German Police fires Dozens of Bullets, kills 11

Katheryne Helendale

🐱 Kitty Queen🐱
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
3,146
Location
Right... Behind... You...
SL Rez
2008
Joined SLU
October 2009
I mean, it's obviously shooting to kill if, when the subject is on the ground wounded and disarmed, the officer finishes him off with a double shot to the head, but how does a jury distinguish between a well aimed shot that's intended to kill and a badly aimed one that's intended only to wound but ends up killing the suspect?
They can't. It's virtually impossible to prove the officer's intent either way.

Speaking from a bit of experience, here in the US, the police are trained to aim for the center mass of the target when they must shoot. It is much more likely to stop the action that necessitated the shooting in the first place, and the shot is far less likely to miss and strike an unintended target. We don't do shoot-to-wound vs. shoot-to-kill. The intent when firing the weapon is not to kill the target, but to stop the threat. But it is understood that the result could be deadly, thus it is the action of last resort, or the last rung in the ladder of force.
 

Innula Zenovka

Nasty Brit
VVO Supporter 🍦🎈👾❤
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
3,273
SLU Posts
18459
They can't. It's virtually impossible to prove the officer's intent either way.

Speaking from a bit of experience, here in the US, the police are trained to aim for the center mass of the target when they must shoot. It is much more likely to stop the action that necessitated the shooting in the first place, and the shot is far less likely to miss and strike an unintended target. We don't do shoot-to-wound vs. shoot-to-kill. The intent when firing the weapon is not to kill the target, but to stop the threat. But it is understood that the result could be deadly, thus it is the action of last resort, or the last rung in the ladder of force.
That's the way it works here. The law on assault distinguishes between really serious injuries caused unlawfully (so not covered by self-defence or defence of another anything like that) and really serious injuries caused unlawfully with the intent that the victim be seriously injured.

So there's a difference, for example, between punching someone who, as a result, stumbles back and falls downstairs and deliberately pushing him down the stairs -- in both cases the intention was to use unlawful force on him but only in the second can it safely argued that the attacker intended the likely results of someone falling down the stairs.

When any sort of weapon is involved, though, it becomes pretty much impossible to argue that the injuries caused were not intended. So if someone shoots someone, whether in self defence or not, they are responsible for any injuries the victim sustains, whether they were intended or not.

Same as these stupid teenage lads we have here who carry knives "for self-defence" and then discover that what might have been a simple brawl from which both parties walked away with no more than a few bruises suddenly find themselves facing several years inside for Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent, or murder if the ambulance took a bit time getting there or if their blade penetrated a vital organ it would have missed had it entered the body at a slightly different angle.

Use a weapon of any sorts, at least in British law, and you had better be absolutely sure you're using it lawfully.
 

Kara Spengler

Queer OccupyE9 Sluni-Goon
Joined
Sep 20, 2018
Messages
3,265
Location
SL: November RL: DC
SL Rez
2007
Joined SLU
December, 2008
SLU Posts
23289
...in 2018


56 bullets fired at people, 11 dead and 34 injured.

(German only, sorry)

Just a small update from the "how does law enforcement work in other countries" department and a quick reminder that Germany isn't a particularly peaceful nation, these are normal numbers for a developed country.
Yeah, that is about typical numbers for an incident over here too. Oh, did you mean that is over a period of time?
 
  • 1OMG!
  • 1Agree
Reactions: Sid and Brenda Archer