
Why shooting to wound doesn't make sense scientifically, legally or tactically - esparantogod
http://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound
======
protomyth
_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. Beyond the problem of police not getting enough
firearms training in the first place, it just isn't possible to shoot anything
other than center mass with any hope in hell of hitting with a handgun for the
average officer.

This is almost as stupid as thinking a taser is non-lethal. Getting hit by a
taser can kill people. New research into low lethality weapons for police
would be great, but I'm not holding out much hope given the funding.

Perhaps we can stop with the fantasy and start concentrating on things like
over use of SWAT, actual police oversight, and liability of the chain of
command. On the other side, stop demonizing police before the facts are in.

~~~
x0054
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 rounds, with the second one being the real deal.

~~~
remarkEon
No. From experience, the only other rounds that would go into my magazine were
tracer rounds. Additionally, the mechanics of how these weapons work make that
not possible.

Edit: Beyond the above, from a tactical perspective...just think through the
game theory on that and you'll see why that would be unwise.

~~~
x0054
Hmm, I am no expert in guns. Is it not possible to use blanks in a standard
automatic pistol? I have seen people use blanks in revolvers. Is it because a
blank cartridge would be missing the bullet part, so it would be shorter? Just
curious.

I suppose that logically speaking, if I know that most cops have a blank
loaded as their first shot, logically, I shouldn't be startled by the first
shot. But that said, an encounter like that is so traumatic, to both the
officer and the suspect, that I hardly think any one in that situation is
thinking very logically at the time of the encounter.

~~~
jccooper
Automatics commonly work on recoil, sometimes on gas pressure. Without a
bullet, recoil is less (see Newton's laws) and so is gas pressure (there's no
temporary plug in the barrel). Most semi-auto pistols will not operate with
blanks unless modified in a way that would make them incompatible with regular
ammo.

~~~
x0054
Ah, interesting. Never mind then, stupid idea on my part :)

------
bhickey
Shooting to wound is absurd. However, keep in mind that Bill Lewinski is a
pseudoscientist who makes his living justifying killings by police.

[http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/training-officers-
to...](http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/training-officers-to-shoot-
first-and-he-will-answer-questions-later.html?referrer=)

~~~
TillE
No, it really isn't absurd. The German police do it very frequently.

[http://www.morgenpost.de/berlin/polizeibericht/article205518...](http://www.morgenpost.de/berlin/polizeibericht/article205518947/Kreuzberg-
Polizist-stoppt-Angreifer-mit-Schuss-ins-Bein.html)

~~~
tormeh
... for some values of "very". German police don't shoot much at all.

That said I'm a former Norwegian King's Guard, and we were told to aim for the
legs first if shooting was absolutely necessary. Admittedly, since we were
shooting with 7.62mm NATO rounds at the time, a shot in the leg would
basically be a very crude amputation. They use 5.56mm NATO now, but I bet
getting hit in the leg is still not much fun. We were stationed at posts
including the palace and the fortress, which are both in the centre of Oslo,
so if you're really looking for trouble the threat is not academic. I've never
heard of a guard firing at anyone since ww2 though (except themselves in
suicide).

------
gharial
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' in the 'heat of the moment'
in favor of center mass)?

~~~
andreasvc
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).

------
pmichaud
This all makes a very compelling case for "using firearms in an optimal way is
outside the limits of human ability, so police should not use firearms."
That's assuming your terminal value is not "police life matters more than any
other consideration."

~~~
oberstein
Indeed, perhaps we should aim to have weaponized drones following cops around
that can precisely target weak points when the cop orders.

This article also makes a compelling case that when the necromorphs come, cops
will be useless to protect humanity.

------
pytrin
The real problem is that most officers have such minimal training and
conditioning in hand-to-hand combat combat (specifically, grappling), and as a
result they panic and shoot-to-kill much more often than they should, or use
excessive force to control a suspect also resulting in unnecessary deaths.

Instead of passing stupid legislation (anyone who's used firearms extensively
knows aiming for limbs is not realistic, you have to aim for center-mass),
they should work on improving ongoing officer training and conditioning so
that officers would feel much more comfortable controlling a suspect without
killing them.

~~~
branchan
Why would a police officer ever risk his own life by engaging in hand-to-hand
combat? If a situation arises that calls for hand-to-hand combat, then the
police officer should probably either use a taser or gun right?

~~~
pytrin
I've been training in a grappling sport (BJJ) for over 9 years. The advantage
a trained person has over an untrained one is massive. Even someone who has
been training a few months could easily handle an untrained person without
anyone getting hurt.

You can see hundreds of videos out there of police shooting people without
apparent just cause - just because they "felt threatened". If they had the
confidence they could deal with a physical confrontation if needed, I'm
certain the amount of unnecessary shootings would decrease significantly.

~~~
branchan
Would you risk your life by confronting an aggressive person in hand-to-hand
combat if you had no knowledge whether he had a knife or gun on him?

------
andybak
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?

~~~
Avshalom
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 others."

Which to say, yes. Although I don't think there's actually a requirement to
verbally warn them.

~~~
molecule
_> > 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 to say: not legally.

~~~
Avshalom
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.

