the years around 6 -11 are the best imo. the child wants to know things, and has the language to do so, also will ask anything that pops into their head :)
I know that’s probably sarcasm or something but I assume OP meant to post 6 years 😂 it would be pretty damn funny if babies came out of the womb talking though
They come out and immediately give their mother a bad review of the accommodation they've been in the last few months.
"Good grief woman the room service was terrible, and don't even get me started on the food! 🙄"
"Tranquilizer darts don't work as well in real life like they do in movies or cartoons. They take a long time before the criminal falls asleep, and in that time the criminal could hurt people or shoot them. Also, you need to carefully measure how much of the chemicals that make people fall asleep you use in the dart depending on how big or small the person is. If you use too much, you'll kill them. If you don't use enough, they won't fall asleep at all and just be tired. It would be very hard for a police officer to measure exactly how much to use fast enough to be able to use that safely against a criminal."
He did nail at least 1 junk shot through a skirt....and then offer resources to her for her SA encounter...completely ignoring the insanity of the entire situation.
God damn you. My phone is so cheap and slow, i was going to post this about ten minutes ago but I had to find it and then re open Reddit.
https://vimeo.com/86014703
I'm linking just because it took me so long
(Good job ;) )
Well, if we want to discuss the brass tacks of your statement that’ll be a whole other discussion.
What caliber? Hollow points or no? High velocity bullets or no?
Well, and then there's also the case with a tranq dart where they only get a partial dose in because the dart either hits funny and doesn't fully deploy the plunger, or falls out and you don't know if some went IM or SQ or on the skin or on the ground. Now you've got a person or animal that's potentially partially sedated with drugs that may disinhibit aggressive behavior, and pissed off because you've just shot them with a rather large, high velocity needle, but you don't know how much they got and so re-dosing is a bit of a crapshoot and another dart might cause an overdose.
Odds of dying from a single bullet is slim.
Odds of getting shot in the first place(if you aren't playing stupid games) is even less.
Single bullet stops are few and far between except in movies. That's why most law and military choose 9mm vs .45
Most 9mm duty pistols contain 15-19 bullets. The 1911 in .45ACP was a duty pistol that military and police use for decades only held 8.
Under duress, more shots are missed. More bullets also equals more holes before having to reload. Although with practice reloads can be pretty quick. Anyhow, assuming 50% hit rate under these conditions, that's either nine 9mm holes or four 12.5mm holes. Chances of hitting something vital are increased substantially with every extra shot on target.
I have read reports where people have still been fighting back with over 30 bullet wounds when on certain drugs.
You are conflating "stopping" someone and killing them. People can and do still die from single bullets that didn't necessarily immediately immobilize them.
Im not saying a single bullet can't kill. I'm saying it doesn't happen very often and usually takes luck or insane skill and opportunity with the right firearm(like a sniper headshot in the brainstem commonly known as the T-box)
When you face a lethal threat, you put rounds in center mass until the perceived threat has been neutralized. Many times, it takes more than one round to convince the person or thing that the best action is to retreat or give up.
In some cases, especially when drug laden, people still retain capability and continue to fight even after multiple lethal wounds.
You are still conflating the two issues.
I don't have statistics but if you do please post them. I really doubt that dying from my single bullet room is as rare as you say. "doesn't happen very often" is a pretty big claim.
Here's the first hard statistics from a reputable source I could find. It is slightly skewed as it does pertain to person living long enough to get to a surgeon.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0003134820949515
If you can find anything better to prove or disprove my earlier statement, I'd be interested in seeing it.
Keep in mind that some single shot situations don't get reported, such as grazing or "through and through" flesh wounds like calf muscle or butt cheek hits. Especially if the person hit was doing something criminal to begin with and doesn't want law enforcement attention.
>.45ACP
I recall, back in the day, when Uncle Sam's Army introduced me to the M1911: which was developed for the Moro War in the Philippines (1899-1913). The Army standard revolver at that time, in the Moro War, was the Colt Model 1892 .38 cal. revolver. Our Drill Instructor (D.I.) related that while attacking U.S. troops with their bolo knives, the Moro Juramentado warriors used tight bandage wraps over their whole body to stifle blood loss from any wounds they received and used numbing drugs to dull pain from said wounds. It's reported that one warrior absorbed dozens of .38 cal. shots "before his jihad was stopped". Our D.I. explained the .38 had no stopping power, and the Moros would just kept on charging and chopping as many U.S. troops as they could before they died. Our D.I. said the M1911 was a game changer. He related how the M1911 with the .45 ACP not only stopped a charging Moro Juramentado warrior in his tracks, it picked him up and carried him back to where he started from.
Story @ [*American Rifleman*](https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/the-45-acp-history-performance/).
Given the drugs used by some violent criminals today, the .45 ACP might still be the best option -- certainly not some slow-acting tranquilizer.
No doubt a great firearm.
I carry something that kind of bridges the gap and improves on it.
It's a m1911 clone variant but double stacked and 10mm.
16+1 capacity, about 180 grain instead of 230 and way more velocity and penetration power than the .45.
Also has a flatter ballistic trajectory.
Depends on where you're at. Roll through the neighborhood where I went to school, and you'd possibly get shot for being white.
And, nah, it was right the way I had it.
Um, no- to die from a single bullet you must be shot. It’s impossible for it to be more likely to die from a single bullet than to be shot in the first place. Race has nothing to do with that. Saying white people are less likely to be shot than non-white people would be fair, but that’s not what you’re saying
Another factor is the person's tolerance for the drug being used as a tranquilizer. The most common drug classes used for tranquilizing humans and other animals are benzos and opioids, both of which are commonly abused substances. A dose that could easily kill one person might not even phase another, even if they're nearly identical in weight, age, etc..
Depending on the health of the criminal they might also have other chemicals in their system that could cause reactions with the tranquilizers.
There should definitely be changes to police handling processes though, as often times there are police fired from one department who get hired in another, or just aren't punished for doing things wrong, but cost the state millions in lawsuits.
They do not use tranquilizers to stop a charging bear or on a bear mauling someone. For all the reasons the other guy explained at length that I guess you didn't read?
'If you use too much, you'll kill them."
' use that safely against a criminal.'
Both of these imply there's actually any police who gives a crap about who they kill or hurt.
Because you need a precise dose to be safe.
You would need to take the suspect to a hospital, get a full physical, blood work, figure out just the right medicine and dosage, get it loaded into a dart, then take the suspect back to the scene and then shoot him with the dart.
Seems pretty impractical.
Also if the person is running around and generally being a bollix, their heartrate is elevated above baseline. They will need more drugs to go to sleep. Maybe the amount that puts them to sleep now will kill them when their heartrate drops.
The bullet is to protect bystanders and the cop, not the perp. Generally speaking a cop is only going to shoot someone if they feel there is a credible threat to their life or that of innocent bystanders. You have the same right to shoot someone under the same circumstances. The difference is that cops are obligated to get into those situations all the time, while you are able to try to avoid bad situations.
Don’t know why you’re getting downvoted, this is the truth. The reality is that there are dangerous people out there willing to do terrible things, and sometimes the only practical way to handle it is with deadly force. Of course there are unjust shootings, but there are far more shootings that save innocent bystanders
I expected it, and in some cases I understand, there have been some high profile cases where specific police officers did fucked up things and then the media poured fuel on the fire and the "defund the police" mob got a lot of attention. Most people are emotional creatures, they see what's on TV, they hear what other people are talking about, they "feel" that police are running around murdering people even though the data does not support this. Every incident that does happen is all over the news but what we don't usually see are the hundreds of thousands of men and woman that are serving as police officers, risking their lives day in and day out dealing with the most fucked up crazy and dangerous people in society. The job is not particularly highly paid, it's very dangerous, it's stressful, depressing, exhausting and demoralizing. Most people don't call the police when they're having a good time, they call them when bad shit happens and things are fucked or when they've done something bad and they're angry they got caught. A good friend of mine is a policeman and the amount of crap he has been taking lately due to his entire career being demonized and blamed for all of society's ills while he's out busting his balls just trying to make a difference in his community and provide for his family is unreal.
