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

[NoMercy Rider]

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. I'm surprised no one else has piggy-backed on this argument. While I am not any kind of law enforcement, I have had extensive firearm training and self-defense training. Quite simply, handguns are pretty inaccurate weapons. With a well-trained person, they can get a pretty tight group of shots at about 25 feet (~7.5 meters for those outside the US). Anything beyond that and the accuracy dramatically decreases. Since the handgun has a short barrel, bullets have a slower velocity, thus making them more susceptible to outside factors such as wind and gravity. I think you would be shocked to know how much a .45 bullet will drop in just 50 feet from being shot from a handgun.

Entertainment has propagated a huge myth that someone can blind fire (i.e. not look down the sights) a pistol with one hand and still take out targets with extreme precision. Quite simply, it doesn't happen. You pretty much need to have a firm stance and double handed grip on the gun to hit with any sort of precision. Plus, any slight error in the pull of the trigger could result in the shot hitting way off the mark.

So quite simply, officers are trained to aim for the largest target, which happens to be the chest. Likewise, an officer is trained to be fully aware of all surroundings both around and behind the target. Because chances are high that the bullet will miss the mark and could pose a risk to anyone or anything nearby. By aiming for a smaller target such as a shoulder, leg, arm, etc, you only increase that risk dramatically. It is not unheard of to hear stories of a stray bullet penetrating several walls and striking an innocent inhabitant.

TLR; Aiming for the chest provides the largest target area and thus minimizes the potential risk for collateral damage. Plus, as others have said, a lethal shot provides the quickest and most guaranteed means of eliminating a risk. Hitting someone in the leg does not always mean that the risk has been eliminated.

 

[TehCookie]

Most people aren't superheros with impossible marksmen skills you see in movies. If you you want to stop the criminal with a gun you aim for the biggest target, aka their chest. If you aim for the arms/legs you have a higher chance of missing. That's also why they shoot more than once to raise their chances of one of the bullets hitting. If you want to disable someone you don't shoot them with a gun. Guns are made to kill.

 

[Worgen]

Cops aren't trained to shoot to kill, they are trained to shoot to hit. The chest is the biggest target on a person, trying to hit a leg or arm is hard and can still result in death if they hit an artery. Really any gunshot is treated as if it can be fatal.

 

[WhyWasThat]

It's simple, shoot to disable where absolutely necessary and shoot to kill only when absolutely necessary.

 

[tangoprime]

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. All of this.

Firearms aren't to be employed unless the decision to employ lethal force has been made. People in general, even people you would expect to be well trained (Police Forces) aren't nearly as accurate shooters as TV/Movies/Videogames portray, especially when in a life-or-death situation. They train to shoot center-of-mass on a target because in that kind of situation, aiming and shooting there, as practiced, is the "safest" bet for being able to hit the aggressor. Practice shooting limbs at the range all you want- in a real-world situation where instinct takes over, you'll fall back on shooting center-of-mass, and hope to god you've practiced enough to be able to hit your target.

The other, very significant danger, is shooting for limbs and missing your target, as is very likely in that situation, which then causes a stray 7.5-15 gram chunk of metal moving at 3-400 m/s that could be fatal to a distant innocent person. That alone is likely to dissuade ANY public entity who would be employing firearms to NOT train "shoot to disable." The very first time an innocent is killed because of a policy like that, there'd be an immediate uproar, and likely an escapist OT forum post linking it and asking why police would ever do such a thing.

 

[DrOswald]

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.

Several reasons why this is a bad idea:

1. A bullet is likely lethal no matter where it hits. Shooting at the shoulder or legs does not guarantee a non lethal hit. For this reason, a gun should only ever be used when it is acceptable to kill the target.

2. When you shoot a gun at a target it is best to shoot at the center of the target so it is easier to make a hit. Many Police officers will only ever have to shoot at someone once, many never. And no matter how good you are in theory, shooting at an actual person is very different than at a target. If you do not aim for the center of the target (like aiming for the shoulder or feet or something,) you are far more likely to miss.

3. If you are more likely to miss, you are also more likely to cause collateral damage. The unfortunate truth is that crimes rarely happen in places where there are no innocent bystanders about. You might try for a shoulder shot, miss, and hit the old woman 100 yards and a thin wall past the target.

4. If an officer has to use his gun it is likely going to be in a highly intense situation requiring a snap judgement. You do not want to complicate that snap judgement because it will both slow the officer down in making that decision and complicate the decision, making it much more likely he will make the wrong choice.

5. If officers were trained to try to land non lethal shots it would be worse for everyone. Every time a person comes at a police officer with a gun and he is shot to death the family would try to sue claiming that the police officer should have tried for a non lethal shot. On the other hand, Police officers would have to deal with making judgement calls in the field with far less than perfect information.

This is the same reason war crimes are enumerated as specific "do not's" instead of general guidelines. It protects everyone involved because there are clear rules in place. Soldiers can't try to excuse themselves as easily because the rules are clear, civilians know what they should and should not do to prevent misunderstandings, and soldiers can't be put on trial after the fact so long as they followed the rules.

