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

[zumbledum]

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.

Two main reasons spring to mind. first up there's no guarantee running away doesnt pose a threat as it tends to look the same as running for safe distance , running for a hostage or a switch or running to a target.
Shooting people is actually difficult, i recall seeing "somewhere on the web" that trained police that routinely carry guns have a sub 50% accuracy in live fire situations. adrenaline may aid the wrestle/flight part of the brain but it wrecks fine motor control. aiming centre mass is simply the safest way of shooting the one person you want. going for the legs or shoulder is going to up the chances of misses ricochets and through and throughs tagging bystanders.

 

[Shymer]

Why are police officiers 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.

The police are well-equipped and trained with a small approved variety of (usually) non-lethal weapons and tactics for disabling a suspect - from sticks (melee range), tasers (6m range, 94% effective), pepper spray (melee range), bean bag rounds (poor accuracy and effectiveness) and the like. However certain situations means that these non-lethal approaches would not be appropriate eg. when a suspect is on the move, in a public space, with a lethal weapon.

A decision will be made to deploy officers armed with lethal weapons. To minimise public casualties, these are seldom discharged unless the trained officer is certain it is a necessity, and if they are discharged the officers are trained to aim at centre of mass to avoid missing, blow though or leaving the suspect mortally wounded, but facing a long drawn out death through blood loss or trauma.

There has been research on less lethal bullets - and other methods of disabling, rather than killing, like lasers and plasma - but right now, the unfortunate truth is that if an armed police officer orders you to lay down, drop what you're holding or otherwise comply - and you fail to - they may well take a shot - and it will be a shot to kill you, and minimise the risks to others near you.

 

[Simonism451]

Thanks to our fucked up laws, the attacker can sue the shit out of you when he survives, despite him being the criminal offender. Actually I'd prefer to use HP rounds to make sure the wounds are critical. This way you protect yourself from the attack and possible legal consequnces.

I'm fairly sure that law enforcement are already using HP bullets as standard equipment. Not because they are that hot on killing dudes, but because hollow points are less likely to shoot through the person and hit someone else.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

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.

I'm not saying it's not possible under the right circumstances, I'm just saying "shooting to disable" as a dependable tactic is fantasy. Again, just like the idea you can hit someone in the back of the head with a steel pipe and they'll just take a nap on the floor for a few hours and wake up with a headache. It's all just movie logic.

I bet even the sniper from that video himself would readily admit there's no way he could pull off shots like that all day.

 

[A Raging Emo]

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.

It depends. I used to be a soldier, and I learned that during conventional warfare, it can sometimes be far more advantageous to incapacitate somebody rather than kill them.

For instance, if someone shoots an hostile combatant, that's one man down. Then, either two or four others have to come along with a stretcher and race him out. Suddenly, that's five people out of the immediate fight. Then, a medic or two come along to help the poor guy who's been shot. Now, between five and seven people are out of the fight, rather than one.

 

[w9496]

If somebody is a very real threat to those around them, and the police have a legitimate concern for the safety of innocents, then I'd say shoot to kill. If you're going for disabling shots, then use a taser, since that person doesn't warrant enough reason to kill if you're trying to disable them.

Guns aren't meant for disabling. They are meant to kill. They can disable people sure, but they're too unpredictable when compared to tasers and the like.

 

[senordesol]

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.

It depends. I used to be a soldier, and I learned that during conventional warfare, it can sometimes be far more advantageous to incapacitate somebody rather than kill them.

For instance, if someone shoots an hostile combatant, that's one man down. Then, either two or four others have to come along with a stretcher and race him out. Suddenly, that's five people out of the immediate fight. Then, a medic or two come along to help the poor guy who's been shot. Now, between five and seven people are out of the fight, rather than one.

Police don't 'sniper bait'. In your example, while it's preferable to only down the enemy combatant; it ultimately doesn't matter if you kill him.

With police it really, really matters.

 

[spartan231490]

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 officiers 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 alledged 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.

There is no such thing as shoot to disable. Let's say a bullet hits your leg. There's a reasonably chance that a fragment or the bullet or a fragment of the bone will sever your femoral artery, resulting in your death. The same is true in the shoulder, there's a massive artery in the shoulder. Also, it's remarkably hard to hit a suspect center of mass, let alone hit them in their rapidly moving legs.

It also has to do with actually stopping the subject. Even if you hit the bone, there's a pretty decent change the suspect will be able to keep a grip on their weapon and remain a threat. That's if you hit the bone, which is highly unlikely, a flesh wound to the arm or leg would barely slow someone down. The thing is, a shot to the leg or arm is overwhelmingly likely to either kill the suspect or not significantly reduce their ability to be a threat.

On the other hand, shots to center mass aren't all that lethal. A human being who is shot in the chest once by a handgun has an 80% chance to survive(assuming modern medical care is available, but not assuming extraordinarily fast response times). Even a double tap leaves a reasonably high chance of survival. Center of mass shots are the best way to quickly stop a suspect, and are not reasonably more likely to result in death than shooting a person in the legs or the shoulder. Real life isn't like the movies.

