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

[senordesol]

Because there never are circumstances when you are forced on the ground?
Or when only one hand is available?
According to you if ANYTHING strays away from usual shooting range conditions police officer is pretty much fucked, that's why teaching any other position than standing on 2 feet griping sidearm with dominant hand and securing it with other hand is pointless.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that getting them acquainted with other shooting positions isn't that crazy.

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 already takes six months to a year to complete Police 'Academy' training, with another six to twelve of field training.

 

[blackrave]

Because there never are circumstances when you are forced on the ground?
Or when only one hand is available?
According to you if ANYTHING strays away from usual shooting range conditions police officer is pretty much fucked, that's why teaching any other position than standing on 2 feet griping sidearm with dominant hand and securing it with other hand is pointless.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that getting them acquainted with other shooting positions isn't that crazy.

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 already takes six months to a year to complete Police 'Academy' training, with another six to twelve of field training.

True, but how fucked up is that we try to put as little time and funds as possible in police training, and then wonder why they aren't up to standards?

Spoiler: Worse that that, sometimes we end up with someone like my sister and her best friend

Me, my sister and her best friend were going home. It was late and we were waiting for a bus. Some a-hole tried to mug us (he really liked both handbags). His stabbing attempt failed (nothing original, straight hit pattern, easy to deflect, secure and then dislocate elbow). Something bugged me for a few days though. And then I realized- 2 police officers were frozen in fear and panic while system administrator was beating up criminal. THE FUCK??? Since then I'm really skeptical about female officers, but I don't think male officers are much better. And that scares me to be honest.

 

[senordesol]

Because there never are circumstances when you are forced on the ground?
Or when only one hand is available?
According to you if ANYTHING strays away from usual shooting range conditions police officer is pretty much fucked, that's why teaching any other position than standing on 2 feet griping sidearm with dominant hand and securing it with other hand is pointless.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that getting them acquainted with other shooting positions isn't that crazy.

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 already takes six months to a year to complete Police 'Academy' training, with another six to twelve of field training.

True, but how fucked up is that we try to put as little time and funds as possible in police training, and then wonder why they aren't up to standards?

Spoiler: Worse that that, sometimes we end up with someone like my sister and her best friend

Me, my sister and her best friend were going home. It was late and we were waiting for a bus. Some a-hole tried to mug us (he really liked both handbags). His stabbing attempt failed (nothing original, straight hit pattern, easy to deflect, secure and then dislocate elbow). Something bugged me for a few days though. And then I realized- 2 police officers were frozen in fear and panic while system administrator was beating up criminal. THE FUCK??? Since then I'm really skeptical about female officers, but I don't think male officers are much better. And that scares me to be honest.

Yeah, it'd be great if more could be investment could be made toward police training (or at least invested smarter) but you've also got to remember: cops are human, and humans never know how they'll react to a life-or-death situation until they're in one. Even trained soldiers have been known to freeze once thrust into combat.

While I'll agree that police officers (particularly in LA and NYC) need better procedural training, expanded proceedural training won't necessarily make better officers - particularly when they have to make snap decisions.

 

[blackrave]

Spoiler: Worse that that, sometimes we end up with someone like my sister and her best friend

Me, my sister and her best friend were going home. It was late and we were waiting for a bus. Some a-hole tried to mug us (he really liked both handbags). His stabbing attempt failed (nothing original, straight hit pattern, easy to deflect, secure and then dislocate elbow). Something bugged me for a few days though. And then I realized- 2 police officers were frozen in fear and panic while system administrator was beating up criminal. THE FUCK??? Since then I'm really skeptical about female officers, but I don't think male officers are much better. And that scares me to be honest.

This is why I enjoy these threads. There goes Mr.Train-People-To-Make-Use-Of-Ricochet goes again!

I'm glad you're entertained

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

Why are police officiers trained in shoot to kill rather than shoot to disable the suspect from the arm weapon.

Because outside of movies and other fiction, that is practically impossible to do.

Police officers - like soldiers - are taught to shoot for the central mass - that is, the middle of the chest - because it increases the likelyhood that they will hit ANY part of the body. Guns may be accurate, but it is very difficult to aim well in the middle of a fire fight, so you just shoot at the biggest part of the target and hope. In real life, a shot to the arm or shoulder is an accident while shooting for the chest. Not even SNIPERS attempt head-shots - they aim for the chest.

Hitting a moving target that is also shooting at you is NOT easy.

 

[Playful Pony]

Where I come from it is EXTREMELY rare for someone to be killed by the police. They take every precaution possible in order to avoid shooting someone, and many of our politicians argue they are TOO hesitant to pull the trigger. I don't really agree with that, unfortunately when the police turn up to an armed incident it is usually too late (the police seem to always get the call AFTER the shot goes off etc.).

I understand that when the life of the officers and civlians are in imediate danger, they will kill the badguy rather than risk losing their lives. That's perfectly fine with me. It also seems perfectly reasonable that when they do need to take someone down, they go for the comparetively easy body shot, rather than trying to aim for shoulders/hands/legs and so on.

