Why shooting to wound doesn’t make sense, Part 2
Part 2 of a 2-part Force Science News series
In Part 1 of this special series, the Force Science Research Center explored legislation proposed, and ultimately recalled, by a NYS Senator that would have required officers to shoot to wound and the practical reason why this idea doesnt make sense.
In Part 2, we share the legal and tactical problems with the shoot to wound concept:
LEGAL ISSUES.
A shoot-to-wound mandate would not be valid legally because it sets a standard far beyond that established by Graham v. Connor, the benchmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on police use of force, says former prosecutor Jeff Chudwin, now chief of the Olympia Fields (IL) PD and president of the Illinois Tactical Officers Assn.
Recognizing that violent encounters are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving, the Court does not require officers to use the least intrusive method of forcefully controlling a threatening suspect, but only whats reasonable, Chudwin explains. When an officers life or that of a third party appears in jeopardy, shooting can be justified as reasonable.
Rea all at: http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/127238-Why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-Part-2/