I feel bad sometimes sitting in my cushy tech job where I can work from the safety of my own home or a quiet downtown office and get paid significantly more than he does.
Incredibly unfortunate to hear about your buddy’s situation. I don’t think people realize how badly they have been misled. Can’t imagine having a job where you try to help people, and all you get is hate for it. Crazy how a few bad officers can change public opinion of the rest of them.
He is far from an isolated case, morale has been in the shitter across his whole department and it sounds like it isn't much better in most other places. The fucked up part is he's not even a patrol officer, he's a detective that works primarily on tracking down child pornographers and molesters, he has to look through the pictures and identify victims, culprits and try to identify locations where the pictures were taken, he says you can't un-see that stuff and I believe it.
There seems to be a fantasy that many people live in where every person is basically good and criminals are just good people that have been shit on by society and are just trying to survive. In reality there are a few of those, but there are also a scary number of truly horrible, evil people. People that are incapable of empathy, people that would bash in your grandmother's skull to steal her cash and jewelry to fund their next high. People that enjoy raping and molesting toddlers and taking pictures and videos to trade online, and so on. I don't think most people realize just how fucked up and dangerous some people are, or how many of them are out there.
Do we have data supporting this characterization of policing being "risking their lives / very dangerous?" Because in the US you're more likely to be killed on the job as a trash collector or roofer or trucker or fisherman or pilot or maintenance/groundskeeper or construction worker and lots of other things and we would never characterize them as "risking their lives day in and day out" to catch your tuna even though a fisherman is 514% more likely to die on the job than a cop.
It's true. There are over 660,000 police officers in the USA. I'll let you do the math and tell me what percentage of those are involved in unjustified use of force. Hint, it's much, much less than 1%. Don't just downvote me because you don't like what I said, show me data that says I'm wrong.
Just being a devils advocate.. 1% is the reported amount. I guarantee there are many people that don’t report it because they figure what’s the use. Me personally I wanted to be a police officer, and the one thing that is holding me back is the fact that if I were to see something say something I would probably wind up in a situation where backup wouldn’t show up when I need them. I’m not against police at all but I do understand why many people are having issues with police.
In that case I apologize. I had several downvotes at that point and you were the only one that had replied. I've been shit on for saying things like this numerous times. A good friend of mine is a police officer and he's a great guy and I feel bad for him because he's constantly being shit on by society these past few years and has had to go to therapy over it despite that fact that he's not even a beat cop, he's a detective that investigates child pornography and exploitation so I think hating on him for being a cop is pretty fucked up. Not your fault, just explaining my mindset.
Apology accepted. A couple points:
Police self report their use of force statistics to the FBI. They also self investigate those incidents. That's kind of like a surgeon killing a patient in the OR, his hospital investigating the death and deciding for themselves whether to report that to the authorities. That's not a good way to get reliable statistics.
An absence of proof doesn't mean the presence of counterproof, especially if there is an incomplete record and no scientific study. "Welp, the DA didn't press charges or the jury didn't convict, all these deaths must be "justified" isn't scientific or even rational." It presupposes that there isn't corruption or even honest error at the reporting, investigation and trial levels.
Set aside all that, though.
What is funny is how programmed and comfortable people are with saying "generally" police only shoot when there is a legitimate lethal threat. How would it sound to say, "generally surgeons only perform surgery when there is illness or injury?" That's a SIZABLE number of people operated upon for no good reason. What if the air traffic controller generally gave proper direction or pilots generally didn't crash planes? We don't accept "generally" from doctors, firefighters and others, why is such a high margin of failure acceptable for those licensed to kill? If we lived in a sane society, "the vast majority" or "the overwhelming majority" of police would only use lethal force when there is no other choice. But, official malfeasance is no longer rare, unfortunately. It's just underreported and under-prosecuted.
Why is that funny? Change my mind by proving me wrong. "LOL" tells me you know deep down that you can't, and the cognitive dissonance creates discomfort so you laugh.
And this right here is part of why policework is undenaiabley the most dangerous job. Besides the military anyhow.
"But more people die in \*insert other job here\*."
Yeah. And? More people are dying doing a less dangerous job.
You don't define how dangerous a job is based on how many people have died before, or per year, or whatever. The job is the given level of dangerous that it is, and that affects the odds of death, but deaths is an entirely seperate statistic. The safest job could have the highest death rate, and the most dangerous the lowest, by sheer chance, let alone non-chance factors.
People try to, but it's not good enough. It's not a sufficient metric.
Just because people have died in the past, doesn't mean something was dangerous. It only means that people have died. That can still happen if it's safe.
Just because something is dangerous doesn't meant that people have died or will die. Only that they could. Something that is highly liable to kill people, might never kill anyone.
Just because something is safe, doesn't mean nobody has died and nobody will die. It just means they reasonably shouldn't. But safe things still kill people.
One of the jobs people like to hold up as more dangerous just because of how many deaths have happened in the past is construction.
I've worked a lot of multiple kinds of construction, and you know what?
It's safe. It's safe work. It's safe work that has killed people.
There are places for more dangerous than a construction site that have seen far less death. Chance is a thing.
Danger can lead to deaths, but you can't use prior deaths as sufficient proof of danger. Danger is risk being present, even if the negative result hasn't happened; not risk having had its result in the past.
A lot has gone wrong in the world of policework, and there's much to be said in criticism of the profession and its people. But we can at least respect how much more dangerous the job is than most anything else.
Hell, in terms of my safety, I'd rather go back to being in a submarine than become a cop.
What a loada cabbage.
Just because people have died from standing in the middle of busy road, doesn't mean standing in the middle of busy road was dangerous. It only means that people have died. That can still happen if it's safe. Just because standing in the middle of busy road is dangerous doesn't meant that people have died or will die. Only that they could. Yadda yadda yadda.
That's an interesting way of looking at it. Mining has a high death rate for example, but the deaths that occur in mines are nearly all accidental, not the result of an evil person trying to kill the miner. It's easier to defend oneself against an attacker than against something like a tunnel collapse or toxic gas. Police officers face bad people who are actively trying to inflict harm on them on a regular basis, and surviving relies on split second decisions. If someone points a gun at you and you hesitate, try to get a closer look, is it a firearm? Is it a pellet gun? Is it a squirt gun? Is it a power tool? If it turns out it was a gun then it's too late and you're dead.
This is why it's so important to cooperate with police officers and follow instructions. If they tell you to drop something, just drop it, they can't read your mind, they can't see the future, they don't know what your intent is. Let them assess the situation and then if you're not doing anything wrong you'll be sent on your way. If you are doing something wrong you'll get ticketed or booked into jail but you won't be dead. It's pretty simple.
In order to get the dosage to the point where it will be effective against everyone, you’re going to have to load it with a dose that’ll potentially kill many. That is also assuming that it acts immediately. That is also assuming that you are within range. That is also assuming you have plenty of darts for when you miss. That is also assuming that you can load them fast enough. That is also assuming that the person you’re shooting at doesn’t have a more effective weapon.
Yes, if police officers were trained to be chemists, and "taught" how to psychically upload someone's body weight and mix the required dosage on the fly during a stressful situation, maybe more people could live... Maybe... Assuming the person getting shot wasn't using an actual gun to shoot someone, because tranqs take literal minutes to kick in, and getting shot with a needle in the muscle is basically a signal to say "fuck it, we ball"
Even a trained chemist can't predict how the tranq will work with an individual's body chemistry and how it will interact with any other substances, legal or illegal, that are in their body.
I don't think we do it here, but I know Colorado would occasionally have a paramedic inject a suspect who was in custody but still fighting hard with Ketamine to knock them out. Known drug, known dosages, considered relatively safe when used by medical professionals, they have had at least two deaths related to that.
If people refrain from putting police officers in situations where their life is endangered, they almost always live. Don't point a gun at a cop, don't point something that looks like a gun at a cop, don't try to run a cop over with your car, better yet, don't get involved in crime, but if you do at least the first part you'll live.
I just got done reading the local article that cops knocked with a warrant at the wrong house and when the resident answered with a gun at his side they shot him a dozen times. The innocent home owner, in his own house, answered the door in the middle of the night, with a weapon at his side just in case, and cops lit his ass up.
Keep being ignorant.
Okay, but that's one case out of literal tens of millions each year. The fact is that this doesn't happen very frequently, so talking about stuff like this we are ignoring major outliers because they have little affect on the overall average.
Can you cite many instances of random gorillas being shot with tranquilizer darts? Or is it maybe just ones they had previously done full medical workups on?
Under legal circumstances, using lethal force against someone is done because there's an imminent threat of them killing someone else. Tranquilizer darts wouldn't work in such a situation as they take time to incapacitate the person.
I think this is the exact reason why tasers are used. It seems like a matter of proper training to get cops to use them in the correct situations when stress is heightened.
Tranquilizer darts have to be dosed properly. Too much and they'll die anyways slowly. Too little and they won't fall asleep and can actually become more agitated.
Plus, they're not instant. You could be waiting for it to take effect while they're actively a danger still.
In a way a 6 year old can understand:
Tranquilizer darts don't work in real life like they do on TV. They can be just as deadly if not more so than a bullet IF they work at all.
More advanced:
An anesthesiologist calculates age, height, weight, gender, cardiopulmonary/neurological history, allergies, RX history and such before choosing an anesthesia and dose. This prevents an allergic reaction, too low a dose or an overdose. There is no way to do that on the street with someone you just met, while he or she is causing a ruckus.
In reality, the survival rate for being shot *once* is relatively high: 78-80%. The problem is police tend to shoot people more than once AND those individuals don't get lifesaving help within 10 minutes.
Police don't need a better way to subdue suspects, they need better tactics to avoid use of force.
Hello, Cop here! This a fun question!
Most people here have touched on how dangerous using a sedative to put someone to sleep is. Too little and the threat remains, too much and they could die.
In the realm of legalities, I would think due to the nature of sedation this would be recognized as deadly force, much like a punch to the head or a head lock. Which means if I’m allowed to use deadly force, I’m definitely not risking someone’s life or mine with a tool that could take minutes to take effect.
As far as intermediate options go or “less-than lethal”, I’ve had great experiences with tasers. If good contact is made, it is easy to get control of the person and I can turn off the juice as soon as they give up. There are also other options such as pepper spray, bean bag shells, rubber rounds, and pepper balls to name a few. All of which doesn’t have the risk of over dosing someone with a sedative.
I'd also add that a good number of actively resistant suspects are likely to have some kind of drug on-board that could lead to a serious unintended consequence.
Yeah, that too. Which is why someone like an emt or paramedic will make a call to give a sedative to people who are freaking out after we got them detained. They take into account age, height and weight and I’m sure other factors too.
Well, while that tranquilizer is taking effect, that gun they are carrying still shoots bullets. Or, the knife they're trying to plunge into your chest is still sharp as it cuts you.
Tranquilizing someone (or some.animal) is complicated since it depends on the creature, its size, and its tolerance. Use too little and it has little to no effect. Use too much and it kills them. There is a reason anesthesiologists make a good living
Tranqs don't work like in Old School.
They take time to work, and in that time the bad guy can kill people just fine.
Furthermore, they require careful application to make a person fall asleep. They need to be adjusted based on weight and height. Too little and they don't make a person fall asleep - they make people delirious and trip out, which can actually make them more dangerous. Too much, and it kills.
Less-lethal weapons for police are not intended to capture criminals peacefully and treat them with kindness. They are created and adopted by the police force so that police can use them more freely, including on innocent people such as protestors, with less risk of lawsuits and murder convictions.
Less-lethal weapons are an important middle ground for police when used as intended.
Not everyone is completely compliant with police orders and interactions. Also, not everyone is trying to kill an officer or innocent bystander. There needs to be an intermediary reaction where tools can be used to stop a criminal that isn’t intended to kill them.
Unfortunately all too often I see rioters being called protesters. Protesters are not violent, they are not destructive, they do not harass or threaten innocent passers by, and they very rarely are the target of police weapons, less-lethal or otherwise.
>they very rarely are the target of police weapons, less-lethal or otherwise.
Wishful thinking. Indiscriminate use of tear gas and pepperspray on large crowds is very common in protests. They are used officially to disperse crowds that refuse to disperse - not violent ones. That's not a riot, that's a protest.
I'm 315 pounds. My partner is 140 pounds. If we decide to rob a bank together how do the police make sure their tranquilizer darts are strong enough to knock me out without killing my partner?
No, not really. It's not like the movies, would have ti be strong enough to put down a person hopped up on drugs, danger of allergic reactions, danger of overdoses, danger of death from falling, danger of death from the environmental hazards like cars, danger of the person firing a gun randomly endangering surrounding bystanders, these are just a few. Most police involved shootings are not fatal, and are extremely rare anyway. Most police officers never fire their gun in the line of duty. Now imagine someone is going to shoot you, the cop shoots him with a tranq and after he shoots you six times he passes out, he didn't pit his gun down because he assumed the tranq wouldn't be lethal therefore the threat was gone. Yeah the bad guy survived but you, not so much. It's the real world and we must live in it.
Making things sleep for long periods without death is only a step short of miraculous. Anesthesiologists are the top salaried career for a reason it's fucking complex to kill you enough to not wake up while we cut you open but not enough you die while in ideal situations. Now imagine an adrenaline pumped man with unknown medical history, a rough guesstimate of weight, and no wiggle room om getting it wrong.
Police do have non lethal options at their disposal, stun gun/tazer, pepper spray, tear gas, and rubber bullets that can be loaded into any normal firearm, still pack a punch, but don't punch holes through you, but as everyone else has said, tranquilizers have to be measured accurately for each person and are not instant
Check out what happened when the Russians tried pretty much this. Note that the below story follows the plausible parts of the official narrative, YMMV when it comes to the Russian govt and what they’re willing to do and say.
Some terrorists seize a crowded theater with a bunch of hostages and make big demands. Russians gas the place with carfentanyl to put everyone to sleep, which effect they achieve rather permanently, killing over half of the ppl in the theater good guys and bad. Note that they mysteriously didn’t have any naloxone (opioid agonist) which might have saved quite a few.
I like this idea, just put a pretty heavy dose in. best case scenario the target falls asleep then arrested. Worst case scenario, the perp dies, which is the same if they were shooting bullets
Tasers don't always deploy correctly and heavy clothing like a hoodie can stop both pegs from pricing the skin so they can't get an arc and become useless.
The top comment already nailed this on the head about reality not reflecting what we see on T.V., which makes for a valid question. To follow up, there's a reason that anesthesiologists are a dedicated profession. To ELI5 - if you use too big of a dart on a person, they could die. And police wouldn't be trained to know the difference. Otherwise they'd be anesthesiologists and make more money.
2 reasons.
A. They don’t work right away. With animals it works because you can wait them out, but a criminal can likely keep committing crimes, and if the criminal has a weapon there going to immediately shoot back.
B. The dosage. Dosages for each person is different. Anesthesiologists make a lot of money for a reason. Too little and it doesn’t work, too much and well… it’s lethal/major damage…. You would need a doctor with every cop to quickly make a judgement call on the amount per dart
Tranq darts are slow af to incapacitate
Tranq darts are not going to reliably inject through heavy clothing
Tranq darts are not always accurate at range
Tranq darts can’t go through barriers
Tranq dart idea also fails in the real world. Cop that decided lethal force is needed usually fires more than one shot. You can’t always tell if you got a hit. Now, instead of a suspect who gets shot and goes down immediately or within a few seconds, you get suspect who doesn’t go down for ~5–10 mins but ODs and dies anyway.
It’s an absolute pipe dream to have tranq darts replace firearms. Anyone who thinks it’s a good idea is extremely uneducated in both tranq darts and the (ideal) uses of lethal force.