Also, you have to understand, the police need to place a higher priority on stopping the suspect than preserving their life. Is it better to save the life of the suspect if, because you didn't use the force necessary to stop them quickly, the suspect harms or even kills a police officer or an innocent bystander, or is it better to stop the suspect quickly, saving innocents and the officers, while still giving the suspect a good chance of surviving?

 

[SecondPrize]

As they can't tell the difference between someone holding a gun and some holding any other object in existence, I think it's a bit much to ask cops to aim anywhere other than center mass.

 

[Therumancer]

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?

One thing I will point out is that gunplay isn't as easy as the movies and video games make it look. Bullets are not magical and do not always go EXACTLY where you want them to, there tends to always be a small degree of difference between where you aim and where the bullet winds up, and when your dealing with a moving target things get more complicated.

As a result when you shoot in combat, you wind up aiming center mass, that is for the chest (which is also why vests are so effective) not for the arms, head, etc... being able to pull off those shots on a target is a lot different than doing them for real. Not to mention if your shooting a moving target, such as a fleeing suspect, those arms and legs are going to be in motion. If you try and shoot someone in the leg, a much smaller target which is moving quickly, and miss because the leg goes up as part of a step or whatever, that bullet doesn't just disappear, it's going to keep going, and will hit something else, quite probably richochet, and could wind up going anywhere like through someone's window to hit someone who isn't involved (this is how accidents happen, a center mass shot greatly reduces the chances of collateral damage, as even if the bullet blows through the person it's likely to keep going straight, and lose a lot of velocity). What's more, even if someone is wearing a vest, a bullet in the chest is likely to hurt a lot, and even knock them over (especially if they are running as opposed to braced). End result is you'll usually stop your target.

Contrary to the impression some people get from TV, Movies, and liberal propaganda, the police do not routinely shoot fleeing suspects for most things. They usually give chase on foot, which is why the police (at least in the US) have such relatively rigorous physical fitness standards, especially for things like running.

When you shoot a fleeing suspect it's due to a reasonable suspicion that the person your shooting had committed (or was about to commit) a violent crime and/or felony and will likely do so again. For example if you see some dude commit a purse snatching, you won't whip our your sidearm and shoot them. On the other hand if you run into someone in the process of mugging someone with a gun or knife, and they run away from you, then it becomes acceptable in most places to shoot them as the fleet because if they did it once, they are likely to try and engage in another violent crime if they escape. Unlike some TV cop show plots (and also a subject of law enforcement controversy) a fleeing suspect being armed at the time you shoot them is usually irrelevant, if you say shoot a gang banger who throws his gun away as he runs, it's usually fine, because you saw him using a gun proving he was involved in a violent crime and could do someone violence if he escapes. Of course if the gun isn't found later, after he throws it away, that can become more of an issue.

This is very general, and it varies from state to state in the USA, "continuum of force" with the police can be a very touchy subject especially due to politics and what cases have been won where, and how fickle politicians have been. In a lot of places it waffles, if some group like the NAACP wins a case against the police things tighten up, and if you have a high profile incident where a police officer dies trying to protect someone they loosen up. For the most part though it comes down to how much of a threat the person in perceived to be, and that threat factor applies to society, not just to the officer right there on the spot.

I mention felonies (a crime punishable by more than one year in jail) because that can vary from place to place as well. See Burglary is not a crime punishable by death in the US, it differs legally from robbery given that a Burglar steals by stealth (never confronting anyone) where a robber steals by intimidation and threat of force, typically through a confrontation. Burglary is however a felony and usually comes along with multiple felonies like trespassing, breaking and entering, etc... in SOME states a cop catching a burglar say running away with the contents of a safe CAN shoot them because they are a fleeing felon, and of course if they did this once, they can do it again, not stopping them right there can lead to more felonies being committed.

In movies it should also be noted that to make things more exciting, the cops usually get told the person they are after is to be considered "armed and dangerous". This is why the cops can oftentimes go in guns blazing to chase down the bad guys (or the protagonist in certain kinds of movies). The whole point of this is that the cop doesn't need to see anything in person, and if identified, the suspect is to be taken down whatever it takes. In real life this kind of thing doesn't happen anywhere near as frequently as it does in the movies. However yeah, if some dude say shoots a cop, and kills another cop using unarmed combat, and is known to have killed someone before that to have the cops after him, then the guy being put down on sight whether he's known to be armed or not can happen... indeed the police really do use snipers specifically for dudes like that when they set up ambushes. If they can take him in so be it, but nobody is going to worry about whether they see him involved in another crime, or carrying a weapon when it comes to use of force, the designation allows them to assume that no matter how it looks due to his record.

 

[w00tage]

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 officiers 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 alledged 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.

Because shooting accurately on a range is way easier than in a real-life situation. Training isn't to make you good at something - it's to make you able to do something despite much more difficult circumstances being applied. The goal of being able to use a firearm against a person is to remove them as a threat before they can do the same to you, and the best way to ensure that happens reliably, despite being in a high-tension, quick reaction situation, is to train to aim at the "center of" the center of mass.

