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

originally posted by: projectvxn
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.

Shamrock6 is apparently a police officer so his duty to protect is a little different than the laws regarding self-defense for a civilian.

a reply to: Answer

Well maybe that makes sense in some ways.

Still don't like the notion of shooting someone in the back.

a reply to: projectvxn

Like most things its all about context, if I was running away from you but towards a gun then you would be with well within your rights to protect yourself and shoot me, but the main question is with lethal force is that will a jury think I did the right thing

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Answer

Well maybe that makes sense in some ways.

Still don't like the notion of shooting someone in the back.

If the officer can reasonably claim that the aggressor was an immediate danger to others, he's justified.

Scenario: armed suspect trades shots with a police officer then turns to run into a populated area. If the suspect is willing to shoot at a police officer, it's a reasonable assumption that he won't hesitate to harm an innocent bystander.

a reply to: Answer

I understand.

I just don't like it...Even though in that situation I would probably do the same.

a reply to: projectvxn

As a civilian, your right is to protect yourself, home, vehicle, whatever your local laws allow you to protect.

As a LEO, lethal force is not just about protecting one's self. Thats one of the reasons it's completely justifiable to shoot an unarmed attacker in some cases. Were I to be incapacitated, now not only am I at risk of the beating continuing while I'm unable to defend myself, but risk being stripped of all my weapons, ammo, and other equipment.

One thing for people (not necessarily on this thread) to keep in mind is that LEOs are not trained to fight. We are trained to win. Whether that seems overbearing to some or not, it is what it is. We are not boxers and MMA fighters. We are not professional shooters (obviously some are but your average officer isn't).

Shooting somebody in the back may not give you a warm fuzzy, but my point was that it's entirely justifiable in certain circumstances. Running away isn't always disengagement. One may simply be moving from one cover to the next, and if you're still armed while doing so, you're still a threat. It doesn't make a lot of sense to let the subject get to that cover and resume firing simply because they weren't looking at me.


You can ignore my scenario. The other one explains it just fine. I was fat fingering my mobile when that one was posted, sorry.

a reply to: Shamrock6

As I said above, I understand the circumstances. I also didn't know that you were a cop, which changes the game when it comes to engagements a little bit.

There are times when civilians can use deadly force against unarmed attackers as well. If 3 or 4 dudes tried to jump me, for instance, you can bet that 3 or 4 dudes are going to end up with holes in them.

There are very few circumstances where a civilian can shoot someone in the back and still have it be a justifiable homicide.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Answer

I understand.

I just don't like it...Even though in that situation I would probably do the same.

Another scenario as food for thought:

I personally know an officer who was involved in a no-knock warrant on a known drug dealer with a history of violence.

As the officer came through the door, the suspect dove for his couch and the officer put 2 rounds from his M4 into the suspect's back as he hit the ground.

The DRT suspect's hand was still resting on the pistol under the couch cushion.

The suspect's family tried to claim the officer couldn't have known if he was going for a gun or not...

a reply to: deadeyedick

Nothing you said has anything to do with the topic...Nothing.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: deadeyedick

Nothing you said has anything to do with the topic...Nothing.

"At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

a reply to: projectvxn

Agreed. Outside of a pretty narrow scope, a civilian would have a very hard time explaining why they felt the need to do it.

oh sorry it requires thought and not target practice. this is why the people of the town could never talk to the bull. The bull was programmed to kill.

a reply to: projectvxn

I come back to this now and again for people... Anyone played paintball or airsoft?

When a guy pops out and surprises you, how many times do you shoot him? I have been playing paintball and airsoft both for many years... I never shoot someone just once. It's always an eratic knee jerk type reaction involving center of mass aiming and a burst of fire. I've never drawn on anyone and simply fired once with precise aim.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
oh sorry it requires thought and not target practice. this is why the people of the town could never talk to the bull. The bull was programmed to kill.

Either address the topic or pick a different post to ramble in please.

a reply to: projectvxn

the topic was well addressed. it requires one to think and ask why do people carring toy guns and sticks in public to get three to the t for doing nothing criminal.

imagine for a moment you have a soul and that your soul wants out of this life because something better awaits them but sucide is not an option. one quick option would be to present yourself to a cop holding a toy gun. Even if no one wants to admit it this is the reason for the lethality of weapons to exist in our world because other tech can do the job just as well these days.

the comment about a big difference in police and military should be clear.

in the epic the bull would be the gun and the ones calling for non lethel means would be the people of the town refusing to accept that a love one wanted to die.

originally posted by: tom.farnhill
a reply to: projectvxn
i have never understood the mind set of the american police ,

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 .

land of the free i don't think so

I take it you have never seen the police pursuits on tv news that go on for miles and deadly force isn't used ? They go down like that all the damn time. Your statement is ridiculous.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: projectvxn

the topic was well addressed. it requires one to think and ask why do people carring toy guns and sticks in public to get three to the t for doing nothing criminal.

imagine for a moment you have a soul and that your soul wants out of this life because something better awaits them but sucide is not an option. one quick option would be to present yourself to a cop holding a toy gun. Even if no one wants to admit it this is the reason for the lethality of weapons to exist in our world because other tech can do the job just as well these days.

the comment about a big difference in police and military should be clear.

in the epic the bull would be the gun and the ones calling for non lethel means would be the people of the town refusing to accept that a love one wanted to die.

Actually you're not on topic at all. The topic is about why police and trained civilians don't shoot to wound. You're bringing in an argument that's irrelevant to the thread.

Also, I'm normally not a grammar Nazi because it's rather pointless but your lack of capital letters at the beginning of your sentences makes your posts difficult to read and even more difficult to take seriously. It's the most basic rule of grammar and should be second nature to anyone who has pinky fingers.

a reply to: Answer

To be fair, I'm on a mobile. Were it not for autocorrect, I wouldn't be capping everything I'm supposed to either. Just throwing it out there. I agree with everything you said though

a reply to: Shamrock6

I am LE too my friend.

I was more so speaking of shooting unarmed fleeing felons (TN V. Garner). That is a no, no.

Obviously if one is actively engaged in a gunfight with a LEO all bets are off.

I agree with what you are saying. I may have just not conveyed my point properly.

Another article to read for everyone that believes in the "one shot stop" myth.

www.gunsamerica.com...