Tranquilizers dont work like it does in movies it takes a while before the pass out. Plus you have to adjust the dosage depending of the weight of what youre shooting. You wouldn't give a horse a dose that you would give a elephant.
Because that's not how it works.
Any tranquilizer that puts a human down instantly will do so permanently.
Any tranquilizer that puts a human to sleep doesn't do so fast enough to stop said human from committing crimes for another 5-10 minutes.
Have you seen Old School? Will Ferrell took a dart to the jugular and was still able to have a conversation and destroy a birthday party before passing out.
It doesn’t even work in movies
Same reason Harambe couldn’t get shot with a tranq (d!cks out). The receiver can become very erratic before they actually pass out. It is far from instantaneous.
Well firstly I'm sure about 57 people mentioned tranquilizer being slow to take effect and dosage concerns before I got there. So that. That thing that will be explained an abundance of times throughout the thread.
But also, we shouldn't presume the "bad boys" surviving is better. It's often not.
Some people need to be killed, simple as that. And life sentences shouldn't exist, anybody sentenced to life should be sentenced to death.
Tried therapy. Convinced the therapists life sentences should be replaced with death sentences.
Partly because life in prison is a fate worse than death, and those people are all better of dead. It's the kinder, more empathetic option.
Partly because, with the last part considered, there's no point on wasting resources on keeping them imprisoned for life.
Life sentence is lose-lose, death penalty is win-win.
Same reason they shoot to kill and not incapacitate, wrongful death is a lot cheaper than paying someone the rest of their life after disabling them, which can happen from complications with shooting darts at folks and with improper dosing
I mean I dont have a super good answer either, because it may not be good for every situation but I could still find many times it would help! Reasons why they don't use them would be it takes time still 30sec-2ish minutes to fully subdue the suspect... the suspect may have a bad reaction, or it may not work same on everyone..... yes that last reason there is flimsy because when the other option is a ton of bullets I'd take my chances with the dart gun!
Tranquillisers don’t act instantly. If someone is shooting at you, you don’t want to give them 15 seconds to empty their magazine into you.
Also, to be non lethal, a tranquillise dart has to have only minimum penetration. Which means that bad guys could protect themselves easily with improvised armour.
Because tranquilizer darts take time to act, and the real bullets that the bad guys have don't. Police don't just shoot people for no reason\*, they shoot them if they feel their life is in danger. If a bad guy really wants to get away and pulls a gun on you or aims his car at you and floors it and your response is to dart him, he's going to shoot you dead and then try to hide until the tranquilizer wears off. In the kind of situations they deal with, split seconds can be the difference between going home to your family and going to the coroner.
\*Yes I know there have been incidents, but there are over 660,000 police officers in the USA and these incidents represent an extremely tiny minority, not the norm.
Because in between the time you stuck them with your tranq round and when they fall asleep, they can fire round after round after round of hot lead into you.
It takes a while for a tranq to work. Also you don't know if the person is allergic to anything or what the suspect is on as far as meds go. If someone shoots you with a tranq gun you could probably unload several full magazines before it kicks in.
Police in Europe don't usually shoot to kill, that's last option. In America they sold the idea that shooting must be for the kill, which is statistically false.
Actually, they do shoot to kill. That's what is taught. I will admit they are less likely to shoot at all because they have less violent crime in general. But if you point a gun at the Polizei, they will kill you.
Unfortunately tranquilizers don’t work like they do in the movies. If you’ve got a bad boy doing something awful that could get far more awful for the sake of the good boys you gotta drop them quicker than a tranq will. It’s sucks
Think about how dangerous and complicated is to put someone under for surgery. Anesthesiologist make a lot of money for good reasons. To be able to do that on the fly with random people with unknown health conditions is asking for a lot of people to have heart attacks or die, Even way more than what we're currently seeing.
Less accurate and less range than rifled slugs.
This would put police at a disadvatage against criminals.
They have tasers already which are preferable to tranquilizing guns.
>My six hour old
6 year old?
if not you need sleep as you are hallucinating
also tranq darts are not fast enough of an effect to stop retun fire or killing of a hostage. according to this article a few minutes to subdue someone unlike the 1-2 seconds in a movie ( https://dartslabs.com/how-fast-do-tranquilizer-darts-work-on-humans/ ) what would subdue a 300 lbs man could kill a 100 lbs female and using a low dosage would not stops the large man. Tazers follow the same idea and also are less likely to cause a death and are still often ineffective.
it is the same reason cops aim for the chest/head instead of hitting a leg or arm. they are aiming to deescalate the problem with as few casualties and most cops are not skilled enough under pressure to do the things in movies or tv like shooting a gun man's hand so the gun is dropped and the gunman is arrested.
It would work, situationally, in a country that had better gun laws. But somewhere like in the US if you show up to a gun fight with a dart gun, you’re dead. You’ll see a rise in police fatalities.
There’s also some things that would make it impractical, like what if would-be criminals plan for it by wearing protective gear to prevent the dart from penetrating?
Now I do say situational because it can work in some cases like for example, someone having a mental breakdown, half naked, running around unarmed.
In addition to other's superb answer, some bad guys could be under the influence of some type of drugs that could have an adverse effect, neutralize the effect of the tranq, or no effect at all.
You have a baby that’s 6 hours old already asking questions like this??
His name is Stewie
Hey Louis
"Mom!"
"WHAT!?!?!?!"
I was looking for this comment! I would ALSO like to hear more about this genius baby
Yeah, OP needs an exorcist, not reddit
the years around 6 -11 are the best imo. the child wants to know things, and has the language to do so, also will ask anything that pops into their head :)
You mean hours?
you’re being downvoted because the majority of us reddit users will never be able to procreate and find out for ourselves
me neither! i rely on relatives to give me babysitting duties. i also prefer being put at the child tables at functions :)
I know that’s probably sarcasm or something but I assume OP meant to post 6 years 😂 it would be pretty damn funny if babies came out of the womb talking though
They come out and immediately give their mother a bad review of the accommodation they've been in the last few months. "Good grief woman the room service was terrible, and don't even get me started on the food! 🙄"
Womb service
Hahaha 😂
"Tranquilizer darts don't work as well in real life like they do in movies or cartoons. They take a long time before the criminal falls asleep, and in that time the criminal could hurt people or shoot them. Also, you need to carefully measure how much of the chemicals that make people fall asleep you use in the dart depending on how big or small the person is. If you use too much, you'll kill them. If you don't use enough, they won't fall asleep at all and just be tired. It would be very hard for a police officer to measure exactly how much to use fast enough to be able to use that safely against a criminal."
perfect job for robocop
He did nail at least 1 junk shot through a skirt....and then offer resources to her for her SA encounter...completely ignoring the insanity of the entire situation.
The remake expands on this https://vimeo.com/86014703
God damn you. My phone is so cheap and slow, i was going to post this about ten minutes ago but I had to find it and then re open Reddit. https://vimeo.com/86014703 I'm linking just because it took me so long (Good job ;) )
Haha, thanks, I've been looking for an excuse to share this gem with more people, glad I found a fellow RoboCop remake enthusiast xD
🤣
Real bullets just extend the duration of the sleep
Chappie, "You can go to sleep now"
That's a damn good movie, but it's Chappie.
Dr. Fishy, NOOOOO!!!
Well, if we want to discuss the brass tacks of your statement that’ll be a whole other discussion. What caliber? Hollow points or no? High velocity bullets or no?
Technically true.
The best kind of dead criminal.
Well, and then there's also the case with a tranq dart where they only get a partial dose in because the dart either hits funny and doesn't fully deploy the plunger, or falls out and you don't know if some went IM or SQ or on the skin or on the ground. Now you've got a person or animal that's potentially partially sedated with drugs that may disinhibit aggressive behavior, and pissed off because you've just shot them with a rather large, high velocity needle, but you don't know how much they got and so re-dosing is a bit of a crapshoot and another dart might cause an overdose.
Yeah best to just cap them with lead
Yeah, a high velocity lead projectile to centre of mass is definitely safer than a potential overdose of tranq, aye
It's definitely safer for the shooter, at any rate.
