Center Mass: Why Police and Soldiers Shoot to Stop instead of Shooting to Wound

originally posted by: tom.farnhill
a reply to: projectvxn


they seem to think that if you run away from a cop , it is an automatic death sentence no matter of what offence .
being for jaywalking or anything else .

That's an incredibly inaccurate statement so I'm going to assume you don't live in the U.S. and are the victim of sensationalist media.

a reply to: projectvxn

So essentially shooting to stop is unrealistic too, might as well shoot to kill cause of these exceptions.
Doesn't make sense, not every person are these stories, everyone body reacts differently.

My understanding is the .45 came around in the banana wars to stop the tribal warriors that were hoped up on drugs and would be charging the soldiers.
It's a lot harder to get mad at someone getting shot twice in the chest and dying from the wounds and the officer saying he/she was just trying to get the person to stop then when its 10+ .

a reply to: projectvxn
I once read a book about real New york cops and what all they go through. One of them that had been in a major gun battle said "the only people that fall down right away when shot,are those that have watched TV shows and movies too much.People on the street in a real gun battle keep shooting back even when you know you have shot them where they should have dropped over dead".

I know here some years back we had a gun shop that got robbed,it was a shop/house and the owner was upstairs asleep at first. He heard his alarm go off and knew someone had broken into the place. He was a CCW and came down with his pistol ready to defend. All of sudden Shots were fired and he felt the plaster board on his left explode. The intruder was armed and shooting at him! His practicing all the time helped when he shot back, his shots counted. The intruder ran out of his shop and took off on foot. The police knowing of the alarm finally arrived and started hunting for this guy. They had to bring out the K-9s and finally found him. He had been shot with deadly force yet managed to run several houses away,hide behind a trash can while waiting for things to calm down,and died. Even with a kill shot,people can and do more fighting,shooting or whatever they are doing at the time. A kill shot is not instantaneous. Cops have come across people that have committed suicide with a shot gun blast to the head,yet they were sitting and moaning when the cops found them.

People need to stop watching TV and movies and thinking that real life is like that. Its not,in a shoot out chances are even if you managed to get off that kill shot,they will continue to shoot at you and your life is still in danger no matter what the threat is.

a reply to: Sremmos80

There are many stories of people being shot by .45 ACPs and not going down right away.

You shoot as much as is necessary to stop the aggressor from fighting any longer.

I'm not sure what is so hard to grasp.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: projectvxn

So essentially shooting to stop is unrealistic too, might as well shoot to kill cause of these exceptions.
Doesn't make sense, not every person are these stories, everyone body reacts differently.

My understanding is the .45 came around in the banana wars to stop the tribal warriors that were hoped up on drugs and would be charging the soldiers.
It's a lot harder to get mad at someone getting shot twice in the chest and dying from the wounds and the officer saying he/she was just trying to get the person to stop then when its 10+ .

I think you misunderstand what "shoot to stop" actually means.

It means that the shooter should continue firing until the threat is gone. In other words, if a police officer shoots a man holding a gun and that man falls down but is still conscious and still holding the gun, he's still a threat. If a police officer shoots a man charging with an ax and the man falls, tosses the ax away, and makes it clear that he is subdued, the police officer can't continue to shoot him after he's down.

"Shoot to stop" does NOT mean the shooter should fire one or two shots and wait to see what happens. That gap in time gets people killed and training methods were changed accordingly.

There was a time when some police officers were trained to fire two to five shots, then stop and assess. Due to the training, police officers developed muscle memory and would "fight the way they train" so that if a man was charging with an edged weapon, they would fire two to five shots and assess the man still charging them with the blade. It's even more deadly to the officer when the target has a firearm.

Again, real life is not like the movies and people don't always stop what they're doing when they're shot. Adrenaline is a helluva thing.

a reply to: Answer

So yes shoot to kill, got it

a reply to: Answer

yes you are correct i am not an american i can only go on what i read on here and other sites that highlight such news articles .

a reply to: projectvxn

I think the problem here is that others seem to think this thread is about police brutality when it isn't. Firefights can break out between a crook and a CCW permit holder just as easily as a cop and a crook.

