Police shoot man with a submachine gun - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Monkey pie;40971510]Like this way of handling things tbh. instead of shooting things dead everyone deserves a chance of life even if they did something outrageously stupid.[/QUOTE] If the population of Finland suddenly became 300 million plus variety of different ethnic backgrounds, then I guess Finland would also have to take over the U.S. way of handling things or else we would run out of cops. [editline]11th June 2013[/editline] Also, when I was young, 2 cops were shot to death right on this street where I live. I still remember the spot where people put candles for their remembrance, it's barely 20 meters away from where I'm sitting right now. It was over 10 years ago. [editline]11th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=teh pirate;40972144]Or you could just shoot for the torso like you're supposed to[/QUOTE] "Just kill him like you're supposed to." Might as well "Double tap" for that matter.

I really doubt it was intentional that they shot his foot. For every miraculous case of someone getting hit non-fatally, there's a hundred where they get hit and die. [QUOTE=Bat-shit;40984793]"Just kill him like you're supposed to." Might as well "Double tap" for that matter.[/QUOTE] Shooting to stop is not the same as shooting to kill. Once the suspect is out of the fight, they're not going to shoot any more, and in fact try to aid them as much as possible. The problem is the fact that A. firearms are lethal weapons, and B. the most reliable way to stop an armed assailant is lethal force.

Can we let this thread die already

[QUOTE=JoonazL;40971353][IMG]http://static.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/baanalaukausjMP_503_uu.jpg[/IMG] [B]Police found hidden weapons on the man.[/B] Source is in Finnish, this is my translation: Original source: [url]http://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/2013060917130457_uu.shtml[/url] I really like how the law treats policemen... :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] In all honesty. First thing I saw when I entered this thread was your avater. And.... I was basically staring at that for a few minutes. I couldn't help it! I swear!

the police here shot the man in the leg because he was wearing a gun in the street and didn't answer even the police said to drop the gun. And the police is doing a research that did the police who shot the man do a crime and if he did he will get a punishment. In Finland if a man has a weapon polices will prepare for the worst, and that is why they had MP5 in the first place. Also I red in the newspaper that the man got first aid in the scene by the police and is doing alright in the hospital also.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;40983001]Either way, your special non-explosive reactive armor, abbreviated to NxRA, [i]isn't actually used in the field because it's fucking impractical right now.[/i] If you knew even like, basic electricity 101, you'd know that. Tanks don't pull around gigantic 30mW diesel generators with them, so they're going to use a simpler and just as effective NxRA system, or actually use ERA armor systems. Seriously. You're arguing a hypothetical point for something that is fucking retarded anyway. You cannot just pick and choose military-sounding nouns, whip them together and expect to get a defensive system out of it. Especially not one that's expected to be physically worn by a person who has not undergone some secret cybernetic augmentation. While the idea of having a powered exeskeleton maybe really, really cool, there's a damn good reason why we don't do it right now: it won't fucking work. [editline]10th June 2013[/editline] Oh, and don't go "I wasn't talking about mechs and stuff!" I know. You were talking about unassisted suits of heavy armor. [i]I know.[/i][/QUOTE] You have no imagination. And besides that's what R&D is for anyway. I bet in 100 years some of this stuff will exist.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;40975582]Nope, just optimistic. I was reading an article about it earlier.[/QUOTE]Regardless of whether the magic graphite prevents penetration damage, the shockwave of the howitzer round would still pulp you in an instant.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;40991735]You have no imagination. And besides that's what R&D is for anyway. I bet in 100 years some of this stuff will exist.[/QUOTE] Laws of physics: imagination's #1 enemy. I understand the need to make your inner Heinlein happy, but sometimes you need to stick with realistic stuff.

[QUOTE=jimhowl33t;40992488]Laws of physics: imagination's #1 enemy. I understand the need to make your inner Heinlein happy, but sometimes you need to stick with realistic stuff.[/QUOTE] Yeah and I bet people 100 years ago thought cell phones would be impossible or flying machines. Realistic as in the stuff we already know, but I like to challenge the unknown or think of the possibilities, it's how we advance as a society always improving and innovating. If you're the kind of person who lives in the present and always thinks about logical practical things all the time I can't imagine you would be a very interesting person.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;40992527]Yeah and I bet people 100 years ago thought cell phones would be impossible or flying machines. Realistic as in the stuff we already know, but I like to challenge the unknown or think of the possibilities, it's how we advance as a society always improving and innovating. If you're the kind of person who lives in the present and always thinks about logical practical things all the time I can't imagine you would be a very interesting person.[/QUOTE] as someone whose worked in research and development I can tell you that this is exactly not how to think you want to think within the norm but slightly outside the bounds of your current field. research is made in small steps not giant leaps.

