I feel that this could be easily simplified by the fact that the chest is an easier target to shoot than anywhere else on the body. Ideally, if a police officer is in a situation that he needs to shoot someone, it's immediately life-threatening to anybody in that situation. Too bad the whole "shoot first, ask questions later" approach is too commonly used.
Shoot to disable instead of shoot to kill. Let's have an open talk about this.
- Thread starter Parasondox
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Shooting to disable is not a viable option, no matter how you look at it.
For one, most (if not all) armed forces are trained to aim center mass. This is because the torso provides a much larger target area than any of the limbs.
Secondly, and this ties into the first, when firing a weapon there's almost no guarantee the round will go where you're aiming. You could be the best shot in the world, yet, while aiming for someone's leg, you could potentially hit them in the torso or in an artery. Or miss entirely. Close proximity is the only thing that can create such a guarantee, but at that range there are other, better options.
Discharging a firearm on someone should be considered only as an extreme last resort. Pulling a weapon can be seen as a deterrent, but never think of pulling the trigger unless you intend to kill.
For one, most (if not all) armed forces are trained to aim center mass. This is because the torso provides a much larger target area than any of the limbs.
Secondly, and this ties into the first, when firing a weapon there's almost no guarantee the round will go where you're aiming. You could be the best shot in the world, yet, while aiming for someone's leg, you could potentially hit them in the torso or in an artery. Or miss entirely. Close proximity is the only thing that can create such a guarantee, but at that range there are other, better options.
Discharging a firearm on someone should be considered only as an extreme last resort. Pulling a weapon can be seen as a deterrent, but never think of pulling the trigger unless you intend to kill.
There's actually a very simple answer to this, and it's an unfortunate fact of life that people unfamiliar with firearms don't understand with an alarming regularity:Paradox SuXcess said:
Guns are lethal weapons. Full stop.
There is no such thing as a disabling shot. Guns, and more precisely, the humans wielding them, are not anywhere near precise enough for that. For the vast majority of weapons, as long as the range is more than a couple meters (or if the target is moving at all, let alone in the unpredictable zigzag common to fleeing), you cannot reliably put a round on a specific part of the target.
Police are trained as all good shooters are: to aim for center-mass and to only draw their guns when they intend to kill someone.
An American cop shoots an unarmed black man daily? Gonna need a source for that one.norashepard said:
Also, remember that Zimmerman was acquitted, so even though the case went to trial he was not found criminally liable.
But I agree with your foundational premise in that: police officers should be WAY better trained/equipped to subdue potential threats without needing to kill them.
I'm pretty sure police officers are trained to hit wherever they are aiming- knee, chest, shoulder, palm, neck, head, whatever.Paradox SuXcess said:
Good marksman will hit any spot they are aiming (kill or not to kill is their call depending on situation)
What we need to train them more is shooting from non-regular stances and using ricochets for they advantages
I'm personally for warning headshots- it is warning for others
You'd be wrong. Police officers are trained to fire for the C-O-M and continue firing in rapid succession until the subject drops. Even the best marksman can't keep a 9mm on target when firing as fast as their finger can pull.blackrave said:
Using firearms should be a last resort use lethal force action, not a disabling shot. Of course there is the whole fact that apart from the arse there really isn't a safe place to shoot an offender that doesn't have the chance of going wrong.
Combined with various non-lethal weapons like tazers, shooting to kill (within certain circumstances) is correct procedure.
What are you talking about? Police officers are trained to hit the biggest target they can find, and to fire under pressure. Even soldiers aren't trained to hit specific body parts beyond being told to aim for the extremities if they are facing a heavily armored person. A police officer will pretty much always aim for the torso, unless they can't see the torso. Headshots are a piss-poor thing to actually try for intentionally, the head is a smaller target than the torso, and it moves around a lot, no cop is going to go for a head shot if they have any sort of body shot available.blackrave said:
And no, using ricochets for anything besides trick shots under controlled circumstances is a terrible idea, there is no way to predict a ricochet consistently in a natural setting and even attempting something like that in a public place is a stupid idea that no sane person would even attempt. Even professional military snipers will generally go for body shots on any sort of moving target, the only time a marksman would even attempt anything else would be against a stationary target under extraordinary circumstances.
This. And aiming for extremities increases the chance of missing, which endangers the life of the officer, and the lives of anyone the bullet could potentially hit for missing or rebounding off of a wall.Daystar Clarion said:
Plus shooting to 'disable' is a bullshit concept. Guess what? Your limbs are chock full of arteries and shit. You get hit there, you're still fairly likely to bleed out.
Shooting for center mass is logically superior in every way, in every circumstance. There is no debate about this.
You are holding a heavy piece of metal and plastic while several gunpowder explosions occur in quick succession and muzzle flashes obscure your vision (which is even worse at night).blackrave said:
It's not hard to see why a regular human would have trouble with precisely targeting small, moving objects.
