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

[Jaximus Decimus]

Ironically to spite most of these "killing stops someone instantly!" posts, nothing short of shooting someone in the BRAIN will kill them instantly.

The heart? Brain is still active, even though oxygen is no longer being pumped - think holding your breath.

People have this concept from action movies... that if you're shot, you fall over like a cartoon character. That would only happen if your nervous system was crippled, you wanted to play dead... you were in too much pain to stand (but would probably be moaning or screaming uncontrollably from pain/shock/fear of death, indicating life) or were shot in the head.

The only other possibility is that you pass out from shock and die later, but either way. Unless its a headshot you don't die instantly, therefore you should shoot to disable so that:

1) You aren't (through abuse/misuse of legal systems) brought up on charges of murder/manslaughter (even in self defense, you can end up penalized heavily)

2) Don't have to live with the terror of killing someone for the rest of your life

3) You don't have the right to end someones life, and never will. So you should try not to. People can change. LOVE AND PEACE!

It's called shock, you said it yourself. Ever seen a video of some massive African game animal instantly dropping after a single hit to the vitals from a large caliber rifle? Look it up on youtube. People are taught to shoot for center mass because A) it's your best bet to get a hit in a combat situation and B) rounds placed center mass are going to have the most shock value. Shock has the ability to instantly end a fight, even if no vitals have been badly damaged. The jacketed hollow-point ammunition police carry isn't necessarily more lethal than FMJ ammunition, but it does (arguably) have better shock value. Placing multiple rounds on the target also improves the probability that they will go into shock. If you're shooting someone to begin with it means that lives are on the line. Why gamble with your life or someone else's by purposefully using insufficient force?

There have also been a few things said about training with the non-dominant hand. No, this is not special forces training. Anyone that uses a handgun for defense needs to be training this. It's basic. The reason is that if you're in a shooting and you are shot, there's a high likelihood you're going to be shot in the hand. It happens all the time. The guy shooting at you is likely focused on your weapon, it's what people tend to do when they see weapons. Your weapon is in your hand. Do the math.

Also, shooting from unusual positions is something that's taught in just about every advanced firearms course in the US. Again, it's not special forces stuff. If part of your job involves carrying a gun you need to be able to shoot from the ground, sitting in a car, under vehicles, under, over and around any kind of cover you can think of. Whoever said you shouldn't defend yourself if you're wounded and on the ground because it just makes you "an easy kill" has no clue what they're talking about.

Whoever said snipers never go for headshots has no clue what they're talking about. The "rescue shot" is common training for both handguns and rifles. Snipers can and will go for headshots if that's the best or only shot they can make.

Ninja'ed by Loki. Go figure that.

 

[Amir Kondori]

There is no such thing as shoot to disable. There is only shoot to kill. If you shoot someone in their leg, in their arm, in their shoulder, those can be life threatening wounds. If an officer is under attack and they have to decide to act within seconds, sometimes these encounters don't last more than a couple of seconds. To think an officer is going to be able to aim effectively at an extremity is preposterous.

Basically "shoot to disable" is a myth. It is a thing that does not exist. Your average police officer cannot react fast enough with good enough aim to do that, keeping in mind even those shots would still often times be lethal without immediate treamtent. If they don't shoot center mass they risk themselves and those around them.

Shoot to kill is the only way. Once a suspect is down resuscitation should be attempted, but you are asking something which in almost all cases is impossible.

 

[Fox12]

Lets ask a different question: why don't we develop better non-lethal technology? An officer should be allowed to defend himself, but there should be more non-lethal alternatives. I absolutely HATE the militarization of the police force in the United States. I hate that we're giving the FBI drones, I hate that we're giving them larger quantities of deadly weapons, and I hate the mount of power we're giving them to use these things. We're giving the police force greater access to weaponry while trying to restrict the average persons access to weaponry, a fact that has the founding fathers rolling in their graves. This is especially worrisome since so many politicians talk about the war on terror now being on american soil. Lets arm our police force, but lets offer them better non-lethal equipment since this will limit the potential for deadly abuse/mistakes. I don't know about you, but this terrified me:

 

[nepheleim]

Lets ask a different question: why don't we develop better non-lethal technology?

Because there's no such thing as "non-lethal". People can and have died from things like bean bags, rubber bullets, tear gas, tasers, sleeping (knock out) gas, etc. Manufacturers can't even use the label "non-lethal" anymore. Further, the best thing we have that shuts down a human being's central nervous system still carries the side effect of death. Namely guns.

