Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by branchan » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 8:49 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…

That's a terrible idea. Now on top of an already stressful situation, the cop has to remember whether the round that is about to go off is a blank or not. Also if the suspect is quickly approaching the cop, the blank round would only serve to slow down the officer's reaction time.

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

#82

Post by msandford » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 8:55 PM UTC

jsprogrammer wrote: post #70

msandford wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Sorry, I'm discussing the nomenclature: "shoot to wound". It sounds like something someone would do as torture. Why shoot to wound someone? To what end? Just to cause them pain? However, there would seem to be something worth considering in a "shoot to disable" policy, as opposed to a "shoot to kill" policy.

Yeah that makes a lot more sense! Thanks for clarifying.

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

#83

Post by andreasvc » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 8:56 PM UTC

gharial wrote: post #17

The 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' i…

I honestly don't think anyone would disagree with those rules of engagement. The cops simply make errors of judgment. Bringing them to justice would be ideal, but it seems to be a case of some are more equal than others (esp. if you're in a powerful union).

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

#84

Post by branchan » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 8:57 PM UTC

mxfh wrote: post #52

As long as you allow the general public to carry firearms the police will have a hard time establish a power superiority in any stand of without the excessive use of firepower. As this article talks about firing multiple rounds per encounter is the norm it nigh be worth pointing out that the whole German police fired less than 100 shots at person per year for the last decade. https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffengeb…

It is unfair to quote that statistic. Germany has one of the strictest gun control laws in the world and one needs to give a reason for owning a gun and self-defense is not an accepted reason: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_legislation_in_Germany

Given that it is harder for an individual to obtain a gun, it naturally makes it less often that the German police will need to discharge their weapon.

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

#85

Post by andreasvc » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 8:57 PM UTC

jsprogrammer wrote: post #4

Sounds like a strawman. Who advocates shooting people just to wound them? Why not shoot to disable a threat?

Well this is obviously a biased piece; that may explain the unflattering phrasing.

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

#86

Post by branchan » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 8:58 PM UTC

Avshalom wrote: post #41

molecule wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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…

If you're running from a cop, you must be guilty. Right? Which means you're a criminal; which means you're probably a serious threat to others. It's a bit of a toothless ruling because it's about the cop's state of mind at-the-time which is damn hard to disprove, harder when it's a cop's word.

Well I mean, it's kinda like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you are running from a cop, then you are evading the police, which is a crime.

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

#87

Post by branchan » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 8:59 PM UTC

function_seven wrote: post #20

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?

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...

'probably'

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

#88

Post by krapp » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 9:04 PM UTC

jsprogrammer wrote: post #70

msandford wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Sorry, I'm discussing the nomenclature: "shoot to wound". It sounds like something someone would do as torture. Why shoot to wound someone? To what end? Just to cause them pain? However, there would seem to be something worth considering in a "shoot to disable" policy, as opposed to a "shoot to kill" policy.

No, call it what it is. I think "shoot to wound" is the correct way to describe it.

"shoot to disable" sounds too abstract, as if guns were something other than machines designed to puncture human flesh with bits of metal, with the express purpose of causing pain, injury and possibly death. Wounding and killing are pretty much the only settings that guns have.

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

#89

Post by protomyth » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 9:05 PM UTC

branchan wrote: post #78

protomyth wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"One thing I've noticed in watching videos of police recently is that they seem really quick to draw their weapons on a target." That is what scares me along with the use of SWAT. I would love to have stats on drawn weapons per encounter through the year (yeah, pipe dream). I'm not sure its more frequent or we just have a ton more video. My brother had a gun drawn on him by a young highway patrol officer while he was…

I agree that we should reconsider what situations call for the use of a SWAT team. But when that situation arises, it's perfectly reasonable for SWAT teams to always have their weapons drawn no?

Yep. It goes with the definition of what SWAT is supposed to do. The problem is using them to serve warrants and other non-emergency situations. SWAT was formed to deal with a bad situation normal police officers couldn't. Its evolved into a hammer that is overused.

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

#90

Post by andreasvc » Thu, Aug 06, 2015, 9:07 PM UTC

Nadya wrote: post #26

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?

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 threatening.