Why do cops shoot to kill? (1 Viewer)

You know, I'm sitting here watching the news while on my desktop.

Again, another story about someone lunging at a cop with a weapon
and the cop shooting the person dead.

These stories have plagued the news for the past several months. To
avoid turning this thread into something I don't want it to be, I am not
going to cite specific examples or names of victims.

I am just curious....

Why is it necessary for a cop to kill someone brandishing a weapon?

Wouldn't it be just as effective for a police offer to shoot the person
in the leg to take that individual down?

And, I ask this innocently without really understanding how effective
that kind of take-down would be.

Simply, I am wondering if there are better means of preventing these
needless deaths where we discover -- after the fact -- that individuals
were needlessly killed because of knee-jerk reactions (or otherwise).

In today's world, police officers are trained to discharge their weapons in a manner in which they deliver "kill shots" to the body. Center mass and up.

Take a look at this:-

http://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound

What Robert said. And I'm sorry Ron but this thread can't turn out well. Too many differing opinions in a very volatile subject imo. Hope I'm wrong.

Very good article.

I would say the best way to prevent these would be to obey the law and if a police officers asks you to do something, do it. If they're in the wrong, you can sue later. But that is probably too old-fashioned.

I have a concealed handgun license and have taken classes to qualify for it. We were not taught to 'shoot to kill', but to simply 'stop the attack'. However, it is difficult to keep a cool head and take careful aim in a situation where adrenaline is pumping through your body.

I don't know that they're shooting to kill as much as they're aiming at the biggest target and that part of a body has the majority of vital organs.

Above linked article states

In reality, this thinking is a result of 'training by Hollywood,' in which movie and TV cops are able to do anything to control the outcomes of events that serve the director's dramatic interests.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately "Hollywood" is in the business of producing entertaining fantasies. Too often in "action" films the "hero" can drop the perp with a one handed shot at 100 yards. This is pure fantasy. It's difficult enough at a range to have 25 yard accuracy with a two handed grip.

This mirrors another problem with films - people who "learn history" just from watching films may end up with an erroneous understanding of history. Even great films such as Gone With The Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, and Patton took great liberties with the historical facts to further the director's artistic purpose.

I have been told by police officers that if a situation arises that requires them to discharge their weapon at someone they are trained to shoot to kill or basically do enough damage to immediately end the incident. Shooting to kill is encouraged. The idea being that if there is a person with a weapon that they have determined intends to do harm with it they stop this as rapidly as possible. If you consider the likely state of mind of somebody "brandishing a weapon" in front of an armed police officer they are just begging to be shot.

Police will quickly point out that it is not like in the movies where the hero cop can pull off an amazing shot and shoot the bad guy in the hand or arm or leg. These situations escalate quickly and it is not easy to hit a moving target and if you are aiming for an arm or leg...that is going to be a tough shot to make and your chances of hitting the target are greatly reduced. I think people can imagine that in real life with your adrenaline pumping it is not going to be an easy thing to shoot another human being.

Sadly due to the activity police officers encounter on a daily basis some encounters are going to end badly and this will happen on a regular basis. With the now 24/7/365 news cycle we live in and the abundance of cameras pointing in any and every direction these days it just goes with the territory that we are going to see a lot of these now.

All that being said the most baffling of these incidents I have seen did not get much press coverage and involved police officers raining bullets at an unarmed grandmother in her car when she was stopped on a suburban street. The story of Wendy Lawrence being gunned down in Manchester New Hampshire last October did not get much coverage and pretty much no follow-up coverage of the investigation into what happened. Immediately following the incident the police began to lie about what had happened claiming she had rammed one of their cars but this was quickly shown to be false when photos of the scene showed none of the cars had been damaged in any way and witnesses claimed no such thing had occurred. Other police officers I spoke to were troubled by this shooting and the reaction to quickly create a story to cover it up.

I think we all would like to have a sense of justice when these things happen but I think the justice system views the judgement of a police officer in a different way than that of a regular citizen.

This article may also prove interesting:

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20141207/NEWS03/141209287

TravisR said:

I don't know that they're shooting to kill as much as they're aiming at the biggest target and that part of a body has the majority of vital organs.

Click to expand...

They are taught stop the threat by shooting towards the biggest mass which isn't an arm nor leg. IMO, that's a "kill shot".

I put disobeying/confronting/being aggressive towards a police officer in the same category that I would a person breaking into my house at night.....they have made a decision and will have to deal with the consequences of that decision, whatever that may be.

I'm just glad more of these dead beat thugs are no longer walking this earth. I say keep "shooting to kill" cops..the more of these dead beats taking a dirt nap the better.

Well, I'd say we answered the original question.

This thread is heading for closure.

Robert Crawford said:

This thread is heading for closure.

Click to expand...

Can we put Ron in timeout for opening a political thread on his own forum?

Scott Merryfield said:

Can we put Ron in timeout for opening a political thread on his own forum?

Click to expand...

You could....

But the thread was not intended to be political and even hinted the direction
that it should not go in.

Now, if members can behave themselves, we can keep this thread open if we
stick to the topic matter rather than citing particular incidents.

Crawdaddy is watching and I don't mind him closing this thread if it continues
down the wrong road.

I would say that people watch too many movies but that would go against the grain on a forum devoted to movies. Point is, "leg shots" on a moving target, as seen in movies and TV (Person of Interest), in a stressful situation are nearly impossible. Add to that the possibility that the "perp" may be jacked up on drugs. A leg shot, unless it breaks a bone, is only going to make him mad.

I doubt any cop gets up in the morning thinking, "Man, I hope I get in a situation today where I can kill me a dirtbag." Nobody in their right mind "wants" to kill somebody, but sometimes it can't be avoided.

Don't put yourself in a situation where you're likely to get shot and chances are you won't be.

No matter where or how many times you shoot someone it's considered deadly force. Deadly force should only be used when killing the suspect is legally justified.Police officers are trained to take down combative subjects with their bare hands, and do it all the time. If it's a situation where the officer is trying to slow the suspect down or get their attention then they shouldn't be using deadly force at all.

Ron Perhaps this part of your original post may be interpreted a number of ways leading to arguments. "needless deaths where we discover -- after the fact -- that individualswere needlessly killed because of knee-jerk reactions (or otherwise)."Just sayin...