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.
End result will be like many other places.
The police will be put under fed supervision.
They will then pretend to police like they do in Chicago
and many other places. Black on black crime will increase and the body count will continue to rise.
He needs to go back to looking for the missing plane - it’s more beneficial to his mental abilities....
This from the CNN mega-brain who posted a record low total on Jeopardy. NEGATIVE
You mean like The Waco Kid?
You fire two to center mass (Rule #2: Double Tap) of the first target so as to "warn" his compatriots to either surrender or seek entertainment elsewhere.
Has the Blitzed Wolf ever actually discharged any type of firearm?
Has the Blitzed Wolf ever even HELD in his hand any type of firearm?
Because it would allow instigators like Blitzer to start riots.
Pray America wakes up
Why shooting to wound doesn’t make sense, Part 2
Part 2 of a 2-part Force Science News series
In Part 1 of this special series, the Force Science Research Center explored legislation proposed, and ultimately recalled, by a NYS Senator that would have required officers to shoot to wound and the practical reason why this idea doesnt make sense.
In Part 2, we share the legal and tactical problems with the shoot to wound concept:
A shoot-to-wound mandate would not be valid legally because it sets a standard far beyond that established by Graham v. Connor, the benchmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on police use of force, says former prosecutor Jeff Chudwin, now chief of the Olympia Fields (IL) PD and president of the Illinois Tactical Officers Assn.
Recognizing that violent encounters are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving, the Court does not require officers to use the least intrusive method of forcefully controlling a threatening suspect, but only whats reasonable, Chudwin explains. When an officers life or that of a third party appears in jeopardy, shooting can be justified as reasonable.
For anyone who thinks its their job to tell us what to think, most journalists are surprisingly ignorant.
I think Blitzer KNOWS EXACTLY what he is talking
about- another Lib media person throwing
gasoline on the fire-
What he is inferring: the Police could have done a better
Job WARNING St. Michael- Because there was not a Warning
Shot- they are racist
Dead Men Tell No Tales
Fire a warning shot in the air, Wolf? Really?
What goes up must come down. The bullet will fall back to earth somewhere, perhaps killing an innocent person if the bullet hits at the right spot to do so.
When an assailant charges you and starts pummeling you at close range, how do you get a good shot at the assailant’s arms or legs? Wouldn’t you be using your arms to protect yourself and trying to push the assailant away?
To get a clear shot at arms or legs, wouldn’t you have to shoot while the assailant was some distance from you? And if the assailant was some distance from you, then wouldn’t you have to show restraint because you aren’t in imminent danger?
Good one. Coffee stains obligatory.
Another example of the fantasy world that liberals inhabit and the delusions that comfort them.
Hmmmm .... just protecting the interests of their constituency? A "workplace safety" bill for robbers, rapists, and murderers?
As a 12 year old, having watched too many police dramas on tv, I asked that question in a Q & A session after a tour of the FBI building in Washington DC. The agent responded “we aim for the largest target which is the torso. It’s not our fault that’s where most of the vital organs are.” That drew a laugh from the audience.
Why don’t news reporters report to report?
They do shoot to wound, that’s what happens when you get shot. You get wounded.
Not everybody survived their wounds.
I want to see the toxicology report.
Was this dude high on something?
During the infamous Rodney King beating, we learned that King was high on drugs. That’s why he couldn’t be subdued with lesser means of apprehending a suspect.
Could this Brown dude have been high, was shot, but kept charging the officer?
There is an untold story to this whole incident. The liberals and race baiters wanted this to be all about racism, and how cops shoot innocent young black men for no reason.
Clearly there is a lot more to this story than that. We’ll see how this plays out. As more information comes out, this incident becomes far more complex than a racist cop shooting an innocent young black man.
They don’t want to report, they want to “Change the World.”
If someone is charging at or attacking an armed, uniformed Police Officer, then trust me, that person is not planning on only “harming” or “warning” that officer! The person attacking that Police Officer is planning to KILL the cop with EXTREME PREJUDICE, so as to better their chances of getting away!
So, Wolf wants to know what cops have to shoot to kill, those who plan on killing them?!?
I mean, really, even a leftist idiot like Wolf isn’t actually asking this stupid of a question - is he?!?!
John Wayne Shootout clip 19488
I guess it never occurred to him that a warning shot fired into the air has to eventually come down someplace.
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.