I think this article misses the point of recent controversies, which have dealt with lethal force on unarmed suspects. If a suspect is armed, you probably don't want to shoot their legs and hope they drop their weapon. But if a seemingly unarmed suspect continues to run, or approach, it seems more than reasonable to not shoot to kill. Unless you are Judge Dredd.
Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically
11–20 of 107 posts
Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically
#12Brit 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?
What exactly do you means by "there is no threat"?
Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically
#13I think this article misses the point of recent controversies, which have dealt with lethal force on unarmed suspects. If a suspect is armed, you probably don't want to shoot their legs and hope they drop their weapon. But if a seemingly unarmed suspect continues to run, or approach, it seems more than reasonable to not shoot to kill. Unless you are Judge Dredd.
The part of the article that seems to apply most to that to me is: " "Less-lethal options should be attempted only with tools designed for that purpose," Avery says. "If you deliberately use deadly force to bring people into custody without incapacitating them, you're using the wrong tool for that job."
Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically
#14The real problem is that most officers have such minimal training and conditioning in hand-to-hand combat combat (specifically, grappling), and as a result they panic and shoot-to-kill much more often than they should, or use excessive force to control a suspect also resulting in unnecessary deaths.
Instead of passing stupid legislation (anyone who's used firearms extensively knows aiming for limbs is not realistic, you have to aim for center-mass), they should work on improving ongoing officer training and conditioning so that officers would feel much more comfortable controlling a suspect without killing them.
Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically
#15I wonder how the London police manage to keep order without carrying guns ?
Because western European cities are vastly less violent: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/lets-hold-off-cel....
Baltimore, where I live, has 25x the per-capita murder rate of London. Chicago has 13x the murder rate. New York, the safest large city in the country, has 3x the murder rate.
Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically
#16Brit 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?
From Wikipedia:
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
Which to say, yes. Although I don't think there's actually a requirement to verbally warn them.
Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically
#17The only instance in which an officer should ever be firing a weapon in the field is to stop a target that is posing an immediate and lethal threat. In that situation, shooting to kill would be perfectly justified.
Why can we not address and punish cops who think firing rounds into someone's back as they flee is acceptable instead of trying to mandate that they shoot an extremity (which they will undoubtably 'miss' in the 'heat of the moment' in favor of center mass)?
Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically
#18Brit 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?
What exactly do you means by "there is no threat"?
I think he means that a suspect does not have a weapon in hand but the officer still has a gun pointed at the suspect.
Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically
#19Brit 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?
From Wikipedia: Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or…
[deleted]
Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically
#20Brit 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?
No. Well, they're not supposed to anyway. There's a cop in South Carolina being charged with murder[0] because he shot a fleeing suspect in the back. The only reason that officer is being charged is because someone caught it on video. Had it not been for that, he probably would not have been charged.
So yeah, I suppose it happens. But it's not legal.
[0] http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/06/08...