when they could of just shot them in the leg or shoulder to bring them down? I wonder how many people would of lived if they were taught to shoot in these areas instead?
2007-03-04 13:27:43 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
In australia if someone breaks into your house and you shoot them or they hurt themselves in your house you can be sued for the criminal getting hurt nevermind they broke into your house to start with etc.
2007-03-04 13:55:50 · update #1
And i mean to shoot someone in the leg or shoulder if they are not a moving target.
2007-03-04 13:59:31 · update #2
I believe that you will find that shooting is the very, very last option for a police officer. If previous actions have not brought the situation under control and the offender is armed, it should be shoot to kill. A wounded thug is dangerous.....
If a burglar broke into your house and threatened you and your family - if you shot him, would you shoot him in the foot or would you blow his head off? Same thing.
2007-03-04 13:35:57 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
You must watch too many westerns & Hollywood cop movies.
It is extremely difficult--especially with a pistol--to shoot to maim; and then it will only serve to piss the assialant off, and he will fire back, aiming to kill. It is much easier & more effective to aim for the largest body part (the torso) to make sure you hit the target, and not some innocent bystander. This kind of thing--shooting the gun out of the hand of the bad guy--only works in the movies, and is done for dramatic effect, so the cop can be presented as the good guy, and give his little law & order speech to the criminal. In real life, it is kill or be killed.
I mean, if a bear was charging you, would you try & shoot him in the paw, with the hope that he will back off and go away? Or would you try & get off a lung shot, to actually stop him in his tracks?
The police would not normally use deadly force, unless the suspect is armed himself, and then they will try & out gun him. If he has got a club, they will use mace; if he has a knife, they will use pistols; if he has a gun, they will use more guns, and more powerful guns; if he has a rifle, they will call out the SWAT team, and so forth.
The bottom line is, to help encourage the suspect to surrender, he must know he is up against deadly force. If he figures that even if the cops are a good enough shot to hit him, that he will merely wake up in a hospital somewhere...what does he have to lose, by continuing to run, and shoot real bullets at the cops? It is for this same reason the police would never consider using tranquilzer darts--even if they could load them with the correct dosage for any body weight of an assalient--too many experienced criminals would never willingingly surrender, as they know either way, they will live through the experience; by either escaping, or ending up in jail after a brief hospital stay.
2007-03-04 22:31:21 · answer #2 · answered by grapejuice 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Another believer in the just wing them principle!
Let me guess, you have NEVER been anywhere near a firearm, have you? Let me further guess that your only exposure to firearms is movies and TV. I'm right, aren't I???
Here in the real world if a perp is breathing, he is moving, generally at a high rate of speed. Hitting any part of a target that is moving is difficult, the faster that part is moving, the more difficult it is!
Therefore police officers aim for the largest, slowest moving part of the perp ... the chest (center body mass if you prefer). Watch carefully as a person runs ... arms pumping, legs moving very fast, what part of the body would be easiest to hit?
Answer: The trunk. Above the rapidly moving legs, moving slower than the wildly pumping arms ... Center body mass is the place to aim.
Leave that "aim to wound" and "just wing them" crap at the studio where it belongs. Think of it this way ... If an officer DOES just "aim to wound" (ie tries for a leg or arm shot) and misses ... where does the bullet go? It will hit anything in it's path ... houses, cars, fellow officers, YOU ...anything! I'd far rather have the officer shoot for center body mass and hit what they are aiming at.
Don't want the officer to shoot to and kill people? It's EASY! Just tell the perps to STOP when the officer yells "FREEZE POLICE!!!!"
2007-03-06 22:06:06 · answer #3 · answered by ornery and mean 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not as simple as that. To hit a moving leg or shoulder would be nearly impossible, especially in the split second decision to shoot someone in defense of your life. Police officers are taught to shoot at "center mass", which is the center of what you can see. If they're sticking out around a corner, you may have to shoot a leg or shoulder. Shooting a leg or shoulder doesn't necessarily stop the threat, however. Also, those areas have arteries in them, so people could die from getting shot there too.
2007-03-04 21:33:32 · answer #4 · answered by Gemma 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Police Officers are justified in the use of deadly physical force against a person only to prevent the imminent use of deadly physical force by that person against the Officer or another person.
Being that you obviously have no idea of what goes on in a combat situation, I'll explain it to you. Police Officers don't have the time or opportunity to carefully pick and choose where they are going to make the bullet go. We are trained to instinctly shoot for "center mass". I's not necessarily a shoot-to-kill thing is much as a put-an-end-to-the-threat thing.
Most times, you do not have the time or the opportunity to carefully aim for a leg or shoulder but must shoot instinctively. In my first shooting a skell had the drop on me with a .45 automatic in a dark room. When my partner arrived and distracted him, I was able to draw and shot from somewhere between my hip and shoulder so it was instinctive. My round cut his heart in half.
If some skell is committing an act that justifies the use of deadly physical force to stop him, that skell has already lost the opportunity for consideration.
2007-03-04 21:40:56 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Because their entire policy on use of deadly force is screwed up?
Because there are too many trigger happy officers on power trips that shouldn't be wearing a badge?
Because of trying to wage a war that defies common sense?
See: http://leap.cc/
Generally if an officer needs to fire his sidearm it is for the protection of his own and fellow officers lives and/or the lives of innocent bystanders. And as such the rule is shoot to kill. However, all too often lately they fired upon suspects without the required element of imminent danger to life. How many have been shot who were unarmed or were armed with a knife and surrounded by officers?
Granted they are human and make mistakes, though the mistake of shooting an elderly woman while trying to enforce a no-knock warrant based on a false drug tip equates to just plain bad police work.
And there is one reason, out of a few, that most people have little to no respect for law enforcement in general, because a few bad apples spoil the entire pie. Another being the political system above them is making them enforce bad laws that are essentially unenforceable and/or serve no real purpose other than in most cases to provide a revenue stream.
2007-03-04 21:53:58 · answer #6 · answered by tj 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It isn't that simple. Cops try very hard to end all situations without anyone getting hurt or killed. Sometimes, that is impossible. If a suspect draws on the officer, he or she doesn't always have time to go for a leg or shoulder. The use of deadly force is a last resort in the vast majority of cases. They would rather take the suspect away in the back of a squad car than in a body bag.
2007-03-04 21:45:39 · answer #7 · answered by lj1 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If deadly force is required to protect a human life, Police are directed to shoot at the center of mass of the body. They don't shoot to kill, they don't shoot to wound. The shoot to stop. A firearm is capable of inflicting mortal wounds so it is considered deadly force. If the actor can be stopped another way the Police will try that first if practical.
2007-03-04 22:07:59 · answer #8 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That whole "shoot to wound" thing is something made up in Hollywood. If a police officer draws his sidearm, it's to put an immediate end to a threat to his life. Period. He aims for the chest because it's the largest target on the bad guy.
2007-03-04 21:32:15 · answer #9 · answered by trentrockport 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
you are joking right ?
you shoot to stop, and when they are shot in the chest they are stoped, in the leg they can still shoot back.
also in a shoot out even the officers only hit about 25 percent of thier shoots, shooting at the largest area of the body.
If they actually shoot at legs they would never hit anything.
Stop thinking TV police and think real life, if and when they shoot, they want them dead.
2007-03-04 22:32:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