I am dead set against police brutality, personally, DEAD SET against it. But the truth is, sometimes cops need to use their guns.

And the truth is: aiming for extremeties is difficult and you are not likely to hit a damned thing. Unless you pray and spray and just get lucky.

Violence isn't the answer but the bad guys (people trying to harm you) don't always see it that way.

a reply to: projectvxn

I told you my issue, its the 10+ rounds with the explanation of " i was just trying to subdue him not kill him"

I get that some people won't go down, but some people will and it seems that part is the one that gets over looked.

I'm not a veteran, but I have been shot, and I'll say it's possible to be shot and not even be particularly aware of it for a time. The human physiology has a strange way of dealing with damage. A paper cut hurts like hell, a gun shot or deep stab wound doesn't really.

I could very much see how multiple shots would be necessary to stop an attacker who is charged on adrenalin, or worse yet artificial stimulants.

I guess it just really depends on what those shots do to the body that determines how well they can be ignored and for how long.

a reply to: projectvxn

For anyone that wants to know a basic idea of how the police came to some of their policies,a very good story is The Onion field by Joseph Wambaugh. Both the movie and the book are excellent. It is a story about how the police 'used' to do things and it cost one cop his life and the other was ostracized by the rest of the force afterwards for having let a criminal get his gun. Mr.Wambaugh was a police officer at the time in that precinct when it happened and he details what all went down and what the living cop went through,and the changes it brought about. Still a good story after all these years.

originally posted by: tom.farnhill
a reply to: Answer

yes you are correct i am not an american i can only go on what i read on here and other sites that highlight such news articles .

Just remember that the millions of cases where police interact with the public and nothing bad happens don't make the news.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: projectvxn

I told you my issue, its the 10+ rounds with the explanation of " i was just trying to subdue him not kill him"

I get that some people won't go down, but some people will and it seems that part is the one that gets over looked.

That's where your misinterpretation doesn't line up with the facts.

"Shooting to stop" is not the same as "shooting to subdue."

You'll never hear anyone with half a brain say "I was just shooting him to subdue him." That implies that the shooter was not justified to use deadly force and is a good way to end up in prison.

You can't fire warning shots at people or shoot them in the leg to "subdue" them. That's illegal. HOWEVER, if you shoot someone and they are no longer a threat, you can't continue to shoot them. I think you're misinterpreting the term to mean you either keep shooting someone until they're dead or you shoot them just enough to subdue them. That's not the case.

It's simple: you shoot for center mass until the threat is no longer a threat. You don't shoot for the extremities and you don't wait patiently for them to give up after a few shots. As you like to put it, you "shoot to kill" until the threat is stopped.

a reply to: Sremmos80

Ever seen someone on PCP?

By shooting to wound, the shooter has made it clear that they weren't justified in shooting the attacker.

I don't think reasonable people see it in that light. That's like saying if a person can legally use deadly force in defense then they must kill the person.

I think with trying to wound you have to consider the fact that after the person is no longer a threat you have to try and ensure they don't die (to the best of your ability) and every action you do or don't could be used against you so its easier legally to have a clean kill than have to try and persuade a jury of the validity of everyone of your actions

I'm no attorney, but I'm pretty sure a law enforcement officer can use lethal force to stop an unarmed felon from escaping. When I was in the Marines I was taught (when on guard duty stateside) that the only time we could fire on someone running away was if we knew him to be a convicted felon or if we had knowledge that he had committed a felony. a reply to: tom.farnhill

originally posted by: Maxatoria
I think with trying to wound you have to consider the fact that after the person is no longer a threat you have to try and ensure they don't die (to the best of your ability) ...

Can you link to any state statutes that make that law? Other than reporting the incident so professional medical help is possible.

a reply to: Answer

So shoot until they are not moving anymore, and see if they survived!
Shoot to stop 101.

originally posted by: Oudoceus
I'm no attorney, but I'm pretty sure a law enforcement officer can use lethal force to stop an unarmed felon from escaping...[/post]

If that is true, Isn't resisting often charged as a felony in most or all states. That means anyone who runs can be shot.

Would explain much.