Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically
1–10 of 107 posts
Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically
#2Maybe what's needed are better non-lethal weapons for police.
Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically
#3Shooting to wound is absurd. However, keep in mind that Bill Lewinski is a pseudoscientist who makes his living justifying killings by police.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/training-officers-to...
Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically
#4Sounds like a strawman. Who advocates shooting people just to wound them? Why not shoot to disable a threat?
Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically
#5I wonder how the London police manage to keep order without carrying guns ?
Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically
#6This all makes a very compelling case for "using firearms in an optimal way is outside the limits of human ability, so police should not use firearms." That's assuming your terminal value is not "police life matters more than any other consideration."
Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically
#7Sounds like a strawman. Who advocates shooting people just to wound them? Why not shoot to disable a threat?
People who don't like the idea of police shooting someone not just a few times but a few dozen or hundreds of times.
When the police seem to abuse their power by shooting many, many more times than is necessary it's natural for people to ask what can be done to restore a bit of balance between the police and the public.
http://ktla.com/2015/05/23/cleveland-officer-michael-brelo-f...
Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically
#8Brit here. Is the 'stop or I'll shoot' thing a myth or does it actually happen in the US?
i.e. do police in the US shoot suspects when there is no threat other than the risk they will get away?
Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically
#9The New York Post has just reported that Brooklyn Assembly Members Annette Robinson [D.-Bedford Stuyvesant] and Darryl Towns [D.-East New York] have introduced a "minimum force" bill that would require officers to "shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg" and to use firearms "with the intent to stop, rather than kill."
This is what happens when people think TV and movies are an accurate representation of reality. Beyond the problem of police not getting enough firearms training in the first place, it just isn't possible to shoot anything other than center mass with any hope in hell of hitting with a handgun for the average officer.
This is almost as stupid as thinking a taser is non-lethal. Getting hit by a taser can kill people. New research into low lethality weapons for police would be great, but I'm not holding out much hope given the funding.
Perhaps we can stop with the fantasy and start concentrating on things like over use of SWAT, actual police oversight, and liability of the chain of command. On the other side, stop demonizing police before the facts are in.
Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically
#10Maybe what's needed are better non-lethal weapons for police.
Possibly.
But, another name for “non-lethal weapon” is “cheap and effective compliance tool”.
With those, we risk making many forms of protest and civil disobedience difficult or impossible.