They don’t shoot to wound even when they are more than capable of doing so? That seems to be extreme either/or thinking, and limits them to thinking merely on an emotional level in the heat of the moment. Not good.
Capable? Most police are not that accurate on the range much less the field. Even the ones that are can miss in a highly charged situation. You can train all day for a high stress shooting but until you are in one you have no idea how you will react or be able to control your weapon. They are taught from day one to shoot center mass since that is the largest target and has a better chance of stopping the threat. Head shots are a fool’s errand with a pistol at more than 3-5 feet in a high stress situation. Shooting at legs, arms, hands, feet not only runs the risk of a miss, but also ricochets and the miss that travels down range.
Problem is one loses fine motor control in such extreme-stress situations; that, plus everyone moving, makes it extremely hard to “shoot to wound” as a deliberate intentional action. Few are “more than capable of shooting to wound [as an assured outcome]”; those who are understand that it’s a stupid course of action under the circumstances warranting it.
If you’re shooting, it’s because someone is going to DIE if you don’t; your goal is to STOP the attack, which means striking either the largest target (torso) or something instantly incapacitating (head).
If your focus is on “shoot to wound”, then you don’t believe that lethal force is necessary, and you shouldn’t be shooting them at all. Shooting someone is using LETHAL force. “Shoot to wound” involves doing things which may very well kill someone. “Just shoot ‘em in the leg” - well, you hit the femoral artery and he’s dead from extreme & rapid blood loss. Don’t shoot someone if killing them is not an acceptable consequence.
In the Ferguson case, the cop wounded the perp FOUR TIMES - yet said perp kept coming to resume an already gravely harmful assault. “Shoot to wound” is wishful thinking by the naive: if you have the luxury of doing it, shooting at all is not warranted; it’s called “lethal force” for a reason, don’t be surprised if a “wounding” shot turns out lethal. The goal is to STOP the attack, which requires doing what may very well be lethal; if you’re trying to “wound”, then you don’t believe the threat is dangerous enough to warrant lethal force and thus are not justified in the action.
It’s not about “emotional thinking”. It’s about human limits of precision in combat, and about whether such dangerous actions are warranted. “Shoot to wound” means you believe you’re not in _that_ much danger; not good.
To preserve their lives it's the best policy. In this case the guy showed a knife. How do they know that he doesn't have a gun in his waistband? So they shoot his leg...and the guy then draws his gun. He's already proven he's willing to stab.
If it is not a life or death situation, a shot should not be taken.
If it is life or death, the shot should have the highest likelihood of ending the confrontation, center mass, multiple hits.
Nobody is good enough to count on a disabling shot in the heat of battle. If there is a disabling shot, it was a mistake. If they hit a leg, they have missed their point of aim by a couple of feet. If they shoot at the leg with that kind of accuracy, they are going to miss and possibly die. We expect a lot from law enforcement, we shouldn’t expect them to die to appease your sense of moral outrage.
Looking at the shooting diagram, it looks like the officer missed his target 6 times, he was trained to hit center mass. Based on the outcome, he was not capable of making in intentional wounding shot.
“They don’t shoot to wound even when they are more than capable of doing so? “
Probably because that only works in movies, television, and the fantasy world of your imagination.
The impression I get from your posts is that you’ve never fired a handgun at a stationary target much less one that is moving around.