The technology you're asking for is still science fiction at this point, because you need (in order to replace lethal force as an option entirely) a method of incapacitation that is not only 100% successful every time you use it, but also keeps 100% of recipients alive. Regardless of their prior health history. Regardless of foreign substances already modifying their bodies (any wonder why cokeheads have heart attacks?). Regardless of the nearly infinitely diverse genetic and medical background the recipient brings to the table. Maybe one day we'll figure out a way. That just doesn't happen to be today.

 

[nepheleim]

The police are already supposed to shoot to disable. Some power pigs choose not to because they know they'll only get a slap on the wrist punishment and be straight back on duty after committing a crime that would land a respectable citizen the life sentence.

Somebody didn't read the previous posts.

And if a police shooting is ruled unjustified, then they go to jail. If it's ruled justified (and bear in mind these ruling are done by a grand jury comprised of citizens, not police) then they only have to deal with the resultant psychological trauma of killing someone (shockingly, killing people isn't easy. Ask the Army. They've spent trillions of dollars and probably man hours figuring out a way to get soldiers to actually kill their enemies) as well as the real possibility of a future civil suit where you can lose everything (depending on locality. Some states grant officers immunity from civil liability.)

 

[prowll]

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.

This is incredibly well-said. Shooting for the shoulder, leg, ect to incapacitate the person is a very risky shot, and it's likely to miss, hitting whoever is behind the criminal. For instance, the very person that the criminal was threatening.

 

[Fox12]

Lets ask a different question: why don't we develop better non-lethal technology?

Because there's no such thing as "non-lethal". People can and have died from things like bean bags, rubber bullets, tear gas, tasers, sleeping (knock out) gas, etc. Manufacturers can't even use the label "non-lethal" anymore. Further, the best thing we have that shuts down a human being's central nervous system still carries the side effect of death. Namely guns.

The technology you're asking for is still science fiction at this point, because you need (in order to replace lethal force as an option entirely) a method of incapacitation that is not only 100% successful every time you use it, but also keeps 100% of recipients alive. Regardless of their prior health history. Regardless of foreign substances already modifying their bodies (any wonder why cokeheads have heart attacks?). Regardless of the nearly infinitely diverse genetic and medical background the recipient brings to the table. Maybe one day we'll figure out a way. That just doesn't happen to be today.

You're absolutely right, but certain weapons are far less lethal than than others, especially guns, which are specifically designed to kill, not to incapacitate. The idea that a gun can be used to incapacitate at all strikes me as flawed. It's also easier to differentiate abuse of force from a tragic accident when using something like a taser. A few years ago I read an article about man who was repeatedly tasered on the ground until he died, even though he was no longer a threat. At that point the police were clearly abusing their authority. If they had opened fire with a normal fire arm after the man approached them then the situation would have been far more uncertain, and probably would have relied on far more hearesay. I do agree that the term "non-lethal" is inaccurate when dealing with any weapon that carries even the potential to kill.

 

[lunavixen]

If the police wanted to disable a person, they carry other non lethal weapons just for that purpose, when an officers gun is drawn, it is done so under the classification of deadly force, meaning the officers will shoot to kill. Police are trained to shoot centre of mass rather than extremities for several reasons:

1) The torso (centre of mass) is the easiest to hit on both a moving and stationary target. Arms and legs are both very difficult to hit on a moving target as they move at a higher speed than the torso.

2) Police incidences involving guns very rarely happen in unpopulated areas with no bystanders, so if you are in a populated area, a round to the arm/leg/foot/shoulder etc. could possibly pass through the target and caused unintended casualties or injuries to innocent bystanders.

3) Police primarily use 9mm pistols, which are a lower velocity bullet, so shooting an extremity may not incapacitate the threat.

4) Hitting an extremity is not a guaranteed non-lethal hit as there are 2 major veins/arteries in your thigh and about 4 in your shoulder, hitting any of those will cause a person to bleed out in a matter of minutes (even hitting the surrounding bone could cause fragments to sever the veins/arteries), well before an ambulance could have arrived which in turn negates the 'shooting to disable' attempt.

5) If someone is trying to kill a police officer or intended victim (i.e. the attacker is armed), pussyfooting around with attempts to disable the attacker rather than going for a kill shot, could get the police officer or intended victim killed.


Shooting to disable might seem like a nice idea, but in all reality, it's a very bad one.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Again: economics. Learning to shoot with non-dom hand is Special Forces type stuff; something that would take months of additional training and thousands of rounds (i.e.: SUPER EXPENSIVE).

It is? I thought that was taught so that people could make better use of cover.

3) Police primarily use 9mm pistols, which are a lower velocity bullet, so shooting an extremity may not incapacitate the threat.

Er...which police, and lower velocity than what? Than a rifle, certainly, but not compared to various other handgun rounds used by police.

