Skip to comments.
Why Don't Police Shoot to Wound?
FindLaw Blotter ^
| August 19, 2014 8:06 AM
| Brett Snider, Esq.
Posted on 08/20/2014 12:21:07 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
Police are often harshly criticized for their lethal use of firearms, giving many reason to wonder: Why don't police shoot to wound? That was CNN's Wolf Blitzer's question to legal scholar Jeffrey Toobin when discussing the shooting death of Ferguson, Missouri, teenager Michael Brown. "Why can't they shoot a warning shot?... Why can't they shoot to injure?" Blitzer queried.
To answer Blitzer's (and your) questions, here's a general overview of why police don't shoot to wound:
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.findlaw.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; blitzer; brown; shooting
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141 next last
1
posted on
08/20/2014 12:21:07 PM PDT
by
WhiskeyX
To: WhiskeyX
Uh, they shoot to stop the threat. Maybe somebody has been watching too many single shot, shoot the gun out of the bad guys hand scenes.
2
posted on
08/20/2014 12:22:39 PM PDT
by
rktman
(Ethnicity: Nascarian. Race: Daytonafivehundrian)
To: WhiskeyX
No time to evaluate the morality of fight or flight while your being attacked.
3
posted on
08/20/2014 12:23:58 PM PDT
by
Dallas59
To: WhiskeyX
If I shoot somebody it will be to kill.
The only reason to shoot to wound is in war because that takes 2 others out of the battle to tend to the wounded.
4
posted on
08/20/2014 12:23:59 PM PDT
by
mabarker1
(FYI)
To: WhiskeyX
I was listening to these morons the other day. Actually it was Shepard Smith, that loser, making noises about it, and complaining that the police were gassing “protestors” for no reason. “Amateur hour,” pronounced these police-action experts.
I’m sick of the media coverage of this stuff. The only shining ray of hope I saw on Fox was with Megan Kelly.
To: B4Ranch; SgtBob; Chode
6
posted on
08/20/2014 12:24:58 PM PDT
by
mabarker1
(FYI)
To: WhiskeyX
Nothing more dangerous than a wounded animal
7
posted on
08/20/2014 12:25:12 PM PDT
by
cork
(Gun control = hitting what you aim at)
To: WhiskeyX
The author is an arrogant left wing nut job. Esq? Really? Who still uses that?
Anyone with A BRAIN knows cops are taught and trained to “shoot to kill” because pulling the revolver is a last resort.
8
posted on
08/20/2014 12:25:12 PM PDT
by
Fledermaus
(Conservatives are all that's left to defend the Constitution. Dems hate it, and Repubs don't care.)
To: WhiskeyX
9
posted on
08/20/2014 12:26:30 PM PDT
by
mulligan
(I)
To: WhiskeyX
Considering Brown had four bullets to the right arm prior to the head shots, I’d say Wilson was initially shooting to wound, but Brown kept coming and it gave Wilson no choice. Especially since Brown had previously attempted to take Wilson’s gun and viciously sucker-punched him.
10
posted on
08/20/2014 12:26:30 PM PDT
by
dirtboy
To: WhiskeyX
The LibQuestiion asker(s) haveseen too many Hollywood movies/TV Shows.
11
posted on
08/20/2014 12:26:53 PM PDT
by
SandRat
(Duty - Honor - Country! What else needs said?)
To: WhiskeyX
Michael Brown. "Why can't they shoot a warning shot?... Why can't they shoot to injure?" Blitzer queried. Brown was hit six times; Sounds like that is exactly what occurred.
12
posted on
08/20/2014 12:27:01 PM PDT
by
Michael.SF.
(It takes a gun to feed a village)
13
posted on
08/20/2014 12:27:06 PM PDT
by
KneelBeforeZod
(I have five dollars for each of you)
To: WhiskeyX
Aim center mass. That is all.
14
posted on
08/20/2014 12:27:17 PM PDT
by
dainbramaged
(Get out of my country now)
To: WhiskeyX
I read an interesting blog post a couple of days ago, that showed data that the German police (for example) does fire warning shots. Our problem here is, if that warning shot strikes or lands where it “shouldn’t,” then some lawyer is getting rich.
15
posted on
08/20/2014 12:27:24 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: WhiskeyX
OMG! This guy watches too much T.V. “Phasers on stun.” That’ll work.
16
posted on
08/20/2014 12:27:29 PM PDT
by
sefarkas
(Why vote Democrat Lite?)
To: WhiskeyX
They don't for the same reason a civilian should never do that. It would prove that their life was not in imminent danger. That is if you have no choice but to shoot or else you will be killed or seriously harmed you may use deadly force. If you use deadly force anytime else you cannot plead self defense as you escalated the level if violence to a deadly force confrontation. It is the ultimate legal catch-22 that has ruined lots of kives.
17
posted on
08/20/2014 12:27:46 PM PDT
by
Robert357
(D.Rather "Hoist with his own petard!" www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1223916/posts)
To: WhiskeyX
They only shoot to wound in the movies.
Real life is not a movie.
18
posted on
08/20/2014 12:27:55 PM PDT
by
hadaclueonce
(Because Brawndo's got electrolytes. Because Ethanol has Big Corn Lobby)
To: WhiskeyX
From the article:
"There is no nationwide standard for police with regard to shooting to wound, but it may be food for thought to legislators."
Uh-oh! Why did you have to go and give them ideas, idiot!?
19
posted on
08/20/2014 12:28:31 PM PDT
by
spel_grammer_an_punct_polise
(Why does every totalitarian political hack think that he knows how to run my life better than I do?)
To: WhiskeyX
Wolfe has been watching too many movies and TV shows.
20
posted on
08/20/2014 12:28:36 PM PDT
by
Rummyfan
(Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson