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

IamGamer41

New member
Mar 19, 2010
245
0
0
If someone breaks into my home trying to take what is mine I will put them down an not think twice about it. Someone harms my family and the law does not punish them I will put them down as well. People do not seem to realize that if this went on more that shit like theft and murders would go down. Not disappear mind you but would go down. Where I they have been 3 break ins in the last 5 years. Why? Because people know if they are cough there ass will most likely get shot.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
This isn't the movies. Police forces aren't comprised of squad members named "Trickshot McGraw" that can shoot the wings off a fly from 20 yards.

How would you do at shooting someone's hand when they have a gun leveled at you or someone else? When they're given the time and opportunity, they ARE trained to do this.

<youtube=AHvWaviIXsk>

But when their lives are on the line, that's it, they have to put down the threat as quickly as possible. Do you think the criminal is aiming to disable them? When an officer has to discharge his weapon, it is to kill if his life is in danger. That's why. They're trained not to fire if that kind of threat isn't there.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
16,465
1,996
118
Lightknight said:
How would you do at shooting someone's hand when they have a gun leveled at you or someone else? When they're given the time and opportunity, they ARE trained to do this.
Note also that that was a sniper with a sniper rifle, not an average police officer with a handgun. And that still nearly never happens, even for them.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
thaluikhain said:
Lightknight said:
How would you do at shooting someone's hand when they have a gun leveled at you or someone else? When they're given the time and opportunity, they ARE trained to do this.
Note also that that was a sniper with a sniper rifle, not an average police officer with a handgun. And that still nearly never happens, even for them.
Right, the average police officer is not equiped with the resources to respond this way and most gun related danger isn't some guy sitting in a street who is only threatening himself. This is a rare situation where police are actually given time to plan.
 

Darkbladex96

New member
Jan 25, 2011
76
0
0
rhizhim said:
Paradox SuXcess said:
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.
because incapacitating someone is harder than you think.

a 9mm (low caliber- most common used) round wont stop a man in his tracks and some can even manage to stab you after you shot 5 of these into his body.

the "i will shoot them in the leg to disable them" scenario you see in movies is almost impossible to archieve since arms and legs are smaller than your torso and they also move faster than your torso.

to be able to pull that off, you have to take aim for a long time and be relatively close to your target.
so close that they could run to you and stab you to death.

there was an incident where a ranger tried to disable an unarmed man. see the video in the spoiler box
<spoiler=graphic>
<youtube=N_92xgnobzQ>


as you probably saw, it didnt end well for the man.


anyways, even a shot to the arm can kill you.
more so if it hits your shoulder since the closer you get to your torso the thicker and more powerful your veins get.
you will bleed to death in seconds if it hits an artery .
http://www.medicalook.com/systems_images/Arteries_of_the_Shoulder_large.jpg

and mind that a bullet can shatter your bones by the sheer force of the impact, creating in the most unfortunate of scenarios a lot of shrapnel/fragments of bones and the bullet itself travelling through your body.

there are even reports of men being hit by a medium to large caliber round to the stomache or chest that were so forcefull that they died of breaking their necks.
I watched that video several times. The screams, while delicious, were sullied by how unnecessary the entire situation was in the first place.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,877
0
0
rhizhim said:
more so if it hits your shoulder since the closer you get to your torso the thicker and more powerful your veins get.
you will bleed to death in seconds if it hits an artery .
Supposedly, depending on the Artery, you'll lose consciousness in about 30 - 90 seconds. Actually dying can take a few minutes.
 

DazBurger

New member
May 22, 2009
1,339
0
0
Daystar Clarion said:
Paradox SuXcess said:
Daystar Clarion said:
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.
Well, if they are armed and agressive, they still pose a threat to others.

Aximili said:
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.
Where did you get that from? (Most)Police are trained to shoot to kill, where all other options are depleted.
That is also why police favors higher calibers (9mm-10mm-.45) and use hollow-points.

That some police lack proper training or have certain misconceptions (America, Im looking at you), doesn't make that the norm.
 

Xangba

New member
Apr 6, 2005
250
0
0
I've been trained in this. Let me explain (even though I'm sure several others have already). There is NO GUARANTEED DISABLE SHOT. There is not a shot you can make that will ensure they are disabled/drop the weapon/whatever you see in movies/t.v. Adrenaline is a factor everyone forgets (let alone anything like drugs, alcohol, ect). With adrenaline pumping you can be shot in the shoulder and not notice a thing. The reason there is no "shoot to disable" is because if you try, odds are someone else is going to be shot or injured because of it. Hollywood has given an unrealistic expectation of it unfortunately, but that's just how it is: any shot that only injures has a high risk of simply making them mad. This honestly shouldn't even be a debate for anyone who has researched or trained in this.
 

