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

a reply to: budski

Never said they were wrong brah. Said what you're trying to cite isn't absolutely correct. The counter argument was produced in the very comment you quoted but seem to be ignoring.

That being said, the OP has asked that everybody stay on topic, so that's the last I'll be responding to this. Rant on!

a reply to: Sremmos80

In my CCW class we were taught that if you use your firearm in self defense you must accept two things :

1) If you shoot someone you will be arrested.

2) If you shoot someone you will have a civil suit filed against you by the victims family.

With regards to #1, it may only be for a night, or days, or months, but until the details are worked out, you will be arrested. and as far as #2, this is a litigious society. It will happen.

How about if the perp has made no aggressive moves at all? Is it still ok to use deadly force?
Many of the recent shootings have involved people who just haven't dropped their weapon whether
real or air-soft. Is it morally correct to kill someone on the chance you might be wounded or killed
or should the cop be required to maintain and wait for help? Don't we really need rules for deadly
force?

originally posted by: tmeister182
How about if the perp has made no aggressive moves at all? Is it still ok to use deadly force?
Many of the recent shootings have involved people who just haven't dropped their weapon whether
real or air-soft. Is it morally correct to kill someone on the chance you might be wounded or killed
or should the cop be required to maintain and wait for help? Don't we really need rules for deadly
force?

From a non-LEO perspective......

If someone presents a severe threat to me or my family I will use whatever means necessary to negate the threat. If that means putting 10 shots into someone, so be it. If the person dies from such injuries, so be it. They chose to initiate the encounter, they suffer the consequences.

If the person has made no aggressive moves then I will not view it as a threat. If that person presents a weapon, that is an aggressive move and the threat will be countered accordingly.

If a police officer orders you to drop your weapon and you do not, you should expect to be shot. The officer will view your non compliance as an indication that you are weighing the options and risks of using that weapon. You are still a threat to the officer. If an officer orders you to stop and you advance aggressively towards the officer, even without a weapon, you are presenting a threat, expect to be shot.

If someone is threatening severe injury or death to you, are you morally justified in defending yourself? Are you morally justified in killing that person if there is a chance that person will kill you if you don't? IMO, yes. That person made a choice to initiate the exchange and should be prepared to suffer whatever consequences follow.

I will be the first to criticize a bad shooting. Recently an officer shot a man in an apartment building. The officer was patrolling the hallway, which was dark. I believe there was a call and they were looking for someone. A guy came out of his door unaware the police were there and startled the officer. The officer shot him. That officer should go to jail. If it was me, I would be locked up ... no questions asked. You are not justified in shooting someone because you were surprised. I understand the adrenaline rush and the situation ... looking for someone in the dark and all, but any civilian who accidentally shoots an innocent person is most likely going to jail.

Anyway, to make sure I am on topic, yes shoot center mass because it's the quickest way to stop the threat. While you are deciding if you should shoot in the leg, foot, hand, chest, etc .. and trying to evaluate whether you think the aggressor is going to kill you, cripple, you, bash your head, stab you, or injure you in some other way ... and will you be justified in using deadly force, equal force, non lethal force, etc ..... just forget about it ... you won't need to worry because you'll be dead. Your family can debate on what you should have done at your funeral.

At what point does personal responsibility come into these debates? Should the police use deadly force against an aggressor? How about if you don't attack people it's unlikely the police will be shooting at you to begin with. Mistakes happen, unfortunately, and the police should have to answer for those mistakes just like anyone else. But let's be realistic here .... the vast majority of people shot by police would not have gotten shot had they not been engaging in criminal activity to begin with.

As far as civilians shooting ... if you have the need to prey on innocent people and they shoot and kill you ... too bad. I guess you should have stayed home that day. Sympathy=0.

originally posted by: projectvxn
4. This isn't the freakin' movies. I'm tired of repeating this.

I don't know about others but I don't recall asking you or anyone to do that.
My suggestion...get over your self.

You post some information up, cool. Some people don't want to take it on board, oh well you tried educating people, but you can't force people to care about what you've got to say.

To then rant because you've take it upon your self to repeat what you've posted earlier because you think you're a fountain of all gun related knowledge that everyone should bow dowm to and praise but hasn't, is just plain ridiculous.

a reply to: mortex

Do you have anything to add to the actual discussion other than digs at me?

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: mortex

Do you have anything to add to the actual discussion other than digs at me?

Having a dig at your attitude, like you did about people in general who don't know certain things.

Here's a thought...maybe the police don't shoot to wound because if they've drawn their gun the the offender is armed and a danger to them and the public.

It's common sense. I'm not going to draw my gun to shoot you because you try run away crying . I'm going to pull my gun out if you behave in a threatening manner to me or others.

Obviously It doesn't always go down like that with some police shooting.

Police are more and more issued with tazers and before that pepper spray in order to have non lethal means to subdue offenders.

But come on does this subject really need a thread dedicated to it? It is essentially about you having a rant that people apparently don't grasp what you are or were telling them at some point.

a reply to: mortex

Dunno why you all argue about this. Since forever your civilians have the right to buy semi military hardware in the name of protection. Guns are to america what tea and scones are to England. We love tea and scones, you love to arm up and kill eachother. Nothing will ever change

a reply to: mortex

But come on does this subject really need a thread dedicated to it? It is essentially about you having a rant that people apparently don't grasp what you are or were telling them at some point.

Yes it does need its own topic.

It is a subject that is constantly repeated. People truly believe these myths, and stuff like this gets people hurt or killed.

I don't much care how you feel about my presentation.

originally posted by: Truthbadger
a reply to: mortex

Dunno why you all argue about this. Since forever your civilians have the right to buy semi military hardware in the name of protection. Guns are to america what tea and scones are to England. We love tea and scones, you love to arm up and kill eachother. Nothing will ever change

I'm Australian.
Gun laws only work on law abiding citizens. Law abiding citizens aren't the problem.
There's as many guns(legal) in Australia as there was prior to the restrictions after Port Arthur.
There's even more illegal guns in circulation. And that's what gun laws and restrictions will never be able to change.

Gun crime increased in Australia in the past 20 years. Drive by shootings were once something we associated with Los Angeles and black gangs.
Now it's something we see in our suburbs in Australia between violent gangs.

a reply to: roadgravel

Which point would that be?