NY bill would require cops to "shoot to wound"

Sigh...what a complete bunch of stupidity! What do these people think the cops are, snipers? Center mass is what they're taught to shoot at, right? If so, its because its the largest target. And this is on someone who is most likely going to be moving.

Compare this to a sniper, who is making a precision shot, who is setting himself up for that 1 shot, 1 kill.

This is a failure in the making, IMO.
 
Stupid, stupid, stupid bill. This will get officers killed sooner or later and isn't going to save anyone.
 
We just had an off duty cop shot and killed here in a robbery attempt, and his father, a retired cop, shot and killed one of the perps... thats exactly what the mother of the perp got on TV and cried about... "he was a trained po-liceman he should have been able to shot him in the butt, he didnt have to kill him!"

Yes, I'm serious.

****ing stupid bull ****.
 
Heres a thought...when the badguys are shooting at the cops, are they a) shooting to kill them or b) shooting to wound them? Hmm....shouldn't take much thought to figure out that its A. So, why oh why oh why, do people honestly think that the badguys life is a higher value than the officer?

Thats ok though...I heard some pretty stupid comments, regarding an incident that happened where I work, this past Monday. Someone actually wondered why the cops dont carry tranqualizer (sp) guns so they can disable a suspect, rather than a taser or gun. Amazing, simply amazing.
 