RicoADF

Welcome back Commander
Jun 2, 2009
3,147
0
0
Paradox SuXcess said:
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?
That's what less leathal weapons are for, if your shooting someone with a gun it's to kill because that's what their made to do. Here in Australia (NSW specifically) police have tazers to take someone down with less leathal force but still carry pistols incase the situation requires the suspect be taken down, however their trained to only use the gun when they have no other choice, the pistol being the weapon of choice as it's the only way to incapacitate someone without killing them.
However tazers have been known to kill as well, hence why their called less leathal rather than non leathal.
 

Kinitawowi

New member
Nov 21, 2012
575
0
0
Most of the answers came from the Jean Charles de Menezes case [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes]; SO19 wanted to put the guy down permanently, not shooting the chest area in case they triggered an explosive vest and not aiming to wound in case he was still able to activate one himself.

The fact that he was completely innocent and not wearing an explosive vest at the time caused considerable problems later, of course, but the facts remain - if the cops in the UK are going to shoot then they're going for a kill.

(Whether Duggan should have been shot at all is an issue for another thread.)
 

Kittyhawk

New member
Aug 2, 2012
248
0
0
This is an interesting situation that really needs to be addressed.

I'm of a similar mind that these police should look to neutralize than outright kill a person. There's no second take from that and its tough having to live with taking a life.
 

Little Gray

New member
Sep 18, 2012
499
0
0
Aximili said:
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.
They are not supposed to shoot to disable they are supposed to shoot the person in the chest. This is because its the largest part of the body which reduces the chance of them missing. Cops do not like missing because stray bullets can cause a lot of damage and potentially kill innocent bystanders. Also when you shoot for the chest there it reduces the chance of a bullet going right through which again reduces the damage to the surrounding area and the chance somebody other then the target gets hit.
 

freedash22

New member
Jun 7, 2013
84
0
0
For me, it really depends on what the attacker is doing, what his weapon is and how far he is. I have a .45 Pistol with JHPs so wound ballistics are better and things are different than they would be if I had say a .380 or a 9mm. If he is less than 10 meters away from me and I have his attention or he is going after me, but does not have a ranged deadly weapon, I'll go for the legs. If he has a gun, I'll aim for the head and chest at ANY range. If he is less than 20 feet away and has a melee deadly weapon, I'll go for his head or upper chest immediately. If he has NO weapon at all, I will go for the legs or arms until he stops; if at less than 10 feet he still doesn't stop then it's head or chest.

My choices are not ideal but from where I live, defensive shooters always get the microscope in court even if the bad guy has a claymore, chainsaw or shishkebab. So I'll need to be able to justify that my intent was to stop and not to kill. Firing and hitting someone more than once usually means the shooter loses the trial so whether I like it or not, I have to be VERY careful.
 

Apollo45

New member
Jan 30, 2011
534
0
0
Paradox SuXcess said:
Already been said in various forms and ways here, but I figured I'd reiterate. When you're using a gun, you're using it as a last resort to a threat on the life or wellbeing of yourself or others. In these cases your goal is to stop the threat, period. Shooting for arms, hands, legs, shoulders, or wherever else is asking to miss, cause superficial injury, or cause other issues in general. Besides that, it's no guarantee at all that if the target is hit in the leg or arm they won't bleed out anyway. So when shooting to injure you can run into three issues you are significantly less likely to run into otherwise; either you miss and they keep doing what they're doing, you hit and they shrug it off, or you hit and the die anyway. Best case scenario you hit them and they stop, but the chances of that in a high intensity situation where they're moving, you're moving, and adrenaline is pumping are minimal. Shooting for the center of mass with an intent to kill decreases the chances that they'll shrug it off or you'll miss. You can rely more on muscle memory - point and shoot - as well.

Something that I didn't notice was addressed (but may very well have been) is the legal implications of attempting to injure someone. In the States, doing something like that as a carrying citizen can mean some big legal trouble, especially if they bleed out and die anyway. The implication of shooting to injure is that the person you're shooting at wasn't really a threat in the first place. If you have the time to take aim, steady your hands, and fire, you're likely not in any danger. If you end up in court, in front of a jury, saying that you pulled a gun and shot a man without being afraid for your life is not good. Shooting to injure implies that. Shooting to kill, and in that case emptying your gun, means that you were afraid enough for your life or the life of another that you needed to make sure the guy you were shooting at was not getting back up. It means you drew with a purpose.

Now, I'm not at all saying you need to unload if you've pulled your weapon. What I was taught in my carry classes was that you shoot until there isn't a threat any more. The general process goes like this: You, or someone else, is being attacked and their life/wellbeing is threatened. You pull your gun, point it at them, and shout a warning. If they don't immediately make themselves no longer a threat (start backing up, drop their weapon, run, stick their hands in the air, etc) you shoot until they aren't a threat. If they start running you stop shooting. If they stick their hands in the air and drop whatever weapon they have you stop shooting. But if they keep coming, making threatening motions, or anything like that you unload on their asses. If they're still a threat you reload and unload again. If they're not a threat you back up, call the police, and wait for the police to show. The process is designed to make you as safe as possible, physically, mentally, and legally, and all three of those can have issues if you're shooting to injure instead of kill.

