Why Don't Police Shoot to Wound?

FindLaw Blotter ^ | August 19, 2014 8:06 AM | Brett Snider, Esq.

[WhiskeyX]

Police are often harshly criticized for their lethal use of firearms, giving many reason to wonder: Why don't police shoot to wound? That was CNN's Wolf Blitzer's question to legal scholar Jeffrey Toobin when discussing the shooting death of Ferguson, Missouri, teenager Michael Brown. "Why can't they shoot a warning shot?... Why can't they shoot to injure?" Blitzer queried.

To answer Blitzer's (and your) questions, here's a general overview of why police don't shoot to wound:

[Carriage Hill]

Great series; I have all 8 DVDs.

http://www.amazon.com/Jesse-Stone-Dvd-Mystery-Series/lm/R3V83RPQFWXX62

[xrmusn]

The LibQuestiion asker(s) haveseen too many Hollywood movies/TV Shows
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
You mean that wasn’t real?

I suppose you are also going to tell me that when the “Good Guy” (Know he was the good guy because he had the White Hat and Palomino) was riding through the canyon and the bad guys on both sides firing their Winchesters at him AND MISSING while he was picking off 18-20 of them ON THE RIDGE, with his trusty 6(SIX) shooter didn’t really happen?

I guess Superman couldn’t fly and Barney Fife only had one bullet. In his pocket?

[SgtHooper]

Not necessarily. If there is a break in the action, maybe so. The shooter needs to know or believe the threat is over. If he stops shooting and has a cup of coffee before finishing off the criminal, yes, could be trouble.

[jwalsh07]

Because real life is not a Sylvester Stallone movie?

[SandRat]

We were taught to shoot center of mass. Trying to be like the Lone Ranger or Roy Rogers and to shot to wound will get you nothing but permanent seating at your own Funeral.

[billhilly]

Having shot all manner of firearms regularly since childhood, I lost my dominant eye to retinal detachment when in my sixties. I can assure anyone who wants to listen that you cannot learn to shoot from your non dominant eye in two or three seconds. If the officer who shot Wilson had indeed had his eye injured so badly that the bones around his eye were crushed by the earlier punch by “"Big Mike"” he would have been pointing and shooting and not aiming. That alone should account for the random displacement of the bullets he fired. Add the ferocity of the charge and you can only imagine how fortunate the officer was to get off a round that stopped the charge.

[Chewbarkah]

Blitzer should be ashamed to pander to idiots, but I guess he knows his audience. As punishment, he needs to present this hypothetical question on his next program:

A 300 pound machete-swinging maniac is 2 seconds away from your 2 year-old child, screaming about his intent to kill the child, then you. You have a small caliber handgun. Would you,
1) Fire a warning shot and wait for a reaction?
2) Take time for an aimed shot at a moving extremity, hope it lands (good luck), hope the juiced up maniac felt it instantaneously (unlikely), and rationally reconsiders, all before 2 seconds are up?
3) Fire every available round at the maniac’s center-of-mass until he/she was down or dead?

[ctdonath2]

Quite. My concern is the sentiment can easily lead to “finish him!”

[Bitsy]

Problem is if you keep shooting after the threat has ceased.

That would be the problem. i would be so freaked I would shoot until all bullets were gone then I would be arrested for murder in this perfect world.

[jagusafr]

Joe Pags on WOAI yesterday afternoon was giving a retired LEO a ration for saying, “We’re trained to shoot to stop the threat, not to shoot to kill”. Pags was hard over that every LEO he’s ever talked to said they’re trained to shoot to kill. He apparently didn’t get that, although it might amount to the same thing (center mass), when the bad guy goes goes down and the threat’s ended, “shoot to kill” means you go over and pop him in the head. That’s murder. C’mon, Joe, you’re BETTER than that!

[Okieshooter]

The officer had already wounded Brown, yet he continued to charge. Enough said.

[Hugin]

“pulling the revolver is a last resort.”

LOL. You’re giving away your age. I don’t remember the last time I saw a revolver on a cop’s belt, but I think it was right next to his pager.

[txrefugee]

Officer Wilson did a superb job considering he only had one working eye.

[ScottinVA]

Ha! Well done!

[BerryDingle]

Oh no, don't do that, don't do that. If you shoot him, you'll just make him mad.

[edpc]

Because they’ll just fall in the pool and drown anyway. Just ask Roger Murtaugh.

[familyop]

There are a very few squeaky clean cops here and there—real goody-two-shoes, “lone rangers,” some of them working for the fed, others not—who fire as everyone else does with groups on ranges but more accurately. Outside of that, those few do make sure that they can hit attackers in other, less conventional but very effective places very quickly and consistently, day or night. Everyone should strive for moral impeccability in relations with others. It’s best in the long run.

[OldMissileer]

And possibly jerking the gun in a high stress situation.

Or he had too much trigger finger on the trigger.

During all my training over the years the instructors would always teach that if you have more than the first pad of your finger on the trigger then when you pull the extra muscle force draws the weapon down and to the left (if you are right handed).

The arm hits on Brown coincide to that theory as the arm wounds went from bottom to head (my supposition from my training) as Brown got closer to the cop. As the target got closer and larger Wilson adjusted his aim up to keep with where the center mass was located in his sight picture.

[familyop]

Here’s another little known fact. Most people on most ranges do a whole lot of aiming and can’t hit worth a darn.

[OldMissileer]

Here’s another little known fact. Most people on most ranges do a whole lot of aiming and can’t hit worth a darn.

Way too many cops only fire their weapons for qualification and do not even try to do so on their own to make themselves truly proficient.