Skip to comments.CNN Wolf Blitzer: Why Don’t Cops “Shoot to Wound?”
Posted on 08/18/2014 6:51:44 AM PDT by KeyLargo
CNN Wolf Blitzer: Why Dont Cops Shoot to Wound? By Robert Farago on August 17, 2014
On Thursday, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer asked guest [lawyer] Jeffrey Toobin why police werent instructed to shoot to injure, instead of kill,
talkingpointsmemo.com reports. Blitzers questions arose during a discussion on the unfurling conflict in Ferguson, Mo. over the fatal police shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown. They often shoot to kill, Blitzer said of police. Why do they have to shoot to kill? Why cant they shoot a warning shot in the air, scare someone off if they think theyre in danger. Why cant they shoot to, injure, shall we say? Why do they have to shoot to kill? [Click here to watch the clip] TTAG reader F reckons Blitzers ignorance . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at thetruthaboutguns.com ...
The rationale behind this, according to Toobin, is that if law enforcement is taught to fire warning shots or to shoot to injure instead of kill, people will be shot too often.
Uh, hello? Cops like all civilians shoot to stop a lethal threat. NOT KILL. Click here for Mike McDaniels most excellent article on the importance of that concept. Jeez."
If you have luxury to wound then you have other options and should not be shooting.
Wolf is a moron.
There were quite a few shots fired before the fatal shots. If a warning shot would have stopped him, he would have stopped.
Leaves the possibility of wounding a wild animal and nothing is worse that a nutso wild animal.
Wolf is a moron.
Why don’t the cops just set their guns to “stune”?
Blitzer is showing once again that he has no idea what he is talking about.
Sort of hard to do when someone is pounding your head into the pavement or someone is wrestling to get your gun that’s size of most linemen in the NFL. I suggest the idiot who write this nonsense be placed in similar situations themselves THEN write the article. It would be written with more authority that way...
Obligatory Jeopardy Pic.
Shoot to wound, and then standby for the scum bag lawyers to line up to sue for loss of whatever, and etc. Jeez!
According to the latest autopsy, the officer hit brown 4 times in the arm and he kept charging.
Shooting to wound
Why shooting to wound doesn’t make sense scientifically, legally or tactically
Force Science re-states its case in light of recent “no-kill bill” proposal
A special report from the Force Science Institute
Do police officers really have to kill people when they shoot them? Couldn’t they be more humane and just aim for arms or legs?
As reported in Force Science News, New York state Senator David Paterson [D.-Harlem] pondered those questions in 2006 and concluded that officers were needlessly killing suspects. In response, he introduced legislation that would require officers to try to shoot offenders’ limbs instead of targeting locations that would more likely stop the threat but could also result in death. Paterson proposed that any officer who employed more than the minimum force necessary to stop a life-threatening suspect be charged with felony manslaughter. Law enforcement exploded in protest and Paterson withdrew the bill.
But the battle isn’t over.
The New York Post has just reported that Brooklyn Assembly Members Annette Robinson [D.-Bedford Stuyvesant] and Darryl Towns [D.-East New York] have introduced a “minimum force” bill that would require officers to “shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg” and to use firearms “with the intent to stop, rather than kill.”
“When I encounter civilian response to officer-involved shootings, it’s very often ‘Why didn’t they just shoot him in the leg?’” Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute, told Force Science News in a 2006 interview centered on Paterson’s proposed legislation. “When civilians judge police shooting deaths-on juries, on review boards, in the media, in the community-this same argument is often brought forward. Shooting to wound is naively regarded as a reasonable means of stopping dangerous behavior.
“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. It reflects a misconception of real-life dynamics and ends up imposing unrealistic expectations of skill on real-life officers.”
Vice President Joe Biden agrees. When Michael Paladino, president of New York’s Detectives Endowment Association, showed him the bill he reportedly scoffed and suggested that it be called the “John Wayne Bill” because of the unrealistic, movie-like sharpshooting skills it demands of officers.
In light of this resurfacing of misguided “shoot-to-wound” thinking, Force Science News is reissuing a “position paper,” originally introduced following Paterson’s ‘06 proposed legislation, that discusses why shooting to wound versus shooting to stop is neither practical nor desirable as a performance standard. We hope this information proves useful to you in addressing any shoot-to-wound advocacy that may arise in your jurisdiction.
Read all at: http://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound
Better to set the beebers to stun.
Best reply yet.
An analogous question: how many MLB pitchers only throw no-hitters?
Blitzer should take a break from watching Hollywood movies and go out to a range sometime.
Jeez. I remember an argument with medical school classmate when a teen was shot pointing a realistic replica at a cop. “ why didn’t he shoot the gun out of his hand?” Of course. That’s what they do on TV all the time. School smarts does not equal intelligence....
I guess when Wolf watches “24” and sees Jack Bauer hit his target precisely every shot, he thinks it is real life.
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.