Also, ricochets are completely unpredictable. You cannot use bullet ricochets meaningfully in combat. At best, you've only filled the air with supersonic shrapnel that's bouncing around. At worst, you've killed yourself or an innocent bystander. Don't ever try to bounce a bullet.

Actually ricochet and warning headshot wasn't meant seriously (sorry if it wasn't clear)
Everything else though...

I wasn't aware that police officers simply are taught to hit largest target possible (torso)
I knew that in most real life circumstances you're not shooting stationary target indors, that is why safest bet is aiming for the chest/back
But I thought that officers are at least being taught about other options (in theory and in shooting range)
Apparently not :/

As for irregular shooting positions and moving target training, I still am convinced that it isn't that bad idea.

Came across this the other day, very interesting, especially the bit about ricochets.

Spoiler

 

[Jaximus Decimus]

Since "non-lethal" weapons were brought up, I would like to talk about those for a second.

What's the ideal non-lethal weapon? The perfect non-lethal weapon would have a range and rate of fire comparable to a handgun, or better. It would need to immediately and completely incapacitate, while leaving no wounds and having no lasting effects. But here's the catch; even if you had something like the stun setting on a Star Trek phaser, basically the holy grail of non-lethal technology, you would still get fatalities and serious injuries.

Falling from a standing height without being able to catch yourself can be lethal. What if the phased person is standing on a flight of stairs, or near a ledge, or driving a car. Even worse, because the weapon itself is incapable of inflicting damage it's going to be used with much less hesitation than a firearm. We've been having this problem with tasers for the last 7 or 8 years and it's not getting better.

Personally, I'd rather a police officer point his gun at me than his taser, because I know he's going to think long and hard before he pulls the trigger on that pistol, but with the taser not so much. It might seem counter-intuitive, but easy access to highly effective less-lethal weaponry can actually increase instances of excessive force.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Personally, I'd rather a police officer point his gun at me than his taser, because I know he's going to think long and hard before he pulls the trigger on that pistol, but with the taser not so much.

Hopefully, yeah.

But, generally I agree...there was a case a year or two ago, where a police officer shot a girl running away (while handcuffed) with a taser, and she was permanently paralysed, either from hitting her head falling down, or from one of the barbs going into her brain or something.

 

[Anomynous 167]

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)

There is a difference in a person's psyche which leaves them more open to suggestion, between someone who has a cop aiming a gun at him and that same person who has just been shot by said gun. In the former scenario, there is the possibility that the perpetraitor may be bluffing.
Once the bluff has been called (with bullets), the wounded man may be more open to suggestion and more likely so surrender.

 

[CounterReproductive]

There seems to be a lot of talk about someone running away can't be or isn't a threat.

This needs seriously clarifying, at the point when they start running away from you the only thing they become is LESS of a threat to you and anyone in your direction. If they are armed and they are considered dangerous they ARE becoming a greater threat to any person or persons they are or may be running towards. Also bear in mind that the further away from you a suspect gets the harder he is going to be to target successfully

Now for technical aspects of shooting.

The Gun.

The reason nobody in any field of either law enforcement or military should ever take a shot at a for want of a better word target with the intent to only wound is extremely simple to follow. You can't do it accurately or with a great deal of precision. Sure there are some marksmen who are exceptional individuals who can shoot phenomonal distances with amazing accuracy but they don't always hit their target first time. There will be people who claim they can but 99.9% of them are lying. You can produce a gun capable of putting round after round in the same hole or as close as damn it. but thats bench rested. Any gun held or supported by a human being has extra factors to deal with, muscle tremors, breathing offset, movement of target, shooting position, all have an effect on the guns available accuracy.

The Ammunition.

Despite manufacturers best efforts no two rounds of ammunition selected randomly from a single box are likely to be identical. They may vary in weight, a microscopic difference in calibre or even in the amount of grains of powder inside. The primers may have a slight difference in activation time. All of these factors mean that there is or could be a decrease in expected accuracy when discharging a firearm.

The Target.

Is the target moving ? Running ? have a good look at a friend and ask him to run away from you. Pay attention to his arms and legs as they move backwards and forwards, see how small the area of available target space is. This is why we don't shoot at arms and legs. Eliminating that aspect of a target, look at what remains, we have the head and the torso, of these two can you correctly identify on the back of a fleeing target torso what will be lethal and what will not. The torso contains all of your vital organs except for the brain. You cannot guarantee ANYONE that a shot will not prove fatal. It may be possible to save the mans life with medical attention if immediate but that is likely what it will take. head shots are out for the same reasons as arms and legs, when running the head moves too much. and when stationary the head is too small a target to be accurately targeted by anyone without optics and a very stable position. So you are left with the centre mass as a target or torso. Crammed with internal organs.

