Shoot to wound mentality

[Infiltrator]

I figure I start a topic on this to keep the other thread from going off-topic. The bill died, but the sentiment of this kind of thinking still persist, usually argued by people who don't know any better. The bill also would expect cops abide by a arbitrary amount of times they can fire and to aim for non-vital areas (arms and legs).

The concept of shooting to wound is just not practical in any sense. Firing a high speed projectile at a human while expecting serious injury but not death is akin to throwing a brick at a window to wake the occupant up.

There's NO "non-lethal" way to SHOOT somebody with a conventional firearm. There's NO place on the human body that you can shoot, which is BOTH guaranteed NOT to cause death, AND to incapacitate the person being shot.

[Krye]

Yeah, sure, let's just shoot everyone in the head.

[Lordwafik]

The concept of shooting to wound is just not practical in any sense. Firing a high speed projectile at a human while expecting serious injury but not death is akin to throwing a brick at a window to wake the occupant up.

Not really, it's more like slapping a child's hand so they stop what they're doing at once. The parent would only slap if they child is being very stubborn and not responding to anything else, aka last resort.

There's NO "non-lethal" way to SHOOT somebody with a conventional firearm. There's NO place on the human body that you can shoot, which is BOTH guaranteed NOT to cause death, AND to incapacitate the person being shot.

Shooting peoples knees does that, only in movies people still have strength to pull out a gun from their intricate hiding spot on their clothing and aim precisely and land a final blow on the person who shot them. Oh, without feeling immense "My knee bone is shattered" feeling, because of course there's no pain in movies

[Sythe]

I think more people would get killed from the stray shots that miss the small targets. Just aim for the chest which is easy to hit and hope they don't die. All done

[Infiltrator]

Yeah, sure, let's just shoot everyone in the head.

So where do you shoot them?

The concept of shooting to wound is just not practical in any sense. Firing a high speed projectile at a human while expecting serious injury but not death is akin to throwing a brick at a window to wake the occupant up.

Not really, it's more like slapping a child's hand so they stop what they're doing at once. The parent would only slap if they child is being very stubborn and not responding to anything else, aka last resort.

Use of firearms is always considered lethal force by the courts for obvious reason. There is no such thing as "a little bit of lethal force".

[quote:22lrbfib]There's NO "non-lethal" way to SHOOT somebody with a conventional firearm. There's NO place on the human body that you can shoot, which is BOTH guaranteed NOT to cause death, AND to incapacitate the person being shot.

Shooting peoples knees does that, only in movies people still have strength to pull out a gun from their intricate hiding spot on their clothing and aim precisely and land a final blow on the person who shot them. Oh, without feeling immense "My knee bone is shattered" feeling, because of course there's no pain in movies [/quote:22lrbfib]

and only in the Hollywood movie cops can performance intricate precision shooting in a tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving situation where weapon recoil and human dynamics and it's effect on performance can shoot a suspect's knee caps that are ~3in in diameter. That's assuming the suspect doesn't already have his weapon out first and fired first. That's assuming the officers aren't moving for cover and shooting.

[Krye]

Yeah, sure, let's just shoot everyone in the head.

So where do you shoot them?

In the head?

[Maxxthepenguin]

You shoot to wound for the same reason we have a trial system.

Because you just can't know that easily.

[Stee]

I would think the lethal percentage of being shot below the waist would be alot less then being shot above the waist, obviously theres a chance of hitting a major blood vessel, blowing someones balls off etc. but compared to getting shot in the stomach, chest, or head the chances of dying are a lot less.

I'm not saying targeting the lower body would be easy in all situations but when the target is only a few yards away even with a shaky hand you could hit that general area. It would also depend on the situation since there is no way in hell you wouldn't try to shoot to kill when the guys holding a gun but when the guys just holding a swiss army knife, some flimsy weapon or none at all I don't see why you wouldn't try.

[Khamsin]

You shoot to wound for the same reason we have a trial system.

Because you just can't know that easily.

We have a trial system because you just can't know that easily if someone did something after the fact, but you can be pretty damn sure somebody is firing at you and presents a clear danger to the cops or nearby civilians.

[guartz]

And yet, shoot to kill policy, specifically in early 1990s in Chicago, caused a lot of controversial deaths.

However, as you say, shoot to wound is not legally sound. Since shooting is using deadly force, using deadly force to attempt to wound somebody would be very very questionable. Why use it in the first place?