The problem with police in my country seems to be response time... As we learned from the Utøya attack by terrorist A. B. Breivik and the more recent situation on that bus, the police simply don't have what it takes to respond quickly and decisively to an incident... I don't know if it is due to poor training, poor equipment and vehicles or lack of funding for all of those things, but that is definently their weakspot...

Actually the police ARE very poorly funded, and the situation isn't made better by the frankly disgraceful (and possibly illegal?) lack of control of the funding they DO recieve. Recently as much as 1 billion NOK basically vanished without anyone being able to say what the money was actually spent on... Nobody knows where all that money went! Very worrying...

 

[AD-Stu]

If you're looking for ways of bringing someone down using non-lethal force, then the British approach of not giving police guns in the first place would seem to be pretty effective - more so than shooting to disable.

Once you've given someone a gun though, as has been said above, the training is to aim for the largest, easiest to hit target. Hitting someone in the shoulder or the leg, especially when they're moving, is difficult and unreliable. Hitting them centre mass is more reliable.

I'm not going to get into whether that's morally right or wrong or whatever, but that's the basic reason.

 

[nepheleim]

Afternoon Escapist from the UK,

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.

Right there is your problem. Police aren't trained to shoot to kill. Nowhere in a deadly force policy will you find the phrase "shoot to kill". Police are trained to shoot to "end the threat". You may have noticed that
A.) People survive getting shot all the time. Indeed a gunshot wound is considered highly survivable provided you survive the first five seconds and can get medical attention.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/nyregion/03shot.html?_r=0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Benavidez
B.) Aiming in a crisis situation with a handgun is a fairy dream. There's a reason why the trick shooting clerics from Equilibrium have no real world analogue. Fine motor skills vanish in an adrenaline fueled situation. If you think an officer can assess, react, aim and successfully hit a shoulder under the threat of violence then you must be from the future and saw Judge Dredd at work.
C.) Real people don't have squibs. From a distance it's pretty hard to tell that someone has been shot until they fall over. You can probably find youtube videos of gunshot suspects to illustrate this. So, if you're at the point where you're shooting someone (which means that you think your life is in danger) then you're probably not going to squeeze off one shot, then wait a minute to assess if it hit anything. You shoot until the threat is ended.

Now, every now and then you get a police marksman from a SWAT or other tactical team shooting a revolver out of some guy's hand. What you didn't notice in the 8 second video clip is they probably had a half hour to set up, for the marksman to measure everything from wind speeds to local humidity and use those measurement to mathematically calculate exactly how to shoot (something they never tell you about marksmanship - once you're past a couple hundred yards, it's all weaponized math)what he's aiming at, and then several minutes to fire that one perfect bullet. Add that to the fact that it can take hours for a SWAT team to mobilize (in the US) and the police had a lot of time on their side.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Once you've been shot you are in panic mode. Shooting to diable runs the risk of the target using their weapon if they can. You never know if the shot's going to do the job, and when you're aiming to disable, it's more of a factor.

 

[Aximili]

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.

 

[Phantom Kat]

If the situation becomes dire enough that the police cannot protect themselves or others without discharging their firearm, then they should shoot to kill.

 

[michael87cn]

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!

However, if your life is in danger you must do what you must. If your life isn't in danger but you need to shoot; that's what im saying.

 

[senordesol]

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!

You'll bleed out pretty quick after multiple shots (which is what they're supposed to do) to the heart...like seconds. Plus the sheer physical force of multiple impacts (particularly from hollow points) will reliably knock someone flat no problem. Not instant, sure, but generally good enough.

 

[Parasondox]

I enjoy weapon/martial arts threads. Somebody always has to make a fool out of himself explaining how he's "trained" in this or that, and then a few posts later he gets utterly destroyed by people who actually know what they're talking about.

I don't think it has happened yet in this thread and I for one haven't stated I am trained in firearms. If it weren't intended for me I apologise. That's why I asked others so I can find out what are their thoughts about it?

 

[XX Y XY]

You don't shoot to disable because of common sense. You aim for center mass because it has the largest margin of error and the smallest chance of missing and hitting a bystander. Very simple and sound logic.

 

[Silverbeard]

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.

The first lesson every soldier learns is that there is no such thing as shooting to disable. Any bullet injury is guaranteed to be lethal, period. There's never an instance of a gunshot victim just 'getting better'. Bullet wounds do not self-heal like shaving cuts. They require specialist medical intervention to survive and that is a lesson that would stand to be well-learned by anyone interested in handling firearms: anytime one aims a gun at a target and reaches for the trigger, someone is going to be seriously hurt and most likely die.

That's an important lesson to learn no matter what one decides in this discussion. My own personal points have been expressed by others in the thread, so let me bow out here and bid you farewell.

 

[Candidus]

I'm not sure my thoughts have been covered yet. I'm tired and only skimmed through.

But another concern with shooting for the limbs or away from the center-torso is the danger of missing. Ricochets off the floor if you're shooting for their legs, or straight up misses if you're aiming for the shoulder instead of the heart. Ricochets endanger everyone. It's entirely possible for your own bullet to come back at you. Misses also endanger everyone, except in the case of a totally isolated target in the middle of nowhere.