PDA

View Full Version : humane law enforcement?


John Galt
11-27-2007, 06:15 PM
Something that has always puzzled me: the Geneva conventions(or one of them at least) say that using expanding or hollow-point bullets in warfare is inhumane, thus military rounds are all full-metal jacketed(FMJ), though some tumble, like 556NATO or .303 British, but I digress.

Police forces and other law enforcement, both in the United States and elsewhere, routinely use soft point (expanding) and hollow point rounds against citizens of their own nations, and using FMJ is forbidden for hunting purposes because the (state) authorities say that FMJ's are inhumane.

Any thoughts?

Corinthian
11-27-2007, 06:26 PM
I would imagine that's because you rarely see felons wearing body armor.

John Galt
11-27-2007, 09:08 PM
I would imagine that's because you rarely see felons wearing body armor.

Right, but the Hague conventions were signed in 1899 and 1907, long before any sort of body armor existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_(1899_and_1907)

Tommycat
11-27-2007, 09:09 PM
Well with law enforcement friends, I can say that many times they come up against people that standard rounds do nothing against. PCP addicts can shrug off a lot of small arms fire, and police are generally carrying pistols only. A hollowpoint round will take even the toughest person down(so will a slug from a .44 Magnum, But.... You know).

In war though, the Geneva conventions were designed to allow wounding with the opportunity to surrender(kinda seems counter to the whole concept of a war to me, but hey a lot of the rules don't make sense. a rocket launcher is to be used on equipment only..... Aim for the utility belt:D) mainly because there could be a great deal more rounds spent during the course of a battle.

HIGH ON PIE 14
11-27-2007, 09:24 PM
Wow thats weird that police can use them but not the military. I mean who is usually facing the more dangerous opponent? Answer= the military. I would think that the military would make better use of them. But these expanding bullets dont go through things entirely so maybe thats why. This way a cop dosnt accidentally kill someone because the bullet passed through the intended.

Using them in hunting: IMO I dont think its inhumane as it kills the animal just as quickly as a normal bullet would.
But that justmy two cents.

Edit: It does counter the whole concept of war. Good point Tommycat.

Gargoyle King
11-28-2007, 02:01 PM
IMO In terms of warfare, a bullet is a bullet, it don't matter to me. If someone was going to kill me, i wouldn't care what weapon i was packing (inhumane or not) if i had a chance to defend myself.

mimartin
11-28-2007, 03:33 PM
In war though, the Geneva conventions were designed to allow wounding with the opportunity to surrender(kinda seems counter to the whole concept of a war to me, but hey a lot of the rules don't make sense. a rocket launcher is to be used on equipment only..... Aim for the utility belt:D) mainly because there could be a great deal more rounds spent during the course of a battle. I actually see wounding as a great concept (yet tragic fact) on the battlefield.

1. If the wounded enemy is not captured it takes soldiers off the battlefield to get him to safety. So you have not only removed one enemy from the battlefield, but possibly two or more.

2. It takes resources (other than man power) to care for the wounded soldiers thus taking money away from weapons.

3. Great opportunity for snipers and ambushes as the wounded soldier calls for help and his brother in arms try to rescue him or her.

4. Kills the moral of the opposing force and the opposing nation. Seeing maimed and disfigured young men and women returning home can kill a nationís taste for war quicker than the number of dead written on a sheet of paper.

5. If you actually capture the wounded enemy it may take fewer resources to watch a wounded soldier than a fully healthy enemy.

6. A living enemy can provide you with intelligence and may even be used as a bargaining chip in negotiations.

As to why the police officer are allowed to use them and the military is not, first Iíll say it is because the internal treatment of its citizens is not covered by the Geneva conventions. If it would have been covered the Geneva convention would never have been signed by the member nations.

Iím pretty sure when the treaty was signed the U.S. did not have a clear vision of the future of military conflicts. In today military they need the same stopping and killing power of a police force as that has became their mission. Being able to take someone down with one shot is just as important today for the military as it is for police officers. Not doing so could jeopardize the lives of innocent citizens.

swphreak
11-29-2007, 10:52 PM
I'm pretty sure cops use hollow point bullets so when they shoot someone, the bullet doesn't go through them and everything else.

Darth Xander
11-30-2007, 02:28 PM
The cops are just looking for an excuse to get better guns!