~~~
jedmeyers
"If you're running from a cop, you must be guilty. Right?" \- Guilty or not is
for judge and jury to decide. So far the only charge will be "fleeing/evading
the police".

"Which means you're a criminal" \- you are not a criminal unless convicted.

"which means you're probably a serious threat to others." \- 'probably' is the
key word. Cops cannot shoot people because they are probably dangerous.
"Probable cause to believe" is not the same as "probably".

------
baseballmerpeak
1\. Dead men tell no tales. 2\. Aiming at smaller and easier to miss areas is
a great way to introduce bullets to whatever is behind the intended target.
3\. Getting shot is not a guarantee of a cessation of hostilities.

------
mirimir
Maybe what's needed are better non-lethal weapons for police.

~~~
mkirlin
Or better training and actual accountability. It's not like cops use tasers
judiciously and intelligently.

~~~
mirimir
Tasers are not all that non-lethal :(

Police ought to be part of the community, rather than some external
paramilitary force. Their behavior would then be modulated through social
mechanisms.

~~~
mkirlin
Also an excellent point. The selling of non-lethal weapons has been a several-
decades long exercise in manufacturers lying about the safety of those non-
lethal weapons. Rubber bullets, tasers, it's all bullshit.

------
jeffreportmill
I think this article misses the point of recent controversies, which have
dealt with lethal force on unarmed suspects. If a suspect is armed, you
probably don't want to shoot their legs and hope they drop their weapon. But
if a seemingly unarmed suspect continues to run, or approach, it seems more
than reasonable to not shoot to kill. Unless you are Judge Dredd.

~~~
birdman3131
The part of the article that seems to apply most to that to me is: " "Less-
lethal options should be attempted only with tools designed for that purpose,"
Avery says. "If you deliberately use deadly force to bring people into custody
without incapacitating them, you're using the wrong tool for that job."

------
venomsnake
Of course if it comes to shooting you have to shoot to kill. I think the
problem is with too trigger happy cops that are too quick to pull their guns
out and are not utilizing their tools to deescalate the situation. And yes
sometimes deescalating means letting someone just get away temporarily if he
only stole a pack of smokes.

------
mxfh
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/Waffengebrauch_der_Polizei_i...](https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffengebrauch_der_Polizei_in_Deutschland)

~~~
branchan
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](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.

------
PythonicAlpha
Maybe, I am from a different planet, but sometimes I heard, that police should
protect people, but currently some policemen are more caring about protecting
themselves -- and they are trained exactly that way.

This at least, as an European, goes threw my mind, when I read such
descriptions and some news from unarmed people shot into the back.

~~~
branchan
Why does it not make sense that the police should be trained on how to protect
themselves? Also EU gun control laws are stricter than in the US so that is
why maybe your police force will be nice and not expect everyone to own a gun.

~~~
PythonicAlpha
They should protect themselves, but not protect themselves and forget to
protect others. So, they become a part of the problem.

Even, when you expect everybody to have guns, it does not justify shooting
others into the back.

~~~
branchan
I never mentioned anything about shooting others in the back.

~~~
PythonicAlpha
But I did and that is what is happening. And just keeping quiet about it, does
not make it better.

------
lectrick
Someone needs to invent a "shoot to incapacitate" weapon (that is not a
Taser).

That said... we have the technology, _today,_ to make a gun that automatically
targets, in a split second and with high accuracy, the arms and legs (and any
other part) of a person. So why don't we just do that?

~~~
branchan
1\. Did you just not describe a taser?

2\. Where is this weapon?

~~~
lectrick
1) I specifically said _not_ a Taser. A Taser has a number of negatives- short
range, need for both contacts to penetrate adequately, small chance of death
of subject

2) I do not know of one that exists, but I am sure that one is possible with
today's technology. Perhaps I should gather a team and build it

~~~
branchan
My point exactly is there is no other practical or efficient weapon available
or else one would be made already.

------
manishsharan
I wonder how the London police manage to keep order without carrying guns ?

~~~
rayiner
Because western European cities are vastly less violent:
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/lets-hold-off-
cel...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/lets-hold-off-
celebrating_b_4405153.html).

Baltimore, where I live, has 25x the per-capita murder rate of London. Chicago
has 13x the murder rate. New York, the safest large city in the country, has
3x the murder rate.

~~~
rubenariz
B-more the city that bleeds.(I live there too) That said, the murders usually
occur in the same bad areas over and over. If you live in a good area, you
notice it only on the evening local news.

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

~~~
msandford
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...](http://ktla.com/2015/05/23/cleveland-officer-michael-brelo-found-
not-guilty-in-killing-of-unarmed-man-woman/)

~~~
jsprogrammer
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.

~~~
krapp
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.

------
drallison
Perhaps the solution to police killings is to disarm the police. The current
default--police have weapons and can use them as they see fit--seems not to be
working.

~~~
krapp
US police have 2nd Amendment rights like anyone else, so that seems unlikely.

~~~
conanbatt
Does it really work that way? Police men should not be able to use any kind of
weapon on the job other than the ones they've been assigned.

~~~
krapp
I'm not a cop or a lawyer, but I can imagine a situation in which people could
be expected to sometimes shoot at the cops but the cops weren't allowed to
shoot back would meet with a supreme court challenge sooner or later.