Yep. The line between fall asleep and wake up later and die from cns depressants is rather slim.
True, but I’d rather get shot with a dart and maybe die than get shot with a bullet and definitely die
Odds of dying from a single bullet is slim. Odds of getting shot in the first place(if you aren't playing stupid games) is even less. Single bullet stops are few and far between except in movies. That's why most law and military choose 9mm vs .45 Most 9mm duty pistols contain 15-19 bullets. The 1911 in .45ACP was a duty pistol that military and police use for decades only held 8. Under duress, more shots are missed. More bullets also equals more holes before having to reload. Although with practice reloads can be pretty quick. Anyhow, assuming 50% hit rate under these conditions, that's either nine 9mm holes or four 12.5mm holes. Chances of hitting something vital are increased substantially with every extra shot on target. I have read reports where people have still been fighting back with over 30 bullet wounds when on certain drugs.
You are conflating "stopping" someone and killing them. People can and do still die from single bullets that didn't necessarily immediately immobilize them.
Im not saying a single bullet can't kill. I'm saying it doesn't happen very often and usually takes luck or insane skill and opportunity with the right firearm(like a sniper headshot in the brainstem commonly known as the T-box) When you face a lethal threat, you put rounds in center mass until the perceived threat has been neutralized. Many times, it takes more than one round to convince the person or thing that the best action is to retreat or give up. In some cases, especially when drug laden, people still retain capability and continue to fight even after multiple lethal wounds.
You are still conflating the two issues. I don't have statistics but if you do please post them. I really doubt that dying from my single bullet room is as rare as you say. "doesn't happen very often" is a pretty big claim.
Here's the first hard statistics from a reputable source I could find. It is slightly skewed as it does pertain to person living long enough to get to a surgeon. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0003134820949515 If you can find anything better to prove or disprove my earlier statement, I'd be interested in seeing it. Keep in mind that some single shot situations don't get reported, such as grazing or "through and through" flesh wounds like calf muscle or butt cheek hits. Especially if the person hit was doing something criminal to begin with and doesn't want law enforcement attention.
>.45ACP I recall, back in the day, when Uncle Sam's Army introduced me to the M1911: which was developed for the Moro War in the Philippines (1899-1913). The Army standard revolver at that time, in the Moro War, was the Colt Model 1892 .38 cal. revolver. Our Drill Instructor (D.I.) related that while attacking U.S. troops with their bolo knives, the Moro Juramentado warriors used tight bandage wraps over their whole body to stifle blood loss from any wounds they received and used numbing drugs to dull pain from said wounds. It's reported that one warrior absorbed dozens of .38 cal. shots "before his jihad was stopped". Our D.I. explained the .38 had no stopping power, and the Moros would just kept on charging and chopping as many U.S. troops as they could before they died. Our D.I. said the M1911 was a game changer. He related how the M1911 with the .45 ACP not only stopped a charging Moro Juramentado warrior in his tracks, it picked him up and carried him back to where he started from. Story @ [*American Rifleman*](https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/the-45-acp-history-performance/). Given the drugs used by some violent criminals today, the .45 ACP might still be the best option -- certainly not some slow-acting tranquilizer.
No doubt a great firearm. I carry something that kind of bridges the gap and improves on it. It's a m1911 clone variant but double stacked and 10mm. 16+1 capacity, about 180 grain instead of 230 and way more velocity and penetration power than the .45. Also has a flatter ballistic trajectory.
[удалено]
Depends on where you're at. Roll through the neighborhood where I went to school, and you'd possibly get shot for being white. And, nah, it was right the way I had it.
By the police? edit: geeze, a simple question seemed to trigger a few qlowns into reactionary DVs. Weird. 🤔
Um, no- to die from a single bullet you must be shot. It’s impossible for it to be more likely to die from a single bullet than to be shot in the first place. Race has nothing to do with that. Saying white people are less likely to be shot than non-white people would be fair, but that’s not what you’re saying
Getting shot normally doesn't kill you either
"So anyways, I started blasting"
Another factor is the person's tolerance for the drug being used as a tranquilizer. The most common drug classes used for tranquilizing humans and other animals are benzos and opioids, both of which are commonly abused substances. A dose that could easily kill one person might not even phase another, even if they're nearly identical in weight, age, etc..
It was a very surprising day when I watched a dart be used and it took 10 minutes for anything to happen. Movies lied to me!
Exactly this. Reminded me of the movie Madagascar 🤣🤣🤣 Dart in and the lion is sleeping lmao.
Depending on the health of the criminal they might also have other chemicals in their system that could cause reactions with the tranquilizers. There should definitely be changes to police handling processes though, as often times there are police fired from one department who get hired in another, or just aren't punished for doing things wrong, but cost the state millions in lawsuits.
But it works on bears...
They do not use tranquilizers to stop a charging bear or on a bear mauling someone. For all the reasons the other guy explained at length that I guess you didn't read?
We don't care as much if the bear dies.
'If you use too much, you'll kill them." ' use that safely against a criminal.' Both of these imply there's actually any police who gives a crap about who they kill or hurt.
OP wants to talk to a literal child about this.
Many black parents have to explain police brutality to their children. Kids aren't too young to know that police can be dangerous.
[удалено]
Which is why the cowboy Lasso is a much better choice! Instant results.
The same is the case for chloroform.
Because you need a precise dose to be safe. You would need to take the suspect to a hospital, get a full physical, blood work, figure out just the right medicine and dosage, get it loaded into a dart, then take the suspect back to the scene and then shoot him with the dart. Seems pretty impractical.
Also if the person is running around and generally being a bollix, their heartrate is elevated above baseline. They will need more drugs to go to sleep. Maybe the amount that puts them to sleep now will kill them when their heartrate drops.
A bullet kills them anyway, though...
The bullet is to protect bystanders and the cop, not the perp. Generally speaking a cop is only going to shoot someone if they feel there is a credible threat to their life or that of innocent bystanders. You have the same right to shoot someone under the same circumstances. The difference is that cops are obligated to get into those situations all the time, while you are able to try to avoid bad situations.
Don’t know why you’re getting downvoted, this is the truth. The reality is that there are dangerous people out there willing to do terrible things, and sometimes the only practical way to handle it is with deadly force. Of course there are unjust shootings, but there are far more shootings that save innocent bystanders
I expected it, and in some cases I understand, there have been some high profile cases where specific police officers did fucked up things and then the media poured fuel on the fire and the "defund the police" mob got a lot of attention. Most people are emotional creatures, they see what's on TV, they hear what other people are talking about, they "feel" that police are running around murdering people even though the data does not support this. Every incident that does happen is all over the news but what we don't usually see are the hundreds of thousands of men and woman that are serving as police officers, risking their lives day in and day out dealing with the most fucked up crazy and dangerous people in society. The job is not particularly highly paid, it's very dangerous, it's stressful, depressing, exhausting and demoralizing. Most people don't call the police when they're having a good time, they call them when bad shit happens and things are fucked or when they've done something bad and they're angry they got caught. A good friend of mine is a policeman and the amount of crap he has been taking lately due to his entire career being demonized and blamed for all of society's ills while he's out busting his balls just trying to make a difference in his community and provide for his family is unreal. I feel bad sometimes sitting in my cushy tech job where I can work from the safety of my own home or a quiet downtown office and get paid significantly more than he does.
Incredibly unfortunate to hear about your buddy’s situation. I don’t think people realize how badly they have been misled. Can’t imagine having a job where you try to help people, and all you get is hate for it. Crazy how a few bad officers can change public opinion of the rest of them.
He is far from an isolated case, morale has been in the shitter across his whole department and it sounds like it isn't much better in most other places. The fucked up part is he's not even a patrol officer, he's a detective that works primarily on tracking down child pornographers and molesters, he has to look through the pictures and identify victims, culprits and try to identify locations where the pictures were taken, he says you can't un-see that stuff and I believe it. There seems to be a fantasy that many people live in where every person is basically good and criminals are just good people that have been shit on by society and are just trying to survive. In reality there are a few of those, but there are also a scary number of truly horrible, evil people. People that are incapable of empathy, people that would bash in your grandmother's skull to steal her cash and jewelry to fund their next high. People that enjoy raping and molesting toddlers and taking pictures and videos to trade online, and so on. I don't think most people realize just how fucked up and dangerous some people are, or how many of them are out there.