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;40993098]as someone whose worked in research and development I can tell you that this is exactly not how to think you want to think within the norm but slightly outside the bounds of your current field. research is made in small steps not giant leaps.[/QUOTE] How inspiring.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;40992527]Yeah and I bet people 100 years ago thought cell phones would be impossible or flying machines. Realistic as in the stuff we already know, but I like to challenge the unknown or think of the possibilities, it's how we advance as a society always improving and innovating. If you're the kind of person who lives in the present and always thinks about logical practical things all the time I can't imagine you would be a very interesting person.[/QUOTE] And people 50 years ago thought that by now we would have bases in the moon, personal jetpacks, flying cars, sentient robots and energy weapons. And right now, there is nothing else to do on the moon, our current jetpacks are a joke (Too big, too expensive, range too short), cars are still on four wheels, robots exist for expensive entertainment or to work on factories, and energy weapons are either still on a whiteboard, or banned. There is no question that we'll develop better technology in the future. But thinking "This sounds and looks cooler and better, therefore it WILL be adapted and loved by everyone!" is pretty stupid. Science doesn't advances on looks. It advances on usefulness. Why use a high-energy armor system that requires carrying a bigger generator, when you can just strap on better reactive plates? Why create a personal bulletproof shield that hampers movement and weights like a motherfucker, when you can just make better armor vests?

[QUOTE=T553412;40993439]And people 50 years ago thought that by now we would have bases in the moon, personal jetpacks, flying cars, sentient robots and energy weapons. And right now, there is nothing else to do on the moon, our current jetpacks are a joke (Too big, too expensive, range too short), cars are still on four wheels, robots exist for expensive entertainment or to work on factories, and energy weapons are either still on a whiteboard, or banned. There is no question that we'll develop better technology in the future. But thinking "This sounds and looks cooler and better, therefore it WILL be adapted and loved by everyone!" is pretty stupid. Science doesn't advances on looks. It advances on usefulness. Why use a high-energy armor system that requires carrying a bigger generator, when you can just strap on better reactive plates? Why create a personal bulletproof shield that hampers movement and weights like a motherfucker, when you can just make better armor vests?[/QUOTE] Because in the future I bet we would have light weight ultra high powered graphene batteries and capacitors that make it practical and ultra strong super lightweight materials that make portable shields also practical. Technology tends to be based on other technology and if we make advanced futuristic tech out of the current parts and tech we have now it would be very impractical. Take for example how the first cars were electric, because it was cheap clean and efficient and combustion engines were the exact opposite. But over time they became more efficient and practical with the invention of new engine technologies and gasoline was cheap and abundant back then. The electric car got phased out because the technology behind it couldn't advance fast enough mostly because researching new battery tech would cost a fortune. But with today's technology with the advancement in battery tech such as lithium ion batteries and hybrid engines the electric car has become practical again and it's making a comeback.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;40993201]How inspiring.[/QUOTE] welcome to the real world I find research developments within the realms of possibility plenty inspiring. [editline]11th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=ultra_bright;40993691]Because in the future I bet we would have light weight ultra high powered graphene batteries and capacitors that make it practical and ultra strong super lightweight materials that make portable shields also practical. Technology tends to be based on other technology and if we make advanced futuristic tech out of the current parts and tech we have now it would be very impractical. Take for example how the first cars were electric, because it was cheap clean and efficient and combustion engines were the exact opposite. But over time they became more efficient and practical with the invention of new engine technologies and gasoline was cheap and abundant back then. The electric car got phased out because the technology behind it couldn't advance fast enough mostly because researching new battery tech would cost a fortune. But with today's technology with the advancement in battery tech such as lithium ion batteries and hybrid engines the electric car has become practical again and it's making a comeback.[/QUOTE] hybrids are on the way out? I think I'd rather have a pure electric than a hybrid tbh.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;40973242]I love how armchair tacticians that have never fired a weapon make assumptions that shooting a person in the leg is better than aiming for the center of mass.[/QUOTE] Welcome to people in general "I've never done it but I bet it would be easy!"

[QUOTE=trotskygrad;40993745]welcome to the real world I find research developments within the realms of possibility plenty inspiring. [editline]11th June 2013[/editline] hybrids are on the way out? I think I'd rather have a pure electric than a hybrid tbh.[/QUOTE] First hybrids enter the market and then when the batteries become cheap enough full electric cars come along.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;40994772]First hybrids enter the market and then when the batteries become cheap enough full electric cars come along.[/QUOTE] uh dunno about you but hybrids have been in the market for a pretty long time here in the US

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;40993691]Because in the future I bet we would have light weight ultra high powered graphene batteries and capacitors that make it practical and ultra strong super lightweight materials that make portable shields also practical. Technology tends to be based on other technology and if we make advanced futuristic tech out of the current parts and tech we have now it would be very impractical.[/QUOTE] It would still be impractical and useless, however. A regular foot soldier doesn't needs energy shields with a system that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, but a spaceship with enough space to carry and fix the generator will use one. Soldiers, and policemen for that matter, don't need fancy technological stuff. They need strong and reliable gear that can be fixed on the spot by anyone.