Why Don't Police Shoot to Wound?

FindLaw Blotter ^ | August 19, 2014 8:06 AM | Brett Snider, Esq.

[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:

[Chode]

damn straight

[Molon Labbie]

The police are trained to shoot to stop the threat. Death is sometimes an unfortunate result. Most people survive being shot by the police.

If the the police were really trying to shoot to kill all the time as some suggest, then they would be carrying weapons like M-14s.

Not to mention that police usually start first aid on the people they shoot once they secure them.

[batterycommander]

I suppose that the cops could be issued .22 cal. pistols for their service pistols. Maybe they won’t kill so many dogs.

[DoughtyOne]

The gun is not used unless the life of the officer or the life of another person is in danger. It is therefore not fired unless deadly force is reasoned. You never fire to wound. If the person is a threat, he or she is armed. A wounding shot to the leg or arm would allow them to get off a shot. That shot could end someone’s life. If they have a weapon other than a gun, the same rule applies.

As for being accurate, police departments demand their officers go to the range and accomplish certain minimal scores to remain active on the force.

If I’m a police officer, I don’t want another officer being on the street with me, that would not be able to stop someone trying to kill me. My life depends on their ability to shoot accurately. Their life would depend on me being able to shoot accurately.

[noinfringers2]

I have yet to read what caliber of weapon the officer was using and fighting over. That there were no exit wounds pictured for the back leads me to thinking the officer might have been using a low power cartridge. I have 387mags and 44mags that are intended for field hunting/use for serious big game. I would never think of field hunting for big game ,man or beast, going up to 300 lbs. with something like a 38 sp.

[familyop]

"My point being bullets do crazy things once they enter a body."

Yes, especially with rifle rounds going fast. Notice at greater distances and lower velocities, rifle bullets with much sectional density tend more often to blow on through. Some of the newer pistol and revolver loads will also behave a little more inconsistently as differentiated from the old flat nosed solids.

[familyop]

"A wounding shot to the leg or arm would allow them to get off a shot."

What about rapidly delivered pelvic wounds at close range in the dark?

"As for being accurate, police departments demand their officers go to the range and accomplish certain minimal scores to remain active on the force."

Yes, with minimal variety of conditions in training and minimal time spent, too, and on nice days--Saturdays for some.

[familyop]

Did I perhaps see you on such a range on a Saturday in a dirty, little city, long ago? If so, there were only two of us who could put most of the 50 rounds in an area about the size of a coffee cup on the target. The range was insufficient, and so was the training.

[Smokin' Joe]

Right. He was seeing double, and shooting the ‘wrong’ one, with both eyes open. As the perp closed the distance, the images resolved, and the shots got closer to the actual center of mass. The final shots were closest to the midline because the perp had closed the distance.

[DoughtyOne]

Yep, there’s no better model citizen than one that has been maimed on purpose by a law enforcement officer. Why they would never seek out massive revenge...

LOL

Seriously?

[DoughtyOne]

I don’t believe so. Perhaps you can refresh my memory.

[familyop]

"LOL

Seriously?"

At very close range, the telegraph can only be seen in the eyes of the attacker. A defender has less than 2/5 of a second, and there's no time to go into a slob stance and aim.

[familyop]

I’m only referring to an armed attacker about to pull a weapon that’s already spotted, BTW.

[Delta Dawn]

old but...relevant

[DoughtyOne]

Officers are taught never to fire at a suspect unless their life or the life of someone else is on the line.

If someone’s life is on the line, do you shoot to wound? No, you shoot for the largest portion of the body, hope to make contact and take the person out before they do kill someone.

Honestly, you never shoot to wound. It goes against the number one rule. You don’t shoot unless a life is on the line, and if you are shooting you’re trying to kill.

Not trying to be overly antagonistic, but you never shoot to wound. If that’s all you wanted to do, you would refrain from shooting at all.

[DoughtyOne]

I wouldn’t shoot a guy going for a weapon. Once he had it in his hand though, all bets are off. At that point he’s made the wrong choices, and it’s time to end it.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Isn’t that the way Roy Rogers did it?

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Warning shot? He gave the son of a bitch five warning shots to the arm, it took one in the coconut to stop him.

[Kackikat]

The six shots were at least four in the arm, so how many warnings did the big guy need that it’s game over.

[Captain Peter Blood]

My guess is that when the Toxicology reports come back it will be found that in addition to the Pot in Brown’s system they will also find PCP which would explain a lit about that shooting.