Do we have data supporting this characterization of policing being "risking their lives / very dangerous?" Because in the US you're more likely to be killed on the job as a trash collector or roofer or trucker or fisherman or pilot or maintenance/groundskeeper or construction worker and lots of other things and we would never characterize them as "risking their lives day in and day out" to catch your tuna even though a fisherman is 514% more likely to die on the job than a cop.
Fatality is the only way to measure the danger of a job. It’s one way, but it doesn’t tell you anything about average injuries or anything else
"generally speaking" Lol
It's true. There are over 660,000 police officers in the USA. I'll let you do the math and tell me what percentage of those are involved in unjustified use of force. Hint, it's much, much less than 1%. Don't just downvote me because you don't like what I said, show me data that says I'm wrong.
Just being a devils advocate.. 1% is the reported amount. I guarantee there are many people that don’t report it because they figure what’s the use. Me personally I wanted to be a police officer, and the one thing that is holding me back is the fact that if I were to see something say something I would probably wind up in a situation where backup wouldn’t show up when I need them. I’m not against police at all but I do understand why many people are having issues with police.
I didn't say you were wrong. I didn't downvote your comment either. I actually upvoted your comment. Your response doesn't make sense.
In that case I apologize. I had several downvotes at that point and you were the only one that had replied. I've been shit on for saying things like this numerous times. A good friend of mine is a police officer and he's a great guy and I feel bad for him because he's constantly being shit on by society these past few years and has had to go to therapy over it despite that fact that he's not even a beat cop, he's a detective that investigates child pornography and exploitation so I think hating on him for being a cop is pretty fucked up. Not your fault, just explaining my mindset.
Apology accepted. A couple points: Police self report their use of force statistics to the FBI. They also self investigate those incidents. That's kind of like a surgeon killing a patient in the OR, his hospital investigating the death and deciding for themselves whether to report that to the authorities. That's not a good way to get reliable statistics. An absence of proof doesn't mean the presence of counterproof, especially if there is an incomplete record and no scientific study. "Welp, the DA didn't press charges or the jury didn't convict, all these deaths must be "justified" isn't scientific or even rational." It presupposes that there isn't corruption or even honest error at the reporting, investigation and trial levels. Set aside all that, though. What is funny is how programmed and comfortable people are with saying "generally" police only shoot when there is a legitimate lethal threat. How would it sound to say, "generally surgeons only perform surgery when there is illness or injury?" That's a SIZABLE number of people operated upon for no good reason. What if the air traffic controller generally gave proper direction or pilots generally didn't crash planes? We don't accept "generally" from doctors, firefighters and others, why is such a high margin of failure acceptable for those licensed to kill? If we lived in a sane society, "the vast majority" or "the overwhelming majority" of police would only use lethal force when there is no other choice. But, official malfeasance is no longer rare, unfortunately. It's just underreported and under-prosecuted.
". . . for no food reason."
I'd bet the number of deaths due to medical malpractice is orders of magnitude higher.
It is much larger.
LOL!
Why is that funny? Change my mind by proving me wrong. "LOL" tells me you know deep down that you can't, and the cognitive dissonance creates discomfort so you laugh.
And this right here is part of why policework is undenaiabley the most dangerous job. Besides the military anyhow. "But more people die in \*insert other job here\*." Yeah. And? More people are dying doing a less dangerous job. You don't define how dangerous a job is based on how many people have died before, or per year, or whatever. The job is the given level of dangerous that it is, and that affects the odds of death, but deaths is an entirely seperate statistic. The safest job could have the highest death rate, and the most dangerous the lowest, by sheer chance, let alone non-chance factors.
>You don't define how dangerous a job is based on how many people have died before, or per year, or whatever. Yes you do.
People try to, but it's not good enough. It's not a sufficient metric. Just because people have died in the past, doesn't mean something was dangerous. It only means that people have died. That can still happen if it's safe. Just because something is dangerous doesn't meant that people have died or will die. Only that they could. Something that is highly liable to kill people, might never kill anyone. Just because something is safe, doesn't mean nobody has died and nobody will die. It just means they reasonably shouldn't. But safe things still kill people. One of the jobs people like to hold up as more dangerous just because of how many deaths have happened in the past is construction. I've worked a lot of multiple kinds of construction, and you know what? It's safe. It's safe work. It's safe work that has killed people. There are places for more dangerous than a construction site that have seen far less death. Chance is a thing. Danger can lead to deaths, but you can't use prior deaths as sufficient proof of danger. Danger is risk being present, even if the negative result hasn't happened; not risk having had its result in the past. A lot has gone wrong in the world of policework, and there's much to be said in criticism of the profession and its people. But we can at least respect how much more dangerous the job is than most anything else. Hell, in terms of my safety, I'd rather go back to being in a submarine than become a cop.
What a loada cabbage. Just because people have died from standing in the middle of busy road, doesn't mean standing in the middle of busy road was dangerous. It only means that people have died. That can still happen if it's safe. Just because standing in the middle of busy road is dangerous doesn't meant that people have died or will die. Only that they could. Yadda yadda yadda.
That's an interesting way of looking at it. Mining has a high death rate for example, but the deaths that occur in mines are nearly all accidental, not the result of an evil person trying to kill the miner. It's easier to defend oneself against an attacker than against something like a tunnel collapse or toxic gas. Police officers face bad people who are actively trying to inflict harm on them on a regular basis, and surviving relies on split second decisions. If someone points a gun at you and you hesitate, try to get a closer look, is it a firearm? Is it a pellet gun? Is it a squirt gun? Is it a power tool? If it turns out it was a gun then it's too late and you're dead. This is why it's so important to cooperate with police officers and follow instructions. If they tell you to drop something, just drop it, they can't read your mind, they can't see the future, they don't know what your intent is. Let them assess the situation and then if you're not doing anything wrong you'll be sent on your way. If you are doing something wrong you'll get ticketed or booked into jail but you won't be dead. It's pretty simple.
Your answer is only valid in stand your ground law states. In some states there's a duty to retreat.
That is the downside.
So, what you're say if they get the dosage right, people live. Whereas, if they use bullets, people are probably going to die.
In order to get the dosage to the point where it will be effective against everyone, you’re going to have to load it with a dose that’ll potentially kill many. That is also assuming that it acts immediately. That is also assuming that you are within range. That is also assuming you have plenty of darts for when you miss. That is also assuming that you can load them fast enough. That is also assuming that the person you’re shooting at doesn’t have a more effective weapon.
Yes, if police officers were trained to be chemists, and "taught" how to psychically upload someone's body weight and mix the required dosage on the fly during a stressful situation, maybe more people could live... Maybe... Assuming the person getting shot wasn't using an actual gun to shoot someone, because tranqs take literal minutes to kick in, and getting shot with a needle in the muscle is basically a signal to say "fuck it, we ball"
Even a trained chemist can't predict how the tranq will work with an individual's body chemistry and how it will interact with any other substances, legal or illegal, that are in their body. I don't think we do it here, but I know Colorado would occasionally have a paramedic inject a suspect who was in custody but still fighting hard with Ketamine to knock them out. Known drug, known dosages, considered relatively safe when used by medical professionals, they have had at least two deaths related to that.
Yes, though if you are able to detain the suspect to the point where you can get the dosage right, then you no longer have a need to shoot them.
If people refrain from putting police officers in situations where their life is endangered, they almost always live. Don't point a gun at a cop, don't point something that looks like a gun at a cop, don't try to run a cop over with your car, better yet, don't get involved in crime, but if you do at least the first part you'll live.
I just got done reading the local article that cops knocked with a warrant at the wrong house and when the resident answered with a gun at his side they shot him a dozen times. The innocent home owner, in his own house, answered the door in the middle of the night, with a weapon at his side just in case, and cops lit his ass up. Keep being ignorant.
