why can't police shoot unarmed people in the leg or something?

Question

the police here have shot and killed another unarmed mentally ill person to my knowledge thats four so far in as many years

yes we do have tazers,... and i am an ex marine who is an expert shooter i know shooting in the leg will stop the treat if they are not carring a gun so i don't by that one bit

Answer 1

Shooting someone in the leg is not harmless. Not only could this person have trouble walking for the rest of their life. Effectively, rendering them disabled forever. But a shot to the leg can kill someone. A main artery, called the femoral artery, if severed can bleed out. A person will bleed out with in minutes, depending how damaged the artery is. The person could loose 50% of their blood volume before the ambulance even gets to the scene.

I'm all for getting the bag guy but shooting at unarmed people is not something I would my local police doing.

Answer 2

There is an enormous skill involved in shooting a dangerous person in arms or legs. This skill is beyond the ability of 99.999 % of mortal human beings.

It does not matter if the suspect is a child, mentally ill, whatever ... when a person is a threat to others, including to the police, and fail to stop when ordered to stop, the police have very little choice but to use force that can become deadly.

One mentally ill person killed a year in such confrontations is a pretty good record, compared to the numbers of innocent people killed in auto accidents, rapes etc. and numbers of innocent children victimized by pedophiles, innocent people raped, innocent people robbed.

Virginia Tech would be a much better place had a certain mentally ill person been killed by the police a lot sooner, instead of letting him go on a killing spree.

Answer 3

After the first few shots it' likely the target was dead. Shooting him more isn't exactly hurting him, it's just wasting tax payer money. The only reasoning for this would be if the officers thought the guy was so high or drunk that he would be unphased by the first volley. I wasn't there so I am only speculating. But if someone was coming at me and obviously not in control of his or her mental facilities, I'm emptying the entire clip into him/her. No handgun holds 30 rounds in a single standard clip and I'm pretty sure after the first 6 or 7 shots the target was probably no longer a threat. So yeah it was excessive, but it's not like the target felt it at that point.

Answer 4

Police are trained to stop the threat - not wound the bad guy, klll him, or whatever..... It's all about stopping the threat. You can have whatever toys you are authorized to carry on your belt, but your job is to (again) stop the threat.

The quickest and most sure way to stop the threat is to shoot the BG in center mass; ie; his torso. You keep shooting until the threat is stopped and the BG is down. Most officer-involved shootings are at distances of less than 5 yards - and can occur within seconds. This is much different from the military where you engage the bad guy at much longer distances (as a rule) and generally have longer times to react to threats. Squeezing off a shot from 50 yards using a rifle within 10 seconds (and hitting a hand or leg) is a hell of a lot different than stopping a threat 7 yards away when the BG is running at you with a knife.

That's why LE firearms qualifications are based on speed and accuracy at ranges of 3-25 yards, while the military trains and qualifies at much longer distances.

Also, the officer doesn't have time to make an analysis of the mental capabilities of the BG in a few seconds. Again, his training will help ensure that the threat is stopped and that he'll go home at the end of his shift.

It's real easy to Monday-morning-quarterback any situation when you don't have the knowledge and/or experience to deal with the specific issues at hand.

Calif Deputy

Answer 5

So easy to answer.

Shooting in a "Real Life" situation is unlike anything you will ever try to simulate at a range. The fear you feel will pump so much adrenaline through your body that there is no way in hell you will be pulling those great shot you make at the range. Muscle memory kicks in and you just point the gun center mass and pull the trigger. There is no taking aim.

Then I hear, "But how are these criminals so accurate when they shoot sometimes." Those criminals are the ones that decided that 'Today I get into a shooting with a cop.' They are mentally prepared and psyched up to shoot it out.
Cops cannot roll around all day with the mindset of, 'I will shoot the next man I pull over.' Its not realistic, its not practical. The stress would burn a cop out after 5 years if not a shorter time.

As others have said, we shoot to stop the threat, not to kill, or wound or otherwise. If we draw down fire 5 shots and don't hit a thing, but the suspect drops his knife or gun and gives up...we just shot to stop, and it worked.

Answer 6

What department are you talking about? Can you provide a link to these four news stories?

Police Officers are trained to shoot center mass (i.e. the chest). It is a large target area and much easier to hit then the leg. Especially during a combat situation. Requiring Police to shoot to wound is an unreasonable requirement. Lethal force is defined as a level of force that would likely result in death or serious bodily injury. If you start shooting at someone you are using lethal force no matter if you're aiming at the leg, chest, or head. If you are legally justified to use lethal force then why limit yourself?

As far as shooting an unarmed subject (mentally ill or not) I'll reserve my comments for that once I see a link to the story. It is possible to use lethal force against an unarmed suspect under the right conditions.

Answer 7

We are not supposed to use any weapons on the mentally ill if we can avoid it, because although they my pose a threat to our safety, most of the time they do not know what they are doing.
But as a rule, if an officer fires his weapon, he aims to disable, center mass. In a situation where adrenaline is flowing and it's life or death, we do not have the option to aim so expertly. Not to mention a mentally ill person in an enraged state would probably not feel a shot that was not critical.

I would like to know what expertise you have in dealing with the mentally ill. I worked in a nursing home which had a wing for the mentally ill. When they went out of control, it took 4-7 people to take them down and stop hurting themselves or others. When they are enraged they can flip full size dressers, throw TV's upwards of 40 feet and break body parts and keep going. shooting them in the leg when they are in that state will do nothing.

Answer 8

shooting such as the ones you mentioned are very far fetched.knowone, including officers, have the ability to make shots liuke in the leg.shooting a revolver or semi auto for accuracy nis extremely hard.they train to shoot at the waist up. with tension and adrenilin it is hard to just shoot accurately at a target.the way we would train was to run around in the heat and then go to the lline and shoot.your shots are all over the target.in other words you do not have time to sit down and relax. you can not tell the individual to stop moving.everything happens very quickly. people base their theory on your suggestion by what they have seen on tv..
the laws allow the police to use deadly force when they feel their life is in jeopardy or someone else;s life is in jeopardy.police do not shoot anyone for just being mentally ill

Answer 9

Officers are trained to shoot at "center mass" not extremities. We want the threat stopped, and hitting them in the leg doesn't stop the threat.

What are the facts related to your question? What was the person doing that created a threat to the police and caused them to use deadly force? I can't imaging any officer driving down the street thinking "oh, there another mentally ill person, lets just shootem", can you?

Answer 10

If you aim for a leg, you're more likely to hit the person behind that leg than the leg you're aiming for. Police officers can't tell a threatening person to wait while they get out a bench of some kind and some bean bags to steady their weapon on while they fire. They miss just like the rest of us. If you're an ex-Marine, you know this.

You also know to put yourself in that police officer's position at a given moment and know that in the split second somebody had to make the decision to fire or not fire, it's majorly hard to be perfect 100% of the time.

If the person who got shot was doing something threatening enough to warrant that split-second decision, who are any of us who didn't have to make that decision to judge?