Are police trained to shoot to kill or not at all?
Wouldn't it be better if instead of killing someone, they just wounded them such that their life would be absolute shit?
Or do they just blindly fire?
Also why do people get so riled up about the Constitution? When it says right to bear arms, it doesn't mention ammo? So just make lethal ammo harder to get.
It's a lot harder to hit "nonlethal" locations than just shoot center of mass, especially in a situation where both you and the target are likely moving and you're stressed out. Plus due to the concentration of arteries in your arms and legs and elsewhere even if you hit a limb there's a good chance you've killed them anyway. There's also a legal dilemma, if you were in such little danger that you had the time and freedom to NOT shoot to kill, why were you discharging a lethal weapon at them in the first place?
Literally nobody is trained to shoot to maim.
They're not even trained not to mag-dump.
Once shots are fired it's on, expect to be shot at to kill you.
All firearms training is shoot to kill. Anything else and a firearm is excessive force. Also, wounded assailants kill a lot of people, and sue a lot of people.
Confirmed for never having shot a gun. Go draw a person on a piece of paper, then shoot at it with a handgun while running and try to just hit the arm or something. Also, bullets that get stopped by the bad guy don't hit innocent people.
there is no "moderate" gun use or "shoot to maim". Once you're shooting you're trying to kill or destroy whatever your target is. You can't presume a shot will be non-lethal unless you have non-lethal rounds loaded.
Anybody that claims "shoot to maim" has never fucking shot a gun before.
>t. fucking leaf who's never fired a gun
Police officers are trained to shoot the torso because it's the largest surface area thus the easiest to hit. Try hitting a moving target in the leg with a pistol, leaf. If there is lethal danger, it will be met with lethal force. Someone who's been shot in the arm or leg is still a danger, especially if drugs are involved.
Shooting is only permitted as lethal force to meet force which is perceived as an immediate threat to the officer's life or the life of another. The officer is shooting to stop that threat, not to kill or injure.
This is why you commonly hear "Stop the threat" not "Kill the threat" in lethal force scenario modules for police and armed security.
My best friend is a city cop, they shoot to end the threat not maim. However many rounds that takes.
Shooting to maim undermines the very reason for shooting.
Shooting to main is considered torture and cruel. Don't be a fucking retard and give a cop a reason to pull their gun on you, let alone pull the trigger, and you'll be fine.
Guns have changed drastically since the constitution was written. Nevertheless, the purpose of civil guns has remained the same.
Thanks for the answers ameribros and Aussie, I figured it would come down to accuracy being an issue.
And btw I have used firearms before, but only a few times hunting.
I just wasn't sure how intensely officers are trained for firearm use in motion.
Maybe it's just me, but I figure in a scenario where someone is being shot at, I'd prefer they be shot in a non vital area. I'd prefer a criminal be maimed horrifically and be paralysed for the rest of their life than die. That's just an aside though.
>So just make lethal ammo harder to get
All ammo is lethal you sped
Imagine Al Sharpton's reaction to a deliberate maiming, OP. Take all the time you need to see how cosmically awful your idea is.
You clearly have no idea about how firearms function and have never been in a fight in your life.
Here's a redpill for you:
You have less than a second to react to a threat when it's presented to you. If you decide that your life is in danger or that you have to act to save someone else's, then you are within your rights to fire your weapon.
When you aim, you ALWAYS aim for center of mass. That doesn't mean center of someone's chest or whatever. It means that you fire at the center of the visible part of your target!
No one has time to try and find a specific spot on some dude to hit. It's retarded of you to even imply that anyone has time for that.
I'll tell you what.. Next time you see a CCTV video of some criminal attacking a police officer or whatever, imagine for a second that you are that police officer and that you have to figure shit out before that guy murders you.
It's easy to have all the answers after the fact, but you can't act like you know it all when you're in the middle of some serious shit.
Fuck canada
Cops shoot to kill and only fire at center mass
If you need to "shoot to maim", then your safety is not in danger and you should not be firing at all
There is not a single training program in the entire world in any capacity that trains to wound with a firearm, and any suggestion that there should be one is completely fucking retarded
Yes, me like nearly everyone who does not use arms in their profession is not familiar with said scenario.
I can understand that a normal person would aim for the largest part of a body, since it's easiest to hit.
Fucking leaf, i'm surprised so many people answered your retarded question
Pro-gun and pro-cop, but have a question.
Out of general interest, why don't the police use more powerful beanbag guns that can knock a person the fuck back like a fire-hose would instead of shooting them with penetrating bullets?
Alright, so you've (the thread) explained why it's impractical. I totally get it.
Is that the only reason many people thinks it's not right? Or do people generally think that given the choice between maiming and killing, killing is better? (Scenario implies the arms user is skilled enough)
I'm not a law enforcement officer. I am a civilian shooter. Your argument is invalid.
I'll give you cred for your curiosity, though. Most people would simply assume some shit is correct, but you had the balls to ask instead.
You misunderstand how the world functions. If there is a choice between maiming and killing, then you don't fire the gun in the first place. That's the whole point. You fire the gun to protect life - your own or someone else's.
It's not a matter of how "skilled" someone is. Once adrenaline starts pumping you can wave goodbye to any skills you thought you had while at the shooting range under calm circumstances. Your fight or flight reflexes kick in and you can only pray that your training has been good enough to keep you alive for the next few seconds, and that the other guy is a poor shot.
In short; if given a choice between maiming and killing, you'd be dead, so that choice wouldn't matter.
Sorry, didn't mean to imply argument.
Not wanting to be an ass but I did say "nearly everyone", so you'd would fall under that. Then again it's probably less that nearly everyone.
Oh who am I kidding I love to argue.
Again, thanks everyone.
They're only trained to empty their clip. Much easier to train than actually aiming the damn thing.
>clip
This isn't Call of Duty, son. Know the difference.
Thanks for the response, this was pretty much explained by everyone.
In that post however, I was curious whether given the choice between someone being shot and killed or shot and maimed, which would you prefer? (a hypothetical)
I should have explained better. Thanks though.
Wouldn't it also go against cruel and unusual punishments?
No it's legally precarious to shoot to maim. The victim is either posing a lethal threat and you shoot, and it's justifiable, or he is not and you don't shoot. Of course what is justifiable is for deliberation
what's a good .22lr pistol? i wanna get one to put a suppressor and red dot sight on
Had a cop tell me once, "If you gave shoot someone, then make sure they aren't around to tell their side of the story." Not sure of the legal consequences but who's going to argue?
You are not supposed to point your firearm at anyone unless it is with intent to kill.
took mandatory safety course in canuckland to get guns for fun-time shooting
>guys at the end of the course still call a magazine a "clip"
I blame the media
Niggers