Shoot to disable instead of shoot to kill. Let's have an open talk about this.

[Parasondox]

Afternoon Escapist from the UK,

This can be a very touchy subject and hope you and I can discuss this without turning into some anti-gun/pro-gun flaming war. Please do not go into that topic. This is about the police force and use of their fire arms. Each country is different and here in the UK out on the beat officers do not carry guns only the trained police marksmen in certain situations. Some may have heard about the Mark Duggan case and once again I do not want to go off topic about that topic either but about what someone and others have said. Why are police officers trained in shoot to kill rather than shoot to disable the suspect from the arm weapon. eg. rather than a double tap to the chest near the heart, why not the shoulder so they can drop the gun. Yes they would be injured but they would at least be able to give an further evidence to prevent more criminal activities in the future instead of being killed and not getting any other information to further a case. I know someone will correct me on this and please do cause I want to know more about it and learn.

All factors of reaction times, the nerves and the split second between life and death between the suspect and police. I am not bad mouthing the police or anyone like that just want to know what is the method in terms of taking down a suspect. Heck maybe you can express your thoughts on the matter in your country about how the police handle an alleged armed suspect who may or may not be reaching for a gun. Maybe I am not making any sense at all.

Please comment below and let's have a non-flammed talk about it and if you yourself are or know any trained marksmen, what do they think about that situation, if they have told you. Some officers are discreet and I respect that.

EDIT: Thank you all for the comments and I have learnt something new. I weren't saying shoot to kill was a bad idea just thinking of the possibility of alternatives and all your answers are informative and thank you.

EDIT... again: Just to point out also, I am not saying situations like these are similar to movies and video games cause they aren't. There is a clear difference between reality and fiction and thank you to all who hasn't brought up any political wars like liberal this, ring wing that blah blah. I like whats already being said and being informed about more reasons why shoot to disable isn't the most sound idea. I appreciate it.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Because killing someone stops whatever it is they're doing.

Shooting someone in the leg or the shoulder isn't a guarantee that they'll stop whatever threatening act provoked said shooting.

It's not ideal, but we don't live in an ideal world.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Shooting someone in the shoulder doesn't mean you won't kill them. It does mean you're lessened the chances of stopping them before they do whatever you were shooting them to prevent, though.

Bullets are nasty, there's nowhere you want them in you...apparently getting shot in the buttocks is reasonably safe, nothing that important there, though.

Guns are used as a last resort, when the target is about to kill you or someone else. In that case you need to stop them right now. This is why police shoot people lots of times. One bullet might kill, ten will before they kill someone else.

Totally destroy the heart, and a person might have up to 1o seconds of voluntary movement left. That's a problem.

 

[Parasondox]

Because killing someone stops whatever it is they're doing.

Shooting someone in the leg or the shoulder isn't a guarantee that they'll stop whatever threatening act provoked said shooting.

It's not ideal, but we don't live in an ideal world.

I do see your point and I understand that shoot to kill can happen HOWEVER in certain situations why do they have to shoot the suspect in the back if they are running but not the legs where they would fall and stop. I know it's not guaranteed but there can be alternatives can't they?

 

[Thaluikhain]

I do see your point and I understand that shoot to kill can happen HOWEVER in certain situations why do they have to shoot the suspect in the back if they are running but not the legs where they would fall and stop. I know it's not guaranteed but there can be alternatives can't they?

They shouldn't shoot people who are just running away at all.

If they aren't posing a threat, no need for firearms.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Because killing someone stops whatever it is they're doing.

Shooting someone in the leg or the shoulder isn't a guarantee that they'll stop whatever threatening act provoked said shooting.

It's not ideal, but we don't live in an ideal world.

I do see your point and I understand that shoot to kill can happen HOWEVER in certain situations why do they have to shoot the suspect in the back if they are running but not the legs where they would fall and stop. I know it's not guaranteed but there can be alternatives can't they?

In what situation would someone be a threat if they were running away?

That's not a shoot to kill issue, that's a police training issue. The police shouldn't be shooting anything if the person isn't a threat.

 

[Parasondox]

Because killing someone stops whatever it is they're doing.

Shooting someone in the leg or the shoulder isn't a guarantee that they'll stop whatever threatening act provoked said shooting.

It's not ideal, but we don't live in an ideal world.

I do see your point and I understand that shoot to kill can happen HOWEVER in certain situations why do they have to shoot the suspect in the back if they are running but not the legs where they would fall and stop. I know it's not guaranteed but there can be alternatives can't they?

In what situation would someone be a threat if they were running away?

That's not a shoot to kill issue, that's a police training issue. The police shouldn't be shooting anything if the person isn't a threat.

Yeah you are right it's a police issue and I just came up with a situation. Sorry, I am not really fully exposed to guns or any other armed weapons but trying to think of a scenario. Bad example

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Because killing someone stops whatever it is they're doing.

