US Cops Trained To Kill, Not Wound - Dead Can't Talk

[DamianTV]

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/0...-not-to-wound/

The fatal shooting of a man by police on Tuesday near St. Louis kept the spotlight on law enforcement's use of deadly force as protests continue in nearby Ferguson over the police shooting death of teenager Michael Brown.

The two shootings bear little resemblance. Brown was an unarmed teen who, according to eyewitnesses, was trying to surrender when a police officer shot him at least six times. The man killed on Tuesday, whose name hasn't been released, was wielding a knife, according to police. When he refused officers' orders to put down his weapon and walked toward them, they shot him to death, police said.

As tensions continue to flare over Brown's death, many question the circumstances under which the law justifies a police officer's use of deadly force. When faced with a perceived threat, why don't officers shoot to wound rather than shoot to kill?

The reason, according to law enforcement officials and experts on police accountability, is simple: Officers have long been trained to shoot to kill because that is the only way they say they can neutralize a threat. The idea of shooting someone in a limb is fiction.

"That's a Hollywood myth," John Firman, director of research, programs, and professional services at the International Association of Chiefs of Police, told The Huffington Post. "In all policy everywhere on force in any law enforcement agency in America, the bottom line statement should read: If you feel sufficiently threatened or if lives are threatened and you feel the need that you must use lethal force, then you must take out the suspect."

...

(Continues on Link...)

[Todd]

This is one of the dumbest arguments against the Police use of firearms. Well Duh! When you use a gun to stop a life threatening attack you aren't taught to "wing" someone. Anyone who has ever been trained to use a firearm knows that if you intend to use it you are using it stop a threat and that means their is a high probability of death. And anybody who teaches you these tactics teaches you to aim at center mass. Anyone who's not teaching this doesn't know what the hell they are doing.

So it's not the tactics used, it's the fact that too many cops way too often and with too few repercussions RESORT TO Lethal force. We bred a culture of Cops who think that they can get away with using lethal force when they think their lives are threatened. Not when they actually are.

[brushfire]

A firearm IS lethal force - nothing less.

I happen to agree with Todd, one has to climb really high into the tree for this kind of fruit.

[Henry Rogue]

I thought they were taught to spray and pray they hit their target.

[JK/SEA]

I thought they were taught to spray and pray they hit their target.

and with orbital socket destruction, you would have to, because you can't see that well...pain and blurred vision....still...nice shooting...

amazing amazing...

[Ronin Truth]

That's remarkably rational ....... and evil. Eliminate the possibility of some future potential legal difficulties. I guess other bad guys do it too, kill all of the eye witnesses.

[Acala]

This is one of the dumbest arguments against the Police use of firearms. Well Duh! When you use a gun to stop a life threatening attack you aren't taught to "wing" someone. Anyone who has ever been trained to use a firearm knows that if you intend to use it you are using it stop a threat and that means their is a high probability of death. And anybody who teaches you these tactics teaches you to aim at center mass. Anyone who's not teaching this doesn't know what the hell they are doing.

So it's not the tactics used, it's the fact that too many cops way too often and with too few repercussions RESORT TO Lethal force. We bred a culture of Cops who think that they can get away with using lethal force when they think their lives are threatened. Not when they actually are.

Exactly. Only fictional heros shoot to wound.

The problem is in the rules of engagement in which the police increasingly make every contact with the people an exercise in command and control from behind a firewall of armor and automatic weapons. Armor and weapons happily supplied by the MIC.

The other problem is mission creep. While once upon a time the police did little but try to catch thieves and violent people - a mission virtually everyone supported - they are now heavily involved with policing lifestyle choices and market "crimes" in which everyone involved is involved voluntarily. And this vastly expanded mission is NOT supported by a consensus but rather pits one faction of the people against another and creates a situation where the cops see a significant percentage of the people as "the enemy" and visa versa.

[erowe1]

This is one of the dumbest arguments against the Police use of firearms. Well Duh! When you use a gun to stop a life threatening attack you aren't taught to "wing" someone.

That's true.

But it's not just about where you aim. It's also about when you stop shooting. If your first shots stop them but don't kill them, and then you keep firing after you no longer have any reason to believe you face any danger, just to make sure they're dead, that's murder.

[erowe1]

..

[Ronin Truth]

That's true.

But it's not just about where you aim. It's also about when you stop shooting. If your first shots stop them but don't kill them, and then you keep firing after you no longer have any reason to believe you face any danger, just to make sure they're dead, that's murder.

One of the gunfight rules, two shots in the chest and one shot in the head. Improves chances of really ending the threats.

[pcosmar]

It is the training.
And yes,, I was told this too.. By cops. By people that train cops.

I shoot well. I can hit an arm, or a shoulder.. or a leg.
I can put bullets where I want... I don't want to kill, (outside of a Combat environment)

I was told that is the wrong attitude. It is the training of those that consider killing rather than arresting.

[Acala]

It is the training.
And yes,, I was told this too.. By cops. By people that train cops.

I shoot well. I can hit an arm, or a shoulder.. or a leg.
I can put bullets where I want... I don't want to kill, (outside of a Combat environment)

I was told that is the wrong attitude. It is the training of those that consider killing rather than arresting.