Police work is the same in many ways. The more subjective judgement you require of people in the field the more likely there will be abuse and misunderstanding of the system.

There are other reasons, but as I understand it these are the big ones.

P.S. Another fact is while a single bullet is often lethal it is very rarely immediately disabling, especially when it is not a kill shot. If you fire at someone it should be because there is a clear and immediate danger. The point of the gun is to put as many bullets into the target as are needed to erase the threat. The chance of erasing the threat with one non lethal shot, even if it hits, is unacceptably low.

Once you kill a person the practical difference between 1 hole in the chest and 10 holes in the chest is very small. But when you are trying to disable 1 hole vs 10 holes makes a huge difference. 1 bullet might not disable, but 2 bullets might kill. It is an impossible decision to ask an individual to make as a snap judgement.

 

[James Joseph Emerald]

The concept of "shoot to disable" is just a fantasy that exists only in fiction. It's not in any way reliable, and if a police officer ever admitted to "shooting to disable", they could technically go to prison for endangering/taking someone's life when even they themselves didn't believe there was cause to do so (or they would have shot to kill).

It's similar to the idea that you can hit someone in the head so hard they fall unconscious, but without any risk of internal hemorrhaging or permanent brain damage. Again: fantasy.

 

[Vegosiux]

One, unless you're actually trying to kill the person you shouldn't be shooting at them, and two, if you're trying to kill them, you better aim where you're most likely to at least hit them. But you shouldn't even be pointing your gun at anyone you do not wish to kill, much less fire it in their general direction.

 

[Vale]

Shoot to kill is appropriate against armed hostility.
It is not appropriate against unarmed running away. Especially not in public.
Some police won't give a fuck either way. It's not exactly nice, but so it goes.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

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?

IF there's a situation where a person is a credible threat whether they're running or standing their ground, and granted thats not a normal situation despite what people see on TV shows, a moving target is much more difficult to hit by all but the most skilled shooters. So in that essence, a fleeing threat would be easier to take down shooting for center mass than trying to wound. Also there's no guarantee that shooting a person in a leg or arm will not be fatal as there are arteries that if severed or damaged can bleed out in less than a minute. And there's also no guarantee a bullet will travel in a straight line even if it enters in a non-fatal area as it could deflect off of a bone or just change trajectory upon entering the body due to muscle mass or even fatty tissue.
Basically shooting to wound isn't a viable or reliable option. In an instance where they need non-lethal takedowns, law enforcement does have access to those beanbag things but even those can be fatal if they hit the wrong area.
So in all honesty when you draw and fire you'd best be prepared to kill them and should ensure that you're making the correct decision and prepared to accept the consequences.

 

[Asita]

Honestly, I think that most people who suggest 'shoot to disable' as policy have no idea how difficult that actually is. Seriously, if you own guns, head down to a shooting range and test your accuracy (and then try grouping your shots), and keep in mind that's how you do against a stationary target when you can take the shots at your leisure. Aiming for a shoulder certainly sounds all well and good, but that's a bullseye, kill or flat-out-miss shot. I mean let's be generous and say that the officer is guaranteed to hit within a three inch radius with the targeted body part at the center. Your aim is off and towards them and you have a very real chance of hitting the target's lung. Your aim is off and away from them and you're hitting nothing but air or - worse still - an innocent bystander. Take that same margin of error and target the center of the torso? You're going to hit the target. It's the same reason that headshots in real life are actually discouraged: they're small targets that move around a lot and there's no real advantage to favoring them over the torso which is much easier to hit. Needless to say, as arms and legs move around much more than heads, shoulders and torsos, they are harder targets still.

A gun is a killing weapon. It is designed for the explicit purpose of ending lives. If a person is unwilling to shoulder that and is seeking shots to disable rather than kill, that person has no right drawing that gun in the first place as he/she clearly does not understand the weapon's function and is using it too casually. That's actually part of gun safety, perhaps best phrased as "never point a firearm at anything you aren't willing to destroy.

 

[Ryotknife]

its weird, you hear stories of people being shot in the leg or shoulder who die and think "what are the odds of that?"

but then you hear about people being shot 5 times and survive and think "what are the odds of that?"

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/alleged-intruder-shot-by-loganville-mother-out-of-/nWL8c/

bullets punctured his liver, lungs, and stomach. He managed to walk out of the house from the attic, get in his car, and drive away after being shot 5 times.

 

[tangoprime]

its weird, you hear stories of people being shot in the leg or shoulder who die and think "what are the odds of that?"

but then you hear about people being shot 5 times and survive and think "what are the odds of that?"

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/alleged-intruder-shot-by-loganville-mother-out-of-/nWL8c/

bullets punctured his liver, lungs, and stomach. He managed to walk out of the house from the attic, get in his car, and drive away after being shot 5 times.

