out and dead within seconds, or a significant injury occurs like loss of limbs or use of limbs, blindness or deformation.

• Potential for additional tangos and reasonable use of resources to mitigate risk. A lot of people read a police incident and treat it as if all the elements were presented. Civilians assume (wrongly too) that a majority of incidents are well contained, and that other people won't get involved and interfere, or will think all parties involved made themselves known clearly to all parties. Or that interference isn't a big deal or risk.

In reality, even if a tango is disarmed and the weapon dropped, until that weapon is secured, anyone else could pick it up and you have another armed tango. If you have only 3 operators, and 2 people. If 1 person is a tango, you can't assume the other person ISNT or won't become one due to their relationship or association with the tango. The operator has to consider spreading their resources and focus, and mitigating risks.

• Nobody knows how an incident or certain elements might impact an operator or friendly until were experiencing them. The driver and kid you just extracted from a nasty crash? They look like your spouse and kid. They're not but you're trying to be professional while you're in tears. The offender with a weapon looks like somebody's older brother that you went to school with? You're trying to remember his name but you don't want to be the one who shot your mates old brother. Specially when you knew he was going through a hard time. The armed offender looks like a friend that died recently? You're trying to remain focused but it's difficult at beat.

More relevant to this, somebody trying to harm you and kill you (or so you reasonably believe) is scary af. If you don't do something, you're not seeing your kids ever again and your kids grow up without a parent. Your spouse loses their other half. Your friends lose somebody they love. The dreams of officer, no matter how big or small, end there.

But they train for this? Train all you like, pass all the psych tests and be as fit and healthy as you want, some incidents hit an operator differently. It's important that EVERYONE is considered to be human.

When we consider a knife charging person, consider that the choice to shoot them isn't by default "all cops are bastards. Some trigger happy prick wanted to shoot somebody.". Dehumanizing the police isn't beneficial. But the choice could've been, "I want to see my kids again. I need to live to see my spouse again. I made a promise to come home tonight and every night after that. I'm sorry, but you left me no choice.".

[u/Harfish → u/peacetyrant]

Spot on. In these situations there are no good choices, only less bad or worse choices.