At first, I thought this post was a joke, but follow up posts seem to imply that yes, you really were serious here. That's... somewhat alarming, and indicative of the complete ignorance much of the population is under when it comes to firearms and firearm safety.blackrave said:
What you describe is flat out impossible. There's simply no way to be anywhere near as precise as you point out here. On a completely stationary target 25' away, when completely calm and with unlimited time to line up their shots, the average trained marksman using a standard 9mm pistol can put shots in a 4-6" grouping (read: all impacts with the target are within a circle 4-6 inches in diameter).
Against a moving target, at greater distances, and/or when their body is pumped full of adrenaline and trying to do something, accuracy drops by orders of magnitude. You can expect the grouping to be anywhere from around one to several feet across depending on how many and to what extent any of those conditions are true.
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.
If you are facing a person with a gun, someone who may either shoot you, your friends or love ones. Where would you shoot them? Would you shoot the arm, leg or chest? Given that you feel 100% that this person is a direct threat and if you dont stop him with that first shot he will shoot back.Paradox SuXcess said:
Way i see it, criminals deserve all they get. If you play with fire, expect to get burnt. If that policeman had shot him in the shoulder and in reaction the criminal pulled the trigger and hit a kid. How would you feel? Would you still believe shoot to disable is a viable option?
Its just common sense, you remove the threat and then you try and save their life if possible. End of the day only one person died that day, and that death was the criminal.
I find this argument brought up often by those who have never shot a gun before.
It's not like a video game where you can aim for the balls and they'll instantly fall on the floor.
Shooting a gun in an indoor range can be difficult.
Shooting a gun in an outdoor range can be really difficult.
Never mind shooting something that is moving, thinking, and has the potential to kill you.
The stress, the noise, the smells, etc.
It's not easy for most people to shoot an animal, even a violent one, let alone another human being.
Because of this it's better for cops to aim for the center mass to dramatically reduce their chances of being harmed or having some innocent civilian harmed.
It's not like a video game where you can aim for the balls and they'll instantly fall on the floor.
Shooting a gun in an indoor range can be difficult.
Shooting a gun in an outdoor range can be really difficult.
Never mind shooting something that is moving, thinking, and has the potential to kill you.
The stress, the noise, the smells, etc.
It's not easy for most people to shoot an animal, even a violent one, let alone another human being.
Because of this it's better for cops to aim for the center mass to dramatically reduce their chances of being harmed or having some innocent civilian harmed.
To paraphrase and reapply Hiko Seijuro: A gun is a weapon. Learning to use a gun is learning to commit murder. Justification is irrelevent.
There are basically two points:
1. Regardless of who you are and who you work for: Never pull a gun unless you intend to fire, if necessary. Never fire a gun unless you intend to kill. Period.
2. The issue with this thread and its subject, for my own local interests (the US) is that the police themselves are no longer what they were meant to be. They are armed individuals working for a paycheck on behalf of the state/city/county who are, in turn, motivated primarily by whatever interest group or corporation will provide them with the most funding. To Protect, and Serve no longer has its intended meaning. The goals of the police should always be to maintain peace, even uncomfortable peace, and to protect the safety of the people and their property from any direct threats, including from their own government.
The travesty that was the police involvement in and against the Occupy movement, as well as other absurd pseudo-militaristic repressive overreaction (i.e. the National Guard at Kent State), just serves as an example of how the police in the US have, in many cases, forgotten the primary purpose of their job. If we can manage to appropriately re-stress the goal of serving and protecting the people, who the government itself is meant to be serving, rather than the government/corporate interests, and be sure that any use of detention or force is only applied where appropriate, then any case in which that force is applied would appropriately provide a justifiable cause for deadly force if ignored.
Basically, if your police are doing their job correctly and honestly in all circumstances, then shooting a fleeing suspect by aiming center mass is ok by me.
There are basically two points:
1. Regardless of who you are and who you work for: Never pull a gun unless you intend to fire, if necessary. Never fire a gun unless you intend to kill. Period.
2. The issue with this thread and its subject, for my own local interests (the US) is that the police themselves are no longer what they were meant to be. They are armed individuals working for a paycheck on behalf of the state/city/county who are, in turn, motivated primarily by whatever interest group or corporation will provide them with the most funding. To Protect, and Serve no longer has its intended meaning. The goals of the police should always be to maintain peace, even uncomfortable peace, and to protect the safety of the people and their property from any direct threats, including from their own government.
The travesty that was the police involvement in and against the Occupy movement, as well as other absurd pseudo-militaristic repressive overreaction (i.e. the National Guard at Kent State), just serves as an example of how the police in the US have, in many cases, forgotten the primary purpose of their job. If we can manage to appropriately re-stress the goal of serving and protecting the people, who the government itself is meant to be serving, rather than the government/corporate interests, and be sure that any use of detention or force is only applied where appropriate, then any case in which that force is applied would appropriately provide a justifiable cause for deadly force if ignored.
Basically, if your police are doing their job correctly and honestly in all circumstances, then shooting a fleeing suspect by aiming center mass is ok by me.
I wish I could say this was wrong but sadly with any job some will always look out for self to have a good leader he or she must be self sacrificing and I find more and more that goes against human nature. The one that are seem to get burned out with DA who worry more about winning cases then doing their job.Alarien said:
Still there are good cops and there are bullies with a badge. Please don't paint us all with the same brush.