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

Post by Avshalom » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 8:07 PM UTC

molecule wrote: post #23

Avshalom wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>> do police in the US shoot suspects when there is no threat other than the risk they will get away? > 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. Which is…

Post by skarap » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 8:08 PM UTC

Avshalom wrote: post #16

andybak wrote: post #8

Brit 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…

Post by remarkEon » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 8:08 PM UTC

x0054 wrote: post #36

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…

How about loading the first round with blanks. Some times just the sound of the shot is enough to startle and stop a suspect. Shooting in the air would be an option too, but it could be a little problematic, as what goes up, must come down. The blank option would also give an officer a split second to maybe rethink his actions. And if the officer really needs to use lethal force, it's easy to quickly squeeze off 2 ro…

Post by justizin » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 8:11 PM UTC

andybak wrote: post #8

Brit 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?

Post by mirimir » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 8:12 PM UTC

noblethrasher wrote: post #10

mirimir wrote: post #2

Maybe 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.