When the Police shoot someone, is it always "Shoot to Kill"?

Question

A woman was shot dead in Sevenoaks this morning by Police who were called as she was spotted in the street with a gun.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20070611/tuk-uk-britain-shooting-fa6b408.html (hope link works for you??)

Does anyone know, do the Police agree what they are going to do before they take aim? Do they say "Shoot to kill" or do they sometimes agree to injure them badly so they de-arm them?

Just interested.

Klick - you just made me lol!!!

Monkeymoo - well obviously I haven't seen a police marksman in action. It's not often that I happen to be at the scene of a shooting. My only experience is watching tv or the news and neither gives you an accurate insight into what goes on before any shots are fired.

Answer 1

Shells, as an armed police officer I am in a good position to tell you that the answer is no, we do not shoot to kill or shoot to injure.

The policy in the UK is that we 'shoot to stop'. we aim for central body mass, which is obviously the largest target area, with the intention of stopping the subject from being a threat to life. The threat to life by the subject on the public and /or the police is an important part. The implications of shooting someone is that the person may die as a result of that shot, however this is certainly not the aim or intention. Every effort would be made to save life once the threat had diminished. We are trained in first aid and have first aid kits in ARV's (Armed Response Vehicles) for this purpose.

Shooting someone with a conventional firearm is not taken lightly and is a last resort. All other methods must have been tried and failed or in the circumstances would be unlikely to succeed. By all other methods I mean, verbal communication, tactical communications, open handed skills, baton (truncheon), gas, taser, baton gun, and passive attack dog. Obviously dependant on the circumstances some of the options could be ruled out straight away. Each incident is different and the threat assessed accordingly.

Unfortunately I do not know the full circumstances of the incident where the female was shot and am therefore unable to comment on it.

Just further to my comments and in response to some other answers given; In certain extreme cases the police do shoot to kill, i.e terorrism - where it is believed the terrorist is about to detonate a bomb and shooting to kill is the only way of stopping this happening.

Answer 2

Actually, it is never shoot to kill. It is normally shoot to hit the center of mass of the available target. If all you get to shoot at is a leg, you shoot the middle of the leg. If you have a whole person, you shoot at the center of mass of the torso.

There is a thing called a failure drill that is a part of training at many departments. It is a double tap to the chest, a check to see if the adversary's actions have ceased, then a third shot to the head if the adversary still poses a threat. This method came about as a result of criminals adopting the practice of wearing body armor where the normal torso shots were ineffective.

There is never such a thing as shoot to wound, shoot to injure, or shoot to disarm. The whole premise of shooting a firearm is that all other methods to subdue a suspect have either been exhausted or are impractical and that deadly force is required. A firearm is never used in any other situation other than one where deadly force is necessary.

Answer 3

They should aim to disarm- shoot to kill is not always in operation

If you are in your right mind then you would drop the gun because previous hisory show that police go OTT in this kind of incident

If you didnt want to kill you would shoot one bullet and wait and then shoot another and then wait and then shoot again and after the 2nd bullet something may happen to that effect

I dont know about todays story but there have been cases in America where about 40 rounds was shot before the police achieved THEIR goal of containing the suspect.

Answer 4

Police officers are trained to shoot at the largest part of the body, which is the torso, from pelvis to shoulders. If that's considered by some to be shoot to kill so be it. If there are several officers all shooting at one person, then a lot of bullets are going to go into the target's torso. What you see on TV where some cop or sharpshooter shoots the gun out of their hand, just doesn't happen in real life.

Answer 5

Only if there is a possibility that the person carrying the firearm will use it and endanger the public or police - however, how is that conclusion reached in such an incident - it can't be - so it is a case of them or me. Job done!

Any one that carries a gun must be intending to threaten to use or use it to endanger the public - no sympathy from me - shoot to kill -

Answer 6

It appears to be.

Shooting with the intention of wounding only just isn't practical in most circumstances.

'Shooting to stop' is just playing with semantics.

If you'd ever seen police marksmen in action, you wouldn't have needed to ask this question.

Answer 7

No they dont always shoot to kill. That only happens if they are in a position that requires them to shhot to kill. They do have instenses where they can shoot a person in an area where they can be injured or de-aim them, etc.

Answer 8

Shoot to kill is a meaningless statement, if you point a gun at a cop you will be shot by any cop/cops that have guns pointing at you and they always shoot at the torso

Answer 9

police will only EVER pull out with intent to fire their weapons if they feel their life or the lives of a fellow officer was in danger. they shoot only if they feel that its either the criminal's life, or their life. shoot to kill is not something they learn in the academy or something that usually ever happens. if they shoot, they shoot to incapacitate the subject in order for him to be tried in court

Answer 10

Its supposed to be shooting to take them down so they can be tried in court, except in extreme cases where other lives are at risk.