[Remyo]

However, as you say, shoot to wound is not legally sound. Since shooting is using deadly force, using deadly force to attempt to wound somebody would be very very questionable. Why use it in the first place?

because shit happens, criminals have guns, and you need to neutralize a target quickly from a long range to prevent death of yourself and others.

[Darus Grey]

I agree with Guartz.

If you are shooting a gun, shoot to kill.

If you do not want to shoot to kill, the situation does not warrant a gun.

[Eaglestrike]

You shoot to wound for the same reason we have a trial system.

Because you just can't know that easily.

And if a judge would get killed because he ruled innocent instead of guilty, who gets blamed?

[guartz]

However, as you say, shoot to wound is not legally sound. Since shooting is using deadly force, using deadly force to attempt to wound somebody would be very very questionable. Why use it in the first place?

because shit happens, criminals have guns, and you need to neutralize a target quickly from a long range to prevent death of yourself and others.

ugh, /facepalm

[Remyo]

However, as you say, shoot to wound is not legally sound. Since shooting is using deadly force, using deadly force to attempt to wound somebody would be very very questionable. Why use it in the first place?

ugh, /facepalm

I'm sorry were you questioning use of lethal force or did I misunderstand your final question?

[Maxxthepenguin]

You shoot to wound for the same reason we have a trial system.

Because you just can't know that easily.

We have a trial system because you just can't know that easily if someone did something after the fact, but you can be pretty damn sure somebody is firing at you and presents a clear danger to the cops or nearby civilians.

With the police having a shoot to kill policy, people consider firing at the police self defense, or at least argue so.

Here's a question for you: If a policeman perceives an angry criminal reach into his pants angrily and start to whip something out (oh god that doesn't sound right at all), should he shoot to kill? What if the policeman is wrong about the entire situation, as human beings often are?

[Kurp]

With the police having a shoot to kill policy, people consider firing at the police self defense, or at least argue so.

Here's a question for you: If a policeman perceives an angry criminal reach into his pants angrily and start to whip something out (oh god that doesn't sound right at all), should he shoot to kill? What if the policeman is wrong about the entire situation, as human beings often are?

And what if he hesitates, or shoots for an arm, only to take a bullet in the face?

[archibaldcrane]

"Shoot to wound" in my opinion should only exist in two places - where the suspect is fleeing (i.e. not posing a immediate lethal threat to anyone) or where the suspect is not believed to be armed and there are not better non-gun-related options available.

Some would argue that in either of those situations (not lethal force threats) guns should not be used at all, and that's valid. If they are going to be used, this is where "shoot to wound" should apply, and where penalties for "shoot to kill" could be implemented.

If you have a weapon, and you aren't fleeing, expect lethal force heading in your direction.

That's my opinion.

[Kurp]

"Shoot to wound" in my opinion should only exist in two places - where the suspect is fleeing (i.e. not posing a immediate lethal threat to anyone) or where the suspect is not believed to be armed and there are not better non-gun-related options available.

Some would argue that in either of those situations (not lethal force threats) guns should not be used at all, and that's valid. If they are going to be used, this is where "shoot to wound" should apply, and where penalties for "shoot to kill" could be implemented.

If you have a weapon, and you aren't fleeing, expect lethal force heading in your direction.

That's my opinion.

I haven't ever been convinced on any sort of penalties for an officer killing someone when the use of a gun is required. 'Shoot to wound' being enforceable, in that the officer would face manslaughter charges (15 year prison sentence maximum according to the bill referenced in the OP I believe) if the target died, would introduce a lot of gray areas. Can you prosecute the officer for a simple missed shot?

The 'shoot to incapacitate' or 'shoot to stop' school is better in my opinion. If the situation is dire enough that an officer needs to use a firearm, then I think shots should be taken at the best locations on the target to stop him from whatever he is doing. This is more than likely the chest as it's the largest and easiest to hit target.

The best resolution would be to develop far better ways of incapacitating people without using a gun at all. But, with all the whining and uproar about tasers I doubt that will happen anytime soon. Lacking that, more refined training on when officers should use a firearm would be a good idea. But, I'm still going to say if you have to shoot, then shoot to stop.

[Jer]

There's plenty of times where police have shot to kill people who were not holding any weapon. You could say shoot to wound unless you are positive the suspect has a weapon, but then everybody's sure. Both ways are kinda ehhh....


On the other hand, if you as an individual are defending yourself from an attacker, shoot to kill. Too many times have low-life lawyers gotten claims for the attackers because they became disabled. It's probably the same for the police department, disabling somebody is much more costly than killing them.