Shooting someone in the leg or the shoulder isn't a guarantee that they'll stop whatever threatening act provoked said shooting.

It's not ideal, but we don't live in an ideal world.

I do see your point and I understand that shoot to kill can happen HOWEVER in certain situations why do they have to shoot the suspect in the back if they are running but not the legs where they would fall and stop. I know it's not guaranteed but there can be alternatives can't they?

In what situation would someone be a threat if they were running away?

That's not a shoot to kill issue, that's a police training issue. The police shouldn't be shooting anything if the person isn't a threat.

Yeah you are right it's a police issue and I just came up with a situation. Sorry, I am not really fully exposed to guns or any other armed weapons but trying to think of a scenario. Bad example

I understand what you're trying to do, but all of these scenarios have one of two outcomes.

Either the person is an immediate danger, and needs to be quickly neutralised, or they aren't and shouldn't be fired upon at all.

There is no middleground.

 

[Jamieson 90]

I think the logic behind it is you shouldn't be shooting anyone unless it's as a last resort, and when it's necessary you want to make sure the threat is eliminated hence it's shoot to kill, that's my understanding of it anyway. I mean if it was shoot to disable you'd use something like a taser; you use a lethal weapon for killing and a non lethal weapon for disabling, you don't try to mix their functions.

 

[senordesol]

When you deploy a firearm, you are using deadly force. That bullet has the potential to kill, and if it misses the suspect; you could be killing an innocent bystander by mistake (bullets don't stop when they miss). Aiming for the center-of-mass ensures that you have the best chance of hitting the target you were intending to hit. Aiming for shoulders, legs, or hands only increases the potential of a wayward (lethal) projectile.

Deadly force should only be applied to a deadly threat, when you deploy a firearm; it should only be because the subject in the situation displayed what could be reasonably construed as an immediate lethal threat (e.g.: pointing a gun at police officers). In such cases, it may be unfortunate that a man (or woman) has to die -but it's unreasonable to expect the officers to take the risk.

 

[Thaluikhain]

There are arteries in those legs. A lot of them. Arms, torso, everywhere. Arteries mean that non lethal shots are movie fantasy.

Those bleed out, no way to repair in time.

I remember reading somewhere, saying certain troops would by trained to aim for the legs if the target's torso is armoured, for that very reason.

 

[Angelowl]

Seems fairly simple. Do not pull a lethal weapon unless you are prepared to kill with it. And that does not only count for the police, also military and ordinary civilians. A drawn weapon will escalate whatever situation there might be, while shooting should be a last resort it is also supposed to be a final one.

As other have said, the police force have tasers and similar tools that are specifically designed for disabling the target. Which they should be properly trained in, for those situations where lethal force is unneeded and unproportional.

 

[Olas]

Mainly I think it's because by the time the gun has been drawn all attempts at avoiding direct physical harm have failed and the situation is extremely dire.

Shooting someone in the shoulder doesn't mean you won't kill them.

You [a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=0"]very probably won't[/a] though, bullets aren't nearly as lethal as movies portray them. Only around 5% of people who are shot once die from the wound, and people have survived after being shot more than 20 times. As long as you can get to a doctor you can survive pretty much anything that isn't directly to the head or heart.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Seems fairly simple. Do not pull a lethal weapon unless you are prepared to kill with it. And that does not only count for the police, also military and ordinary civilians. A drawn weapon will escalate whatever situation there might be, while shooting should be a last resort it is also supposed to be a final one.

As other have said, the police force have tasers and similar tools that are specifically designed for disabling the target. Which they should be properly trained in, for those situations where lethal force is unneeded and unproportional.

It should be pointed out (repeatedly), that less lethal weapons are still weapons. There are concerns that they are used casually, when people are making a nuisance of themselves. They aren't last resorts like firearms, but they aren't to be used lightly.

 

[Angelowl]

Seems fairly simple. Do not pull a lethal weapon unless you are prepared to kill with it. And that does not only count for the police, also military and ordinary civilians. A drawn weapon will escalate whatever situation there might be, while shooting should be a last resort it is also supposed to be a final one.

As other have said, the police force have tasers and similar tools that are specifically designed for disabling the target. Which they should be properly trained in, for those situations where lethal force is unneeded and unproportional.

It should be pointed out (repeatedly), that less lethal weapons are still weapons. There are concerns that they are used casually, when people are making a nuisance of themselves. They aren't last resorts like firearms, but they aren't to be used lightly.

Agreed. That is another problem, and a serious one at that if I understands things correctly. "Less lethal weapons" are not being used as a safer alternative to a gun but a simple method of deterrent and pacifying whatever crimes the suspect may be committing. Pulling a stun gun on someone who is already held down or shackled is simply not defensible.

But that may be a general problem with the police force favoring direct and physical solutions to problems in general. Stories about how the police executes people for speeding suggests that it could be a wide-spread attitude problem.

 

[EternallyBored]

Because killing someone stops whatever it is they're doing.