While that's not exactly what officers are taught, their training philosophy is similar. A gun is a weapon of last resort, and should be treated as such. If you're shooting to injure, it's not your last resort.
 

Hawk eye1466

New member
May 31, 2010
619
0
0
Because a lot of cops from what I know rarely ever draw their weapons because their trained to only use it as a last resort, so when they need to use it their also trained to shoot for the center mass to lower the chances of missing and hitting someone else, and because as a lot of other people have said just disabling someone is a lot harder than it seems, guns are meant to kill so when a well trained cop draws his gun he feels there's no other solution and that he or someone else is in immediate danger, and any of the other weapons he has like a tazer or mace won't work.

If a situation has gotten to the point where the cop has to draw his gun odds are it's dangerous enough that whoever the cop is threatening to shoot isn't going to back down and therefore even if he managed to hit him in a nonvital area in the arm or leg it may not stop them.
 

Apollo45

New member
Jan 30, 2011
534
0
0
freedash22 said:
For me, it really depends on what the attacker is doing, what his weapon is and how far he is. I have a .45 Pistol with JHPs so wound ballistics are better and things are different than they would be if I had say a .380 or a 9mm. If he is less than 10 meters away from me and I have his attention or he is going after me, but does not have a ranged deadly weapon, I'll go for the legs. If he has a gun, I'll aim for the head and chest at ANY range. If he is less than 20 feet away and has a melee deadly weapon, I'll go for his head or upper chest immediately. If he has NO weapon at all, I will go for the legs or arms until he stops; if at less than 10 feet he still doesn't stop then it's head or chest.

My choices are not ideal but from where I live, defensive shooters always get the microscope in court even if the bad guy has a claymore, chainsaw or shishkebab. So I'll need to be able to justify that my intent was to stop and not to kill. Firing and hitting someone more than once usually means the shooter loses the trial so whether I like it or not, I have to be VERY careful.
I don't know if you were taught this by a professional or if you've come up with it yourself, but your philosophy is legally very flawed. If you shoot someone in the leg and it nicks an artery they will likely bleed out and die anyway. If that happens, you're now saying you aimed for the legs. When you say that it implies you weren't afraid for your life - you had time to draw, aim, and precisely hit your attacker in the leg - which means that pulling and firing your weapon wasn't your last resort. All of a sudden, when you thought you were trying to be as safe as possible, you're up against a jury with a manslaughter charge or worse, and the defense is going to ram it into the jury's heads that you pulled your weapon when you didn't feel your life was threatened, because if you felt threatened you would have shot to kill, not to injure.

What you want when going up against a defendant/jury like that is to be able to say you felt your life was threatened enough that you willingly took the life of someone else to protect yourself. That's textbook self defense, and generally a relatively easy trial to come out the other side of.
 

freedash22

New member
Jun 7, 2013
84
0
0
Apollo45 said:
And I won't disagree with your points. I wish things were like that here and I would follow your suggestion. To answer your first question, this wasn't something I was taught, just something I figured would be best here in the Philippines. It's really difficult to explain but past court cases here didn't quite turn out well for head shots. In fact, here, you can't even shoot a fleeing unarmed assailant. My goal is to fire once and if the attacker goes down, I claim I wanted him to stop. If he dies from one shot, then that is consequential and wasn't my intent. If the attacker doesn't go down after being hit or has a deadly weapon, then I keep shooting until he stops. If the attacker is fleeing, I can't open fire unless he is threatening my life. It's like that jewelry heist in France
recently were the robbers were shot and killed while fleeing and the store owner becomes the bad man.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2424017/Stephan-Turk-anger-France-jeweller-shot-armed-robber-dead-charged-killing-him.html

Our house was once robbed by a child at night (less then 10 years old by witness estimates) and although I was asleep when that happened, the police said we did the right thing by not shooting (presuming we were awake) additionally, when I was interviewed during my Neuro-Psychiatric exam for a firearms license renewal, the case was talked about and the police psychologist who interviewed me said if I was awake and I shot him, I would be in serious legal trouble, lose my license and that not shooting would be the best thing to do. Sad to say, the courts here aren't fair to self-defense gun owners. Shooting the legs or arms, has been more acceptable and instead of a court case, the worst you get is you pay for the injured attacker's hospital bills (still unfair but attracts less legal trouble).
 

psijac

$20 a year for this message
Nov 20, 2008
281
0
0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout

*William Matix: Smith & Wesson Model 3000 12-gauge shotgun, one round #6 shot fired. Killed after being shot six times.
*Michael Platt: Ruger Mini-14 .223 Remington with folding stock, at least 42 rounds fired, S&W M586 .357 Magnum revolver, three rounds fired, Dan Wesson .357 Magnum revolver, three rounds fired. Killed after being shot 12 times.
Shooting to kill isn't a guarentee either
 

freedash22

New member
Jun 7, 2013
84
0
0
The 1986 FBI shootout is a good point and was my consideration for getting a .45ACP FNP-45 rather than a .38 or 9mm or .40S&W pistol.