This also happens to be where all the vital organs are located, specifically the heart, lungs and major arteries. So, any hits are likely to have a good chance of killing someone.

But "shooting to kill" isn't what's happening. To say so implies that there's an alternative kind of "shooting to" that you can train for, and there isn't. They are shooting to hit, and doing so according to the best way of getting hits, which also happens to be the best way of killing someone.

 

[ForumSafari]

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

Also funnily enough it's a good way to kill someone.

 

[dave1004]

Bullets are pretty dangerous, yo. Even something of low caliber will result in death by blood loss after 10+ minutes, possible less if the bullet hit and splintered the bone.

Especially if you're shot in the thigh. You'll be just as dead as a gut-shot.

 

[w00tage]

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

One tiny note - 9mm is actually considered a fairly high-velocity round. It does 1100-1200 FPS generally, and a .45 does 800-900, while a .357 does 1500 or more.

The problem is that it is a small diameter, lightweight round compared to others so it doesn't have a lot of energy transference, also known as "stopping power". So there's less hydrostatic shock, which concusses internal organs and numbs nerves temporarily.

The golden rule for shooting someone with a 9mm is "shoot them twice, because once probably isn't enough". Even if the bullet causes enough damage to kill someone, it doesn't generally "stop" them.

 

[Jake0fTrades]

Hitting a specific target is easy enough when the target is standing completely still, in the open, and is in no way attempting to attack you; none of which are things an armed assailant would try to be. If the target is in need of disabling, it's probably because they are attempting to do worse to you or to others, in which case you likely have no time to consider ways of harmlessly disabling your attacker.

Personally, I'd rather police use tazers/spray first and guns second, but at least with a gun you have more than one shot.

 

[Verzin]

I've heard several people I know who carry guns talk about this. They tend to say the same thing: if you are forced to shoot someone it is safer to shoot to kill, as it's guaranteed to stop them(in most cases) and more importantly dead people can't litigate against you after the fact.

somewhat horrible thought isn't it? very rational though.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It depends. I used to be a soldier, and I learned that during conventional warfare, it can sometimes be far more advantageous to incapacitate somebody rather than kill them.

For instance, if someone shoots an hostile combatant, that's one man down. Then, either two or four others have to come along with a stretcher and race him out. Suddenly, that's five people out of the immediate fight. Then, a medic or two come along to help the poor guy who's been shot. Now, between five and seven people are out of the fight, rather than one.

Out of interest, which force were you in, and what methods and what circumstances were you taught to injure instead of kill?

I mean, the theory is sound enough, but the application...

One tiny note - 9mm is actually considered a fairly high-velocity round. It does 1100-1200 FPS generally, and a .45 does 800-900, while a .357 does 1500 or more.

This is true.

The problem is that it is a small diameter, lightweight round compared to others so it doesn't have a lot of energy transference, also known as "stopping power". So there's less hydrostatic shock, which concusses internal organs and numbs nerves temporarily.

Er...kinetic energy is determined by mass and velocity. The 9mm has less mass than others, but generally more velocity. Being a smaller calibre means it makes a smaller hole, but has more penetration.

Also, isn't hydrostatic shock supposed to be increased by the velocity of the bullet?

The golden rule for shooting someone with a 9mm is "shoot them twice, because once probably isn't enough".

Well...yes, but that isn't just for the 9mm. US soldiers are taught the failure drill of 2 in the chest, one in the head for shooting people at close range with assault rifles.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Also, isn't hydrostatic shock supposed to be increased by the velocity of the bullet?

I'm not quite sure but from the understanding its the surface area not the velocity alone. Smaller bullet acts as a piercing rather than punching force. Same as the reason divers make hands/feet into points to pierce the surface tension of water so as not to make much of a splash. The larger the initial contact point the more resistance there is and more possible damage. Thus a .45 has more stopping power than a 9mm because of its larger contact point.
EDIT: Or maybe it just is more damaging and thus more impressive whereas a 9mm can be quicker to recover from... And from what I've read Hydrostatic Shock is a wild debate amongst gun enthusiasts, most of them writing it off as gun store hype so... yeah take that as you will.

 

[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)

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.

Well, once you have shot someone, centre mass as you should to avoid missing and putting you and others in danger, wether they surrender or not will become meaningless rather soon, them being either severely wounded or killed outright if they are unlucky.

It's not a particularly good idea to attempt to coerce cooperation by firing the weapon that is meant to be used in circumstances where cooperation has gone out of the window entirely.

 

[A Raging Emo]

It depends. I used to be a soldier, and I learned that during conventional warfare, it can sometimes be far more advantageous to incapacitate somebody rather than kill them.

For instance, if someone shoots an hostile combatant, that's one man down. Then, either two or four others have to come along with a stretcher and race him out. Suddenly, that's five people out of the immediate fight. Then, a medic or two come along to help the poor guy who's been shot. Now, between five and seven people are out of the fight, rather than one.

Out of interest, which force were you in, and what methods and what circumstances were you taught to injure instead of kill?

I mean, the theory is sound enough, but the application...

I was with the British Army as Formation Reconnaissance tank crewman.