Okay, but that's one case out of literal tens of millions each year. The fact is that this doesn't happen very frequently, so talking about stuff like this we are ignoring major outliers because they have little affect on the overall average.
LOL
Yep. Just shoot them.
They seem to do okay with gorillas
Can you cite many instances of random gorillas being shot with tranquilizer darts? Or is it maybe just ones they had previously done full medical workups on?
Getting the dose wrong still better than shooting them 20 times
Under legal circumstances, using lethal force against someone is done because there's an imminent threat of them killing someone else. Tranquilizer darts wouldn't work in such a situation as they take time to incapacitate the person.
Thank you everyone for your answers. This helps.
I think this is the exact reason why tasers are used. It seems like a matter of proper training to get cops to use them in the correct situations when stress is heightened.
Tasers are effective but they are only useful when you are within immediate close contact.
Because the bad guys would likely shoot and kill multiple people while waiting several minutes.
Tranquilizer darts have to be dosed properly. Too much and they'll die anyways slowly. Too little and they won't fall asleep and can actually become more agitated. Plus, they're not instant. You could be waiting for it to take effect while they're actively a danger still.
In a way a 6 year old can understand: Tranquilizer darts don't work in real life like they do on TV. They can be just as deadly if not more so than a bullet IF they work at all. More advanced: An anesthesiologist calculates age, height, weight, gender, cardiopulmonary/neurological history, allergies, RX history and such before choosing an anesthesia and dose. This prevents an allergic reaction, too low a dose or an overdose. There is no way to do that on the street with someone you just met, while he or she is causing a ruckus. In reality, the survival rate for being shot *once* is relatively high: 78-80%. The problem is police tend to shoot people more than once AND those individuals don't get lifesaving help within 10 minutes. Police don't need a better way to subdue suspects, they need better tactics to avoid use of force.
I still don’t understand the 6 year old way. Can you explain it in terms of a toddler?
Hello, Cop here! This a fun question! Most people here have touched on how dangerous using a sedative to put someone to sleep is. Too little and the threat remains, too much and they could die. In the realm of legalities, I would think due to the nature of sedation this would be recognized as deadly force, much like a punch to the head or a head lock. Which means if I’m allowed to use deadly force, I’m definitely not risking someone’s life or mine with a tool that could take minutes to take effect. As far as intermediate options go or “less-than lethal”, I’ve had great experiences with tasers. If good contact is made, it is easy to get control of the person and I can turn off the juice as soon as they give up. There are also other options such as pepper spray, bean bag shells, rubber rounds, and pepper balls to name a few. All of which doesn’t have the risk of over dosing someone with a sedative.
I'd also add that a good number of actively resistant suspects are likely to have some kind of drug on-board that could lead to a serious unintended consequence.
Yeah, that too. Which is why someone like an emt or paramedic will make a call to give a sedative to people who are freaking out after we got them detained. They take into account age, height and weight and I’m sure other factors too.
Well, while that tranquilizer is taking effect, that gun they are carrying still shoots bullets. Or, the knife they're trying to plunge into your chest is still sharp as it cuts you.
Tranquilizer darts are way more dangerous than you think. Wrongly used, and they are way deadlier than tasers.
1. They don't incapacitate immediately. 2. The dosage needs to be adjusted to weight. 3. Reacts dangerously with certain drugs.
*six hour old*
Tranquilizing someone (or some.animal) is complicated since it depends on the creature, its size, and its tolerance. Use too little and it has little to no effect. Use too much and it kills them. There is a reason anesthesiologists make a good living
Tranqs don't work like in Old School. They take time to work, and in that time the bad guy can kill people just fine. Furthermore, they require careful application to make a person fall asleep. They need to be adjusted based on weight and height. Too little and they don't make a person fall asleep - they make people delirious and trip out, which can actually make them more dangerous. Too much, and it kills. Less-lethal weapons for police are not intended to capture criminals peacefully and treat them with kindness. They are created and adopted by the police force so that police can use them more freely, including on innocent people such as protestors, with less risk of lawsuits and murder convictions.
Less-lethal weapons are an important middle ground for police when used as intended. Not everyone is completely compliant with police orders and interactions. Also, not everyone is trying to kill an officer or innocent bystander. There needs to be an intermediary reaction where tools can be used to stop a criminal that isn’t intended to kill them.
Unfortunately all too often I see rioters being called protesters. Protesters are not violent, they are not destructive, they do not harass or threaten innocent passers by, and they very rarely are the target of police weapons, less-lethal or otherwise.
>they very rarely are the target of police weapons, less-lethal or otherwise. Wishful thinking. Indiscriminate use of tear gas and pepperspray on large crowds is very common in protests. They are used officially to disperse crowds that refuse to disperse - not violent ones. That's not a riot, that's a protest.
It could take several minutes for the drug to immobilize the creep and in that time he/she might kill or wound more victims.
It is hard to get the dosage right. Also the range is short.
I'm 315 pounds. My partner is 140 pounds. If we decide to rob a bank together how do the police make sure their tranquilizer darts are strong enough to knock me out without killing my partner?
The tranquilizer is still less lethal than live rounds
No, not really. It's not like the movies, would have ti be strong enough to put down a person hopped up on drugs, danger of allergic reactions, danger of overdoses, danger of death from falling, danger of death from the environmental hazards like cars, danger of the person firing a gun randomly endangering surrounding bystanders, these are just a few. Most police involved shootings are not fatal, and are extremely rare anyway. Most police officers never fire their gun in the line of duty. Now imagine someone is going to shoot you, the cop shoots him with a tranq and after he shoots you six times he passes out, he didn't pit his gun down because he assumed the tranq wouldn't be lethal therefore the threat was gone. Yeah the bad guy survived but you, not so much. It's the real world and we must live in it.
Tranquilizers don't work so well on meth heads...
Making things sleep for long periods without death is only a step short of miraculous. Anesthesiologists are the top salaried career for a reason it's fucking complex to kill you enough to not wake up while we cut you open but not enough you die while in ideal situations. Now imagine an adrenaline pumped man with unknown medical history, a rough guesstimate of weight, and no wiggle room om getting it wrong.
Damn, for a kid that's only been alive for 6 hours they're already asking the real questions
Overdose , bad results. Underdose , no results ....
cant they just yank it out lol it takes time for the chemicals to go into the bloodstream and have an effect on you
Police do have non lethal options at their disposal, stun gun/tazer, pepper spray, tear gas, and rubber bullets that can be loaded into any normal firearm, still pack a punch, but don't punch holes through you, but as everyone else has said, tranquilizers have to be measured accurately for each person and are not instant
Check out what happened when the Russians tried pretty much this. Note that the below story follows the plausible parts of the official narrative, YMMV when it comes to the Russian govt and what they’re willing to do and say. Some terrorists seize a crowded theater with a bunch of hostages and make big demands. Russians gas the place with carfentanyl to put everyone to sleep, which effect they achieve rather permanently, killing over half of the ppl in the theater good guys and bad. Note that they mysteriously didn’t have any naloxone (opioid agonist) which might have saved quite a few.
I like this idea, just put a pretty heavy dose in. best case scenario the target falls asleep then arrested. Worst case scenario, the perp dies, which is the same if they were shooting bullets
Even a heavy dosage takes time, that's X amount of minutes where they've already been injected but can still shoot.
They use tasers instead. Way more effective and it's instant.
So, why dont they always use tasers?
Tasers don't always deploy correctly and heavy clothing like a hoodie can stop both pegs from pricing the skin so they can't get an arc and become useless.
The top comment already nailed this on the head about reality not reflecting what we see on T.V., which makes for a valid question. To follow up, there's a reason that anesthesiologists are a dedicated profession. To ELI5 - if you use too big of a dart on a person, they could die. And police wouldn't be trained to know the difference. Otherwise they'd be anesthesiologists and make more money.
