Here cops are trained to shoot to kill. If it isn't necessary to kill then they use other means. I'd be surprised if it wasn't same training in US.
Shooting an unarmed man with his hands in the sky is pretty foul.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Man shot reaching for license.
- Thread starter 3506string
- Start date
Shooting an unarmed man with his hands in the sky is pretty foul.
Cops are trained to shoot to kill in the USA also. I also saw that the officer shot him with his hands up, that fact was probably what got him arrested.
Cops in the US are trained to shoot to end the threat, which is different than shoot to kill. Otherwise, the cop would have shot him when he was on the ground and killed him.
NO
They are trained to shoot center mass, and to continue until the threat is over.
I was just at a police/civilian interaction seminar in September, and the Illinois State Highway Patrolmen told us that shoot at center mass with intention of killing.
Shoot four or five rounds into a person at center mass and odds are the threat will cease because the subject is dead.
Well, that's not what's taught in NY. You shoot at center mass because it's the largest target, and therefore, easiest to hit. If the aggressive action that precipitated the shooting ceases, the officer is trained to also cease shooting, secure the suspect and scene, call for paramedics, and begin ems treatment. Far different than shoot to kill.
The officer mentioned that because people asked why they don't shoot at legs. The officers simply said that a person bleed to death from being shot in the leg of an artery is cut.
Nope - that's not why (I am sure it was said to "appease" the people in the class).
Officers are NOT trained to "just injure" a suspect, nor are they trained to fire warning shots, or to shoot the weapon out of a bad guys hands.
Officers ARE trained to shoot at the largest part of the body because it is the easiest part to hit when a firefight occurs.
Well, wouldn't that go against them telling you that they shoot center mass to kill? If they could just shoot them in the leg to kill them, wouldn't that be easier? The reality is that shooting someone in the chest is relatively easier than a headshot or other extremity. It's simply a bigger target, and thus, more likely to be hit. Police shootings typically have a 50% shot/hit ratio, even at close range. The realities of stress altering shot placement in a shooting situation are well documented. It's exactly why the cop in this video shot 6 or 7 times from close range, and only delivered 1 hit on target.
I will that I was a licensed security guard decades ago in SC. Although, I never carried a gun, we were taught that if we ever had to shoot, we should aim for center mass and kill. The boss said that a wound perp might testify against us and we could lose the case! Frankly, the fact the victim lived and was able ask "why did you shoot me," was key in getting the officer in such deep doo doo.
I think you are looking too hard for an argument. The cop's point was that any shot has the potential to be fatal, so shooting should only happen if a death can be justified.
Thankfully your boss did not train or supervise any cops. That is the biggest pile of dung I have heard in ages.
Truth be told - MOST officers dread the day they have to use their weapon. It is not something they look forward to.
In the spirit of disclosure, I retired as a Captain in the Detective Bureau of the NYPD.
I'm not the one looking too hard for an argument, I'm just telling you the reality, and I'm just refuting what you are telling me. It goes without saying that you should only fire when you or a 3rd party is in danger of being seriously injured or killed. And yes, every round has the potential to be fatal, but that doesn't mean that a cop is intending to kill by shooting a suspect. It means that they're shooting to end the aggressive, potentially lethal threat. If 1 shot makes the perp stop, then that's all it takes. It doesn't mean that the cop is trying to kill the suspect.
Shooting to kill ceases to be necessary when shot person stops brandishing his weapon. Up to then it's "shooting to kill" not "shooting to disable the threat".
If there was a ray gun that painted its target before discharging, and it killed every time 1st shot, never missed, never hit a bystander, police would be all over it.
No, it isn't. It's always to stop the threat. If the suspect ceases aggression, the threat is stopped. It does not mean the cop is trying to kill him. Shooting after the aggressive action is ceased then becomes criminal. Administering cpr and/or other life-saving measures after a shooting is the opposite of trying to kill.
Doubtful. Tasers are huge in law-enforcement now because of the potential for non-lethal outcomes in situations where lethal force may have been the only prior choice (emotionally disturbed person threatening suicide with a knife being a prime example).
Shoot to kill is common parlance. It means you're shooting for maximum lethal effect. It doesn't necessarily mean you intend to end a life.
The accompanying term is "shoot to wound", police are trained "never" do that, even if they might wish for that outcome.
The accompanying term is "shoot to wound", police are trained "never" do that, even if they might wish for that outcome.
