Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically

pfoa.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–107 of 107 posts

Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically

#101

Post by Nadya »

andreasvc wrote: post #90
Nadya wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the suspect is making advances towards the officer - even without a visible weapon - yes. The Tueller Drill [0] offers an explanation that few people seem to be aware of. A person 20ft/6m away is still dangerous . The issue is that a large amount of the public consider this a "safe, non-threatening" distance. Many people even think 6ft/2m is a safe distance because it is "outside of arm's reach". At distances of ~…

Tueller Drill departs from the premise that you can only use your hand gun. This attitude is part of the problem. There is more to self-defense than wielding a hand gun. In certain situations, e.g., in a crowd of people, using a hand gun is definitely not a good idea. The notion of what distances is dangerous seems like a red herring; to me it only seems to prove that distance is not a very good indicator of what is…

The number isn't plucked out of thin air and has some variance due to factors such as reaction speed and speed of the runner, but it's an average. 21 feet is a good "rule of thumb" but isn't an exact measurement of "safe distance". You could have a bit more distance - you could have less. It's a rule of thumb.

>Tueller Drill departs from the premise that you can only use your hand gun. This attitude is part of the problem.

TASER guns have a single shot. I wouldn't risk my life on me hitting my target in a single shot. Stunguns require proximity.

For pepperspray, would you bet your life on an 85% chance of something working? OC spray is not 100% effective and some people are straight up immune to the spray. AFAIK, humans are not immune to bullets.

I'd advocate for the use of the above non-lethals in reliable scenarios where the officer is concerned about possible escalation but does not yet feel to be in mortal danger. Which isn't many scenarios and draws into question if force was needed at all. Many non-lethal actions seem to be punished more than lethal actions, because "if force was necessary it should have only required lethal force if their life was in danger".

Which brings me back to the "legitimate danger" vs "public concept of danger" issue...

If you want more non-lethal options to be used, the justification of using them needs to be realistic - which involves educating the public on what is and isn't a dangerous/escalating scenario. I don't see that happening anytime soon, which is unfortunate.

Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically

#102

Post by remarkEon »

Daviey wrote: post #63
remarkEon wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Been shooting in the military since 2006, and I just left the active duty Army after 5+ years. Was an Infantry Platoon leader...been to a bunch of shooting courses...This idea that you can "shoot to wound" is just not based in reality. Like, at all. Shoot someone in the leg, huh. Better not hit that femoral! They'll bleed out in ~2, maybe 3 minutes, depending. Better practice your tourniquet. Watch your backg…

Then you'll also know that part of the design of the NATO 5.56mm was to wound and not specifically kill.

Ehh IIRC, we made a trade off. Stopping power for accuracy. It was not designed to "wound". Actually, I'm not really sure how you'd go about "designing a round to wound".

Perhaps that what rubber pellets are.

Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically

#103

Post by ende »

protomyth wrote: post #9

The 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. Beyon…

Agree. a better solution would be to just eliminate the firearm as standard issue. Most cops dont need to be armed to do their jobs.

Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically

#104

Post by pytrin »

branchan wrote: post #92
pytrin wrote: post #14

The 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,…

Why would a police officer ever risk his own life by engaging in hand-to-hand combat? If a situation arises that calls for hand-to-hand combat, then the police officer should probably either use a taser or gun right?

I've been training in a grappling sport (BJJ) for over 9 years. The advantage a trained person has over an untrained one is massive. Even someone who has been training a few months could easily handle an untrained person without anyone getting hurt.

You can see hundreds of videos out there of police shooting people without apparent just cause - just because they "felt threatened". If they had the confidence they could deal with a physical confrontation if needed, I'm certain the amount of unnecessary shootings would decrease significantly.

Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically

#105

Post by branchan »

pytrin wrote: post #104
branchan wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would a police officer ever risk his own life by engaging in hand-to-hand combat? If a situation arises that calls for hand-to-hand combat, then the police officer should probably either use a taser or gun right?

I've been training in a grappling sport (BJJ) for over 9 years. The advantage a trained person has over an untrained one is massive. Even someone who has been training a few months could easily handle an untrained person without anyone getting hurt. You can see hundreds of videos out there of police shooting people without apparent just cause - just because they "felt threatened". If they had the confidence they coul…

Would you risk your life by confronting an aggressive person in hand-to-hand combat if you had no knowledge whether he had a knife or gun on him?

Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically

#106

Post by lectrick »

branchan wrote: post #94
lectrick wrote: post #33

Someone needs to invent a "shoot to incapacitate" weapon (that is not a Taser). That said... we have the technology, today, to make a gun that automatically targets, in a split second and with high accuracy, the arms and legs (and any other part) of a person. So why don't we just do that?

1. Did you just not describe a taser? 2. Where is this weapon?

1) I specifically said not a Taser. A Taser has a number of negatives- short range, need for both contacts to penetrate adequately, small chance of death of subject

2) I do not know of one that exists, but I am sure that one is possible with today's technology. Perhaps I should gather a team and build it

Re: Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically

#107

Post by branchan »

lectrick wrote: post #106
branchan wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. Did you just not describe a taser? 2. Where is this weapon?

1) I specifically said not a Taser. A Taser has a number of negatives- short range, need for both contacts to penetrate adequately, small chance of death of subject 2) I do not know of one that exists, but I am sure that one is possible with today's technology. Perhaps I should gather a team and build it

My point exactly is there is no other practical or efficient weapon available or else one would be made already.
Post reply on HN