This is another reason for not "shooting to disable." Not to derail at all, as it could spiral out of control very quickly, but this, right here, is the answer when anyone asks why people need "high capacity" magazines (7 or more rounds in handguns). A shot to disable, or in this case, even a shot to kill, didn't disable the target. If he was still intent on doing harm after being shot, the mother defending herself with the handgun and/or her child would still be dead. When the life or death decision has been made to use lethal force, you employ it as effectively as you're able, and you keep employing it until the threat has been removed. Sometimes it takes one (rarely), sometimes it takes 2, sometimes it takes 5, and sometimes (this case, if he'd have still been intent on advancing, for example if he'd have had a dissociative disorder, drug induced or otherwise) it takes more. For the person defending themselves, having more than you need is always better than not having enough.

Spoiler

As always, I'd encourage everyone interested in learning how real world ballistics works from an ER doctor's lecture, please, please watch this. Most relevant to this thread is the video clip shown of the man being shot twice with a 9mm and continuing to pace around waiting for the police to show up. That was 2 shots right at center mass from point blank range on an average built adult male, and he wasn't nearly incapacitated. From the doctor's own words "This is the reason, for example, why police officers shoot more than once, because they don't necessarily know if they hit the first time, or the second time, or the third time. Because they can't tell."

A shot to an extremity would have even less immediately effect, unless you actually shattered their knee or something similar, as happened to a responding police officer to Ft. Hood Shooting, shooter Nidal Hasan getting a lucky shot hitting her in the knee and shattering her femur.

 

[Gorrath]

As an individual trained in the use of firearms as deployed as weapons, I will simply echo the large body of sentiments and understanding here. That said, I want to thank you for your question as well Paradox. Shooting to wound is an idea a lot of people still have and the more it can be abolished the better. Hopefully others who share your question will be able to read this and understand why it's such a bad idea.

 

[IceStar100]

tbth having see average US police on the news i always figured the reason they shot most people was so they didn't have to run after them...

Ok if I come off as a jerk I just take all of this to heart and have to deal with it a lot.

Ok first of most city police department have a mandatory fitness standard that must be passed. Can't pass it your fired now some boon docks and such might be different but I hope the idea of a fat cop changes soon heck we pay extra for cops who take a yearly par core class.

Officer do not shoot to kill they shoot to remove a threat. (that one will get you chewed out in heart beat by a training officer)

The reason for the body shot it because it's the mostly to one hit strait from the holster. If you knew how many time thing go nuts in a millisecond you be amazed. So I train officer to shoot like every shot is strait from the hip.

Two less likely to miss the target and hit someone are something else. Body is a large target and less mobile then arms or legs at the range I train to shot torso shots. Last thing is the torso is pretty thick with bones and organs so a bullet is less likely to go through this is also the reason most officer use hollow point. "every bullit has a lawyer name on it."

Sadly it just happened that we need those organs to live so officers are not trying to kill the target they are trying to keep it from killing them or someone else.

 

[WindKnight]

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.

Ok, UK speaker here, and lets be honest here - shooting to disable or disarm is a Myth. Its a flat out myth, as any area you shoot someone to disable them can and often will turn fatal either due to the impact itself, shock and/or blood loss.

Also, targeting specific body-parts is rather hard in real life. The centre of mass shots are specifically to make sure (a) you hit and (b) reduce the chance the bullet will over penetrate (IE go through the body) and hurt someone behind the target. As much as games, comics movies etc like to make like it just takes a shot to knock a gun out someones hand, its near impossible to do so in real life.

I think the nearest to show it realistically (ignoring the frankly insanely impossible level of skill needed to do so) is Gunsmith cats where it involves shooting peoples thumbs or fingers off (again in case I haven't stated this enough, A FEAT OF ACCURACY THAT IS PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE IN REAL LIFE).

 

[norashepard]

I understand the rationale behind shoot to kill. Obviously if someone is doing something wrong and show no signs of slowing down, and it is going to hurt someone else if they continue, why wouldn't we shoot them dead?

But then I look at the CONSTANT barrage of cases where police officers in the United States are shooting unarmed black citizens, who have committed no crime. Straight up, they shot a man (who was black) around 14 times for getting out of his car to ask someone for help after it had broken down. And this is not strange or bizarre. This happens DAILY in the US, and somehow it only becomes news when George Zimmerman does it (that case was a crime in and of itself). This has happened right up the street from where I live. So if police officers are told to non-fatally neutralize someone they suspect, that would STOP THIS SHIT FROM HAPPENED. Hundreds of innocent lives would still be here.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

Look, I loved Trigun too, but Vash's ability to regularly shoot people non-fatally is not reflective of your average cop's skills. Most people are simply not capable of reliably shooting someone in the arm or leg in any given situation. Some cops are lucky if they can shoot an entire magazine and get a bullet within five feet of their target.


If the situation is serious enough to shoot a gun at someone, then it's serious enough to need to be resolved as quickly as possible, which means aiming for the center of mass.