Conclusion : always take your shots at the central mass of a target as
a) Your shots have more chance of connecting with the target which is the aim of pulling the trigger. missing is not an option as there could be horrible collateral damage
b) Fire as few shots as possible for the same reason. Until the target is no longer a threat.
c) Always shoot to kill as that is the quickest way to prevent your target being a threat.


As a post-script I am reminded of an incident a good few years ago where a man who was apparently mentally unstable was making threats from his apartment and I believe SO 19( for those not in the know SO 19 is or was a London based firearms squad) attended. The gentleman in question brandished at the armed officers a cigarette lighter shaped like a firearm, it was in fact a lighter in the shape of a realistic pistol and the unfortunate officer believing himself to be in immediate danger shot and killed the man.

The officer was absolutely right and the man who did it was a stupid idiot. Never point a gun or even an imitation gun at a firearms officer or he will shoot you if he can see no other recourse.

I have deliberately not commented on the Mark Duggan case as I have no specific interest in it until I have been able to see all the facts.

 

[Thaluikhain]

As a post-script I am reminded of an incident a good few years ago where a man who was apparently mentally unstable was making threats from his apartment and I believe SO 19( for those not in the know SO 19 is or was a London based firearms squad) attended. The gentleman in question brandished at the armed officers a cigarette lighter shaped like a firearm, it was in fact a lighter in the shape of a realistic pistol and the unfortunate officer believing himself to be in immediate danger shot and killed the man.

The officer was absolutely right and the man who did it was a stupid idiot. Never point a gun or even an imitation gun at a firearms officer or he will shoot you if he can see no other recourse.

Same thing happened in the US recently. 15 year old kid with a toy gun was reported to the police as a bloke with a real gun. Police see him, call out, and he turns, the muzzle of the toy swinging round at the police officers, so...

 

[CounterReproductive]

Same thing happened in the US recently. 15 year old kid with a toy gun was reported to the police as a bloke with a real gun. Police see him, call out, and he turns, the muzzle of the toy swinging round at the police officers, so...

While I feel sorry for the 15 year old. I would ask where this took place , the incident I referenced was inside an apartment complex and they're had been attempted negotiations before an armed response force was decided upon. Did the officers in the case you mention make any attempt to negotiate from place of safety first. Either from the squad car or other means ?

 

[J.McMillen]

The concept of "shoot to disable" is just a fantasy that exists only in fiction.

It may be rare, but it does happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDSwdZNbaGY

I know the quality's bad but that's due to it being older than YouTube.

 

[Petromir]

Right in the incident that sparked this, a man who was beleived to be armed (and until a few seconds at most beforehand had been) was shot by an armed policeman (UK officers are not routinely armed with anything more than a baton of some sort, possibly some pepperspray, even a taser is seen as a firearms officers preserve) who beleived he posed an immediate threat to life.

A Jury decided by an 8 votes to 2 verdict that the officer in question could reasonably have believed him still to be armed and that therfore still could have represented an immediate threat deeming the shooting lawfull. For reference the 2 dissentng votes were for an open verdict (that there was insufficent evidence either way in effect) and non for unlawful.


Given a belief that the man had a firearm and was about to use it any action had to be immediate and render the suspect unable to deliberately use it, given modern weapons leathal force was nessary.

Remember that to discharge either a taser or a firearm in the UK Police, even if given a direct order to and whatever the result is to be placed on immediate administritve duties and undergo a full inquirey.

THe UK police is not immune from bad apples, and the force in question is still struggling with stop and search being disproportionatly used on young black men, but it should be noted that as armed officers are not used on the beat here, those officers arent the ones abusing their powers.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Same thing happened in the US recently. 15 year old kid with a toy gun was reported to the police as a bloke with a real gun. Police see him, call out, and he turns, the muzzle of the toy swinging round at the police officers, so...

While I feel sorry for the 15 year old. I would ask where this took place , the incident I referenced was inside an apartment complex and they're had been attempted negotiations before an armed response force was decided upon. Did the officers in the case you mention make any attempt to negotiate from place of safety first. Either from the squad car or other means ?

Can't remember any of the details, but I don't think so. Though, if the "weapon" is pointed at them, not much the police can do.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Well I've served as a guard in the Royal Life Guards in Denmark (the dudes in the bearskins, standing at Amalienborg Palace, with their C7 rifles), and we were taught a very specific chain of escalation (starting with a clear command, and ending with a aimed shot). If possible we were told to shoot to disable (yeah, legs and arms have arteries but we were also taught how to treat "scary bleeds", or arterial bleeds, by applying tourniquets. His arm/leg most likely will be amputated, but he'll live).

Basically that's the philosophy of all Danish Armed Forces and Law Enforcement. To show restraint and apply minimal force.