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

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Answer

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

At this point, it's clear that you're not seeking to understand the philosophy; you just want to twist the meaning to fit your own interpretation.

Shoot to stop 101: apply deadly force until the threat is no longer a threat. It's not that hard to understand.

What is your alternate solution?

originally posted by: roadgravel

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.

No, you're twisting the meaning around and I don't think a reasonable person interprets it that way at all.

If you intentionally shoot someone in the leg, you're implying that they weren't a threat that justified deadly force and you should have employed other means to subdue them. That's how the courts will interpret it.

If you accidentally shoot someone in the leg and they fall down, drop their weapon, etc. and are no longer a threat, then you've successfully stopped the threat and have no reason to continue firing.

The training doesn't imply that you should shoot someone as many times as it takes to kill them. The training dictates that shooting to wound is an idiotic policy that will get the shooter killed so you shoot for the vitals as many times as it takes to put the threat down. The scenario is stressful enough without muddying the waters by applying a "sometimes you should shoot to wound" policy to the mix as it does not mesh with the laws regarding use of deadly force.

a reply to: projectvxn

Comes down to licensed training for carriers....like cops: we are each trained to "stop the threat"...not maybe stop it....but to stop it.

Don't know about you...but its a very big deal to even DRAW your firearm. Even...and if we do...we are expecting death to occur...otherwise don't even draw it.

Its only stop the threat at all costs...

Deadly force

An amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person.

Where does gun law state the person must intend to kill someone.

originally posted by: roadgravel
Deadly force

An amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person.

Where does gun law state the person must intend to kill someone.

Your question does not make sense.

If you shoot at someone, you've applied deadly force. If you do so without a legal justification, you're guilty of a crime.

It doesn't matter if you shot at something in their hand, their feet, or their head.

If the threat doesn't justify deadly force, you don't pull the trigger. Period. "Shooting to wound" implies that you did not have justification to apply deadly force in the first place.

a reply to: Oudoceus

Not to derail this thread but cops are not allowed to shoot unarmed fleeing felons! It has been that way for a long time.

There is really only one scenario where shooting someone in the back would be justified.

Now if a "bad guy" is armed and running into an occupied building one could articulate the use of deadly force to protect people that are inside said buildings.

Also resisting arrest without violence is a misdemeanor. Resisting arrest with violence is a felony.

Back on topic.

Pistols are notorious for being known as poor people stoppers even if the person is not on some sort of drug. There is a reason rifles are preferred in a firefight.

I have personally seen people shot in the head and survive. I have been in foot pursuits with people that have been shot in the stomach and leg and they were still able to jump a fence and continue on quite a ways until they were caught.

I have seen people shot in the chest and while they were obviously in pain they still had full control of their bodies and could still easily fight, shoot, and stab if they wanted too.

Movies and television are just that, movies and television. Nothing like real life.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig


Pistols are notorious for being known as poor people stoppers even if the person is not on some sort of drug. There is a reason rifles are preferred in a firefight.

"The only purpose for a pistol is to fight your way back to a rifle..." -Clint Smith

originally posted by: roadgravel

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.

That's not true. The use of a firearm is a deadly force engagement. If you cannot justify using deadly force then you can't justify shooting someone.

a reply to: Answer

You are making it sounds as if a person must intend to kill someone if they shoot. That is not true.

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: roadgravel

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.

That's not true. The use of a firearm is a deadly force engagement. If you cannot justify using deadly force then you can't justify shooting someone.

You are reading it wrong. people here are implying if a person shoots then they must be intending to kill the person.

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: roadgravel

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.

That's not true. The use of a firearm is a deadly force engagement. If you cannot justify using deadly force then you can't justify shooting someone.

You are reading it wrong. people here are implying if a person shoots then they must be intending to kill the person.

And I did not say to use deadly force a person doesn't have to be in a position legally to use it.

a reply to: roadgravel

There must be a clear threat of serious bodily harm or death to justify deadly force.

If you pulled a knife on me, a baseball bat, or tried to bash my head with a rock I'd shoot, center mass, until you stopped.

My intent would not be to kill you but to stop you from killing me.

If I shot you and you survived I would feel a lot better than if I shot you and you didn't.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: roadgravel

There must be a clear threat of serious bodily harm or death to justify deadly force.

If you pulled a knife on me, a baseball bat, or tried to bash my head with a rock I'd shoot, center mass, until you stopped.

My intent would not be to kill you but to stop you from killing me.

If I shot you and you survived I would feel a lot better than if I shot you and you didn't.

Again you are stating I said something different.

If I shot you and you survived I would feel a lot better than if I shot you and you didn't.

Which what I have been implying can happen....legally

a reply to: roadgravel

Which what I have been implying can happen....legally

Ok gotcha...My apologies.

As a former LEO....anytime you discharge your weapon, it is deadly force. On the range I have seen officers miss targets at 3 yrds, repeatedly. For those that think 'shot to wound' have been playing to much call of duty.

Police are not highly trained in self defense or use of their weapons, both lethal and non lethal. Training costs money and lots of time which most dept will not spend. The dept I was with was suppose 'qualify' twice a year with our duty arm...most years we only 'qualified' once...budget constraints. So remember, most police are less skilled with their weapon than the average weekend shooter

a reply to: projectvxn

Cool. Glad we might be on a similar thought process.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

That's not entirely accurate. If you and I engaged in an exchange of shots and you ran away from me, I could absolutely shoot you in the back. You pose and clear, continued, and imminent threat to the community as a whole and its still my responsibility to protect the community. I simply need to articulate why I felt you still posed a threat to others. Just because you run doesn't mean you automatically cease to be a threat to others.

Seems to be one or two on here who just don't want to understand. Why did he have to shoot ten rounds? Because that's how many it took for the threat to be removed. When a subject is no longer displaying any sort of aggressive actions, the shooting needs to stop. An officer can't stop shooting to see if "well gee I wonder if he's still running towards me or if that's just his momentum" because the follow up thought could very well be "crap, he was still running and now he's bouncing my head off the pavement"

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Answer

You are making it sounds as if a person must intend to kill someone if they shoot. That is not true.

You misunderstand.

I'm saying from a legal perspective, if you shoot at someone it is considered deadly force. It doesn't matter if the shooter aims for the arm or leg, it's still deadly force in the eyes of the court. The shooter will be judged as though their intention was to kill the aggressor.

I'm also saying that if you engage a threat with deadly force, you should aim for the vitals because that gives you the best chance of stopping the threat. If the assaulting person dies, that's a side effect of stopping the threat. Again, intentionally shooting to wound implies that you didn't actually fear for your life.

You can twist it around to say "shoot to kill" if you want but that's still a misinterpretation and intentional sensationalism of the mantra. The training says to shoot for center mass because that's the quickest way to stop a threat and the easiest target to hit. Some advanced training teaches to shoot for the pelvis or head if center mass doesn't work but it all comes down to stopping the threat. The attacker's survival of the engagement is irrelevant to the training.

a reply to: Shamrock6

That's not entirely accurate. If you and I engaged in an exchange of shots and you ran away from me, I could absolutely shoot you in the back.

I wouldn't do that if I were you. That's a good way to end up in jail for murder.