Unless you are Jerry Miculek, trying to stop a deadly attack in progress by shooting anywhere other then front central axis of the attacker's body is a really bad tactic for a couple of reasons, the most important being that under the influence of adrenalin and confronted with a moving target, you will probably fail and die as a result. I would not do this myself so I can't expect the police to do it.

[SeanTX]

Another little trick they use after a questionable shooting is to declare that the "scene is not secure" -- using that as an excuse to keep paramedics away, while their victim bleeds out. Long Beach police used that tactic when they shot the guy holding the water nozzle, and I'm sure it has been used many other times. Flat out murder, but nobody complains, or riots.

[erowe1]

Unless you are Jerry Miculek, trying to stop a deadly attack in progress by shooting anywhere other then front central axis of the attacker's body is a really bad tactic for a couple of reasons, the most important being that under the influence of adrenalin and confronted with a moving target, you will probably fail and die as a result. I would not do this myself so I can't expect the police to do it.

I completely agree.

But again, this doesn't affect the protocol for when to stop shooting.

[Ronin Truth]

I completely agree.

But again, this doesn't affect the protocol for when to stop shooting.

You stop when the threat is over.

[pcosmar]

You stop when the threat is over.

NO,, I don't.
If I draw.. If I even draw a weapon,, the first shot will be centered as best as possible on a quick draw.

I practiced that extensively when I used to be able to.

The second one (and only if necessary) will be aimed. I do not fire and continue firing till the magazine is empty.

Not since I was a child.

[Acala]

I do not fire and continue firing till the magazine is empty.

Not since I was a child.

That's not what Ronin said. He said stop when the threat is over. As long as the threat is in motion, you keep firing. If that takes two mags full, then that's what it takes. The idea that you can use a gun to stop an attack in some incremental way that is less likely to ultimately cause death is a dangerous fantasy that NO self-defense expert that I have ever heard of would advocate.

The reality is that it very well may take MORE than a lethal dose of gunfire to stop an attack. People with fatal gunshot wounds are often still on their feet and moving for long enough to inflict deadly wounds upon you. In a real self-defense situation trying to distinguish between a fatal and non-fatal dose of gunfire is simply not possible so nobody tries. They shoot until the threat is neutralized, THEN they stop. And THEN they can start hoping that the attacker survives.

[CPUd]

With the shooting on Tuesday, he was technically still rolling towards one of them. He fired the last 2 shots and stopped once the guy flopped back away from him.

[enhanced_deficit]

wow, department of training needs to wake up.

[pcosmar]

wow, department of training needs to wake up.

Yup,, and I have a low regard for most self declared "Self defense experts".
And less for most shooting instructors.

The last time I fired a handgun was with an LEO.

All the while he was telling me how wrong I was doing it.. and I was putting groups on paper,, better than him.
With his own damn gun.

[Ronin Truth]

That's not what Ronin said. He said stop when the threat is over. As long as the threat is in motion, you keep firing. If that takes two mags full, then that's what it takes. The idea that you can use a gun to stop an attack in some incremental way that is less likely to ultimately cause death is a dangerous fantasy that NO self-defense expert that I have ever heard of would advocate.

The reality is that it very well may take MORE than a lethal dose of gunfire to stop an attack. People with fatal gunshot wounds are often still on their feet and moving for long enough to inflict deadly wounds upon you. In a real self-defense situation trying to distinguish between a fatal and non-fatal dose of gunfire is simply not possible so nobody tries. They shoot until the threat is neutralized, THEN they stop. And THEN they can start hoping that the attacker survives.

.45 ACP, because firing more than once is just plain silly. (I love that line.)

Killing is not necessary, stopping is.

[Todd]

NO,, I don't.
If I draw.. If I even draw a weapon,, the first shot will be centered as best as possible on a quick draw.

I practiced that extensively when I used to be able to.

The second one (and only if necessary) will be aimed. I do not fire and continue firing till the magazine is empty.

Not since I was a child.

This ^ is also anecdotal on what you "hope" you will do if actually in a situation of the sort. I am going to assume that you have never been in a situation to use the weapon, as also I have never been.

All of the evidence on what people actually do when in fear for their life and training they received speaks otherwise. Some get locked into their training and have been seriously injured and/or killed by relying on the Double tap method. Other's freak out and unload their mags.

I'm telling you that if there is a threat in my vicinity, I'm using whatever it takes to stop that threat and pray I don't fall prey to firing one shot and then trying to navigate the situation to see if a 2nd shot is "necessary".

[Acala]

Yup,, and I have a low regard for most self declared "Self defense experts".
And less for most shooting instructors.

The last time I fired a handgun was with an LEO.

All the while he was telling me how wrong I was doing it.. and I was putting groups on paper,, better than him.
With his own damn gun.

The typical LEO ain't much of a shot so I wouldn't get too excited about that comparison. And paper ain't people. It doesn't move and it doesn't try to kill you.