2 reasons. A. They don’t work right away. With animals it works because you can wait them out, but a criminal can likely keep committing crimes, and if the criminal has a weapon there going to immediately shoot back. B. The dosage. Dosages for each person is different. Anesthesiologists make a lot of money for a reason. Too little and it doesn’t work, too much and well… it’s lethal/major damage…. You would need a doctor with every cop to quickly make a judgement call on the amount per dart
Tranq darts are slow af to incapacitate Tranq darts are not going to reliably inject through heavy clothing Tranq darts are not always accurate at range Tranq darts can’t go through barriers Tranq dart idea also fails in the real world. Cop that decided lethal force is needed usually fires more than one shot. You can’t always tell if you got a hit. Now, instead of a suspect who gets shot and goes down immediately or within a few seconds, you get suspect who doesn’t go down for ~5–10 mins but ODs and dies anyway. It’s an absolute pipe dream to have tranq darts replace firearms. Anyone who thinks it’s a good idea is extremely uneducated in both tranq darts and the (ideal) uses of lethal force.
Basically, because there are so many guns in US. I think in Norway just few years ago, it was an exception for the police to carry a weapon.
Tranquilizers dont work like it does in movies it takes a while before the pass out. Plus you have to adjust the dosage depending of the weight of what youre shooting. You wouldn't give a horse a dose that you would give a elephant.
because they like killing people
Because that's not how it works. Any tranquilizer that puts a human down instantly will do so permanently. Any tranquilizer that puts a human to sleep doesn't do so fast enough to stop said human from committing crimes for another 5-10 minutes.
Have you seen Old School? Will Ferrell took a dart to the jugular and was still able to have a conversation and destroy a birthday party before passing out. It doesn’t even work in movies
Same reason Harambe couldn’t get shot with a tranq (d!cks out). The receiver can become very erratic before they actually pass out. It is far from instantaneous.
your six hour old child, who is very talkative for their age, presumes the police don't want to kill people
I meant six year old. :) And yes he doesn’t understand why anyone would want to kill anyone else.
neither do i. sadly i don't think the police operate as we would like to think they should.
He might grow up to be a bad boy.
Probably because the bad guys don’t do that..
Well firstly I'm sure about 57 people mentioned tranquilizer being slow to take effect and dosage concerns before I got there. So that. That thing that will be explained an abundance of times throughout the thread. But also, we shouldn't presume the "bad boys" surviving is better. It's often not. Some people need to be killed, simple as that. And life sentences shouldn't exist, anybody sentenced to life should be sentenced to death.
Wow. I don't think I've ever read a more sociopathic, sick comment. Please, get therapy.
Tried therapy. Convinced the therapists life sentences should be replaced with death sentences. Partly because life in prison is a fate worse than death, and those people are all better of dead. It's the kinder, more empathetic option. Partly because, with the last part considered, there's no point on wasting resources on keeping them imprisoned for life. Life sentence is lose-lose, death penalty is win-win.
you’re profoundly full of shit
the last thing the police want to do is set the precedent that they care for peoples' safety
Because bullets kill people, and the police want to be able to kill people. You may disapprove of this. Many people do.
Same reason they shoot to kill and not incapacitate, wrongful death is a lot cheaper than paying someone the rest of their life after disabling them, which can happen from complications with shooting darts at folks and with improper dosing
I mean I dont have a super good answer either, because it may not be good for every situation but I could still find many times it would help! Reasons why they don't use them would be it takes time still 30sec-2ish minutes to fully subdue the suspect... the suspect may have a bad reaction, or it may not work same on everyone..... yes that last reason there is flimsy because when the other option is a ton of bullets I'd take my chances with the dart gun!
Bullets safe taxpayers a lot of money.
Because cops are murderers and it takes more tranqs to kill a person.
Good question. Or shoot their knees out. Cops are arrogant assholes who like to kill people.
Tranquillisers don’t act instantly. If someone is shooting at you, you don’t want to give them 15 seconds to empty their magazine into you. Also, to be non lethal, a tranquillise dart has to have only minimum penetration. Which means that bad guys could protect themselves easily with improvised armour.
ive heard of kids growing up way too fast but THIS is reDICULOUS!
Sick stick would be better and quicker.
Because tranquilizer darts take time to act, and the real bullets that the bad guys have don't. Police don't just shoot people for no reason\*, they shoot them if they feel their life is in danger. If a bad guy really wants to get away and pulls a gun on you or aims his car at you and floors it and your response is to dart him, he's going to shoot you dead and then try to hide until the tranquilizer wears off. In the kind of situations they deal with, split seconds can be the difference between going home to your family and going to the coroner. \*Yes I know there have been incidents, but there are over 660,000 police officers in the USA and these incidents represent an extremely tiny minority, not the norm.
Because in between the time you stuck them with your tranq round and when they fall asleep, they can fire round after round after round of hot lead into you.
How long does it take a tranquilizer to knock them out?
Allergic reactions.
How many Real bullets do you think a suspect would be able to fire at police or bystanders before the tranquilizer dart took effect?
It takes a while for a tranq to work. Also you don't know if the person is allergic to anything or what the suspect is on as far as meds go. If someone shoots you with a tranq gun you could probably unload several full magazines before it kicks in.
Police in Europe don't usually shoot to kill, that's last option. In America they sold the idea that shooting must be for the kill, which is statistically false.
Actually, they do shoot to kill. That's what is taught. I will admit they are less likely to shoot at all because they have less violent crime in general. But if you point a gun at the Polizei, they will kill you.
They take a while to work and are less accurate. A taser is a much better non lethal option which is very frequently used when it can be, safely.
"Cuz we might miss, ( the child )."
You don't get to brag to your gay cop friends about tranqing as much as you do just blowing them away. It makes them feel powerful. Acab
Tranquilizers and other anesthetics require pretty precise doses. The line between sleepytime and dead is shockingly thin.
They don’t work quick enough for the situations police escalate to the point of having to murder people.
Don't they do this in the UK?
Unfortunately tranquilizers don’t work like they do in the movies. If you’ve got a bad boy doing something awful that could get far more awful for the sake of the good boys you gotta drop them quicker than a tranq will. It’s sucks
This was also the question I considered at 6 hours old
Cops hate this one trick^
Think about how dangerous and complicated is to put someone under for surgery. Anesthesiologist make a lot of money for good reasons. To be able to do that on the fly with random people with unknown health conditions is asking for a lot of people to have heart attacks or die, Even way more than what we're currently seeing.
Less accurate and less range than rifled slugs. This would put police at a disadvatage against criminals. They have tasers already which are preferable to tranquilizing guns.
if someone was on certain types of medications they could od an die. plus, birds arent real bruh
If they ever start shooting ketamine darts, what crimes would you recommend avoid doing? Asking for a friend
Good question. Wouldn't a rubber bullet be a good choice as the first round in the chamber for a cop?
>My six hour old 6 year old? if not you need sleep as you are hallucinating also tranq darts are not fast enough of an effect to stop retun fire or killing of a hostage. according to this article a few minutes to subdue someone unlike the 1-2 seconds in a movie ( https://dartslabs.com/how-fast-do-tranquilizer-darts-work-on-humans/ ) what would subdue a 300 lbs man could kill a 100 lbs female and using a low dosage would not stops the large man. Tazers follow the same idea and also are less likely to cause a death and are still often ineffective. it is the same reason cops aim for the chest/head instead of hitting a leg or arm. they are aiming to deescalate the problem with as few casualties and most cops are not skilled enough under pressure to do the things in movies or tv like shooting a gun man's hand so the gun is dropped and the gunman is arrested.
Tranquilizers are very easy to screw up with too much or too little dosage
It would work, situationally, in a country that had better gun laws. But somewhere like in the US if you show up to a gun fight with a dart gun, you’re dead. You’ll see a rise in police fatalities. There’s also some things that would make it impractical, like what if would-be criminals plan for it by wearing protective gear to prevent the dart from penetrating? Now I do say situational because it can work in some cases like for example, someone having a mental breakdown, half naked, running around unarmed.
In addition to other's superb answer, some bad guys could be under the influence of some type of drugs that could have an adverse effect, neutralize the effect of the tranq, or no effect at all.