Shooting someone in the leg or the shoulder isn't a guarantee that they'll stop whatever threatening act provoked said shooting.

It's not ideal, but we don't live in an ideal world.

I do see your point and I understand that shoot to kill can happen HOWEVER in certain situations why do they have to shoot the suspect in the back if they are running but not the legs where they would fall and stop. I know it's not guaranteed but there can be alternatives can't they?

In what situation would someone be a threat if they were running away?

That's not a shoot to kill issue, that's a police training issue. The police shouldn't be shooting anything if the person isn't a threat.

Yeah you are right it's a police issue and I just came up with a situation. Sorry, I am not really fully exposed to guns or any other armed weapons but trying to think of a scenario. Bad example

I understand what you're trying to do, but all of these scenarios have one of two outcomes.

Either the person is an immediate danger, and needs to be quickly neutralised, or they aren't and shouldn't be fired upon at all.

There is no middleground.

Err actually yes, there is middle ground, specifically in the U.S. if the officer has reasonable cause to believe the fleeing person is fleeing with intent to kill another person or that a hostage situation is imminent, they are trained and authorized to shoot to kill a fleeing person, if it's just someone fleeing arrest and they aren't violent, then shooting to kill is considered not ok.

Also, in cases where a prisoner is transported off-site to go to a doctor's office or other appointment, they are informed that officers will shoot to kill if the prisoner slips their bonds during transport and tries to run away. This precedent came about because escaping prisoners had a tendency to take and kill hostages in order to attempt to escape from the police. It's up to the officer's discretion in these cases, and non-violent offenders will sometimes be merely subdued rather than shot, but with violent offenders, and especially those with life sentences or death row inmates, attempting to escape while off prison property is immediate authorization for officers to shoot to kill.

 

[Thaluikhain]

You [a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=0"]very probably won't[/a] though, bullets aren't nearly as lethal as movies portray them. Only around 5% of people who are shot once die from the wound, and people have survived after being shot more than 20 times. As long as you can get to a doctor you can survive pretty much anything that isn't directly to the head or heart.

Well, not quite, there are plenty of things you can result in rapid death, and immediate medical assistance isn't always available.

More generally, though, yeah, bullets are often survivable (in small doses). Long term injuries are likely, though. Giffords survived a headshot, and Reagan a ricochet almost in his heart...and went on to support gun control. One of Reagan's bodyguard's took a round in the brain and survived.

(As an aside, in both those cases, there were other armed people present, but the gunman was jumped by unarmed civilians)

Agreed. That is another problem, and a serious one at that if I understands things correctly. "Less lethal weapons" are not being used as a safer alternative to a gun but a simple method of deterrent and pacifying whatever crimes the suspect may be committing. Pulling a stun gun on someone who is already held down or shackled is simply not defensible.

But that may be a general problem with the police force favoring direct and physical solutions to problems in general. Stories about how the police executes people for speeding suggests that it could be a wide-spread attitude problem.

Dunno, you see this happening in a variety of countries. I think the problem is, at least in part, due to how the things are viewed. They used to be called non-lethal, this was amended to less-lethal. I suspect people (possibly due to advertising by the manufacturers, again at least in part) got the idea that they were perfectly fine, and thus don't have to be respected the same way other weapons do.

 

[Muspelheim]

Well. Shooting to disable is very, very hard. Shooting someone in the legs to subdue them without killing them, for instance, is difficult, as several vital blood vessels run through your thighs. The only reasonably "safe" places to shoot, then, would be the hands, feet or bottom. All of which rather difficult to hit, not likely to disable the target enough, and can still lead to a fatal wound through rotten luck.

If someone won't reason with armed policemen aiming at them, it's unlikely they will be prepared to reason at all. In that situation, a centre mass shot is the safest thing to do, everything considered.

Disabling shots are just too much of an unsafe gamble, something you should avoid in a situation where policemen have to use their sidearms. The suspect might likely be killed reguardless, or a policeman might be killed because the gamble didn't work and only escalated the situation.

(Note: Not spoken as a policeman, doctor or any form of authority whatsoever. It's the musing of a Mr. John Citizen. So it might have to be taken with a grain of salt. If you are an authority on the matter, please let me know if I'm terribly wrong)

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Yeah, the idea of "shooting to disable" just doesn't work in reality. For one thing, police shoot at center mass because that's what they are trained for. Why? Because the torso is a big target compared to an arm or leg. On top of that, shoot someone in the shoulder or upper arm? Congratulations, you probably just hit their brachial artery or vein. Shoot someone in the thigh? Congratulations, you may have just hit their femoral artery or vein.

There is no situation where, if you are forced to take a shot, it is better to shoot to wound. If the situation is not dire enough to require a gun, then there are other, better options to subdue. If they do need to pull a gun, they'll want to shoot to kill, because if the disabling shot doesn't actually disable...congratulations, you now have an even more pissed off threat.