If you think you are good enough to intentionally wing a man in the midst of a life or death struggle (and I can't imagine how one would know that unless one had actually practiced shooting moving targets under real fire), good luck to you. I wouldn't even think about it and so I can't expect it of anyone else.

But I CAN expect LEOs not to fire unless they are actually under attack and I CAN expect them to stop firing and expedite medical care when the threat has stopped. They fail to meet my expectations on a routine basis.

[fisharmor]

When you take any run-of-the-mill self defense/ CHP course, they always say go for center mass, and they always point out that if your life is truly in danger, you do need to shoot to stop and make it seem like you did, but they also always point out that dead men tell no tales.

This makes a difference for non-LEOs. From the moment one of us peons shoots someone, the state apparatus is looking to ruin our lives. They're looking for any and every excuse to put us away - even in the "gun friendly" states. That's their job, and they're going to do it. And if I unloaded a magazine into someone after they stopped attacking, I get an all expense paid lifelong trip to the rape cage.

For LEOs, however, the argument doesn't hold any water at all. LEOs can rape or maim people and walk away Scot free. The "justice" system simply could not care less what they do to people.... so the idea that they need to stop the person talking after an altercation is just false.

They are dictators, they are gods, they are untouchable - so there's no merit to the idea that they NEED to kill in order to stop some kind of repercussions which pretty much never happen in practice.

[Ronin Truth]

When you take any run-of-the-mill self defense/ CHP course, they always say go for center mass, and they always point out that if your life is truly in danger, you do need to shoot to stop and make it seem like you did, but they also always point out that dead men tell no tales.

This makes a difference for non-LEOs. From the moment one of us peons shoots someone, the state apparatus is looking to ruin our lives. They're looking for any and every excuse to put us away - even in the "gun friendly" states. That's their job, and they're going to do it. And if I unloaded a magazine into someone after they stopped attacking, I get an all expense paid lifelong trip to the rape cage.

For LEOs, however, the argument doesn't hold any water at all. LEOs can rape or maim people and walk away Scot free. The "justice" system simply could not care less what they do to people.... so the idea that they need to stop the person talking after an altercation is just false.

They are dictators, they are gods, they are untouchable - so there's no merit to the idea that they NEED to kill in order to stop some kind of repercussions which pretty much never happen in practice.

Dead, worked out for Zimmerman.

[pcosmar]

When you take any run-of-the-mill self defense/ CHP course, they always say go for center mass,

That was the training we got in the military,, back in the 70s. Center mass.. with very little emphasis on pin point accuracy..

however. i was taught different long before. Was on a rifle team,,and shot competitively for years.

Police are not supposed to be Military in a combat environment.
Two things that should be changed.
First,, Accurate shooting.. pinpoint placement of bullets.. each time ,, every time.
And secondly,,but more importantly,, the ability to deal with people without the use of guns,, without force. except as a very last resort and after all other options fail.

And accountability,,in every case where any force is used.. From a raised voice to a raised hand.

Put them on a Very Short Leash.

[Anti Federalist]

Circular Force Continuum.

This is one of the dumbest arguments against the Police use of firearms. Well Duh! When you use a gun to stop a life threatening attack you aren't taught to "wing" someone. Anyone who has ever been trained to use a firearm knows that if you intend to use it you are using it stop a threat and that means their is a high probability of death. And anybody who teaches you these tactics teaches you to aim at center mass. Anyone who's not teaching this doesn't know what the hell they are doing.

So it's not the tactics used, it's the fact that too many cops way too often and with too few repercussions RESORT TO Lethal force. We bred a culture of Cops who think that they can get away with using lethal force when they think their lives are threatened. Not when they actually are.

[coastie]

This is one of the dumbest arguments against the Police use of firearms. Well Duh! When you use a gun to stop a life threatening attack you aren't taught to "wing" someone. Anyone who has ever been trained to use a firearm knows that if you intend to use it you are using it stop a threat and that means their is a high probability of death. And anybody who teaches you these tactics teaches you to aim at center mass. Anyone who's not teaching this doesn't know what the hell they are doing.

So it's not the tactics used, it's the fact that too many cops way too often and with too few repercussions RESORT TO Lethal force. We bred a culture of Cops who think that they can get away with using lethal force when they think their lives are threatened. Not when they actually are.

+rep

I actually made a thread on this very topic a couple years back, probably in response to the same thing I'm sure....

Trying to hit someone/something under a high stress situation is a LOT harder than most believe.

"Center of mass" DOES NOT mean the torso. COM means the CENTER of the MASS that is in your SIGHT PICTURE. That could also be a head, a leg or what have you, if that's all you can see.

Shoot for an arm or a shoulder or even a leg - when the torso or head is the bigger target - and you are GOING TO (probably) MISS.

Most people can cover 20ft in a little over 2 seconds. Try it sometime, you'll see.

"Knee-capping" is for the movies, I have NEVER been taught to do that, and I'm sure I have more LE firearms/tactics training than most on this board, and certainly more than the liberal heart bleeders that think shooting a gun is like in the movies.

ETA: While I've never personally heard anyone say "shoot to kill/dead men tell no tales", etc - it was most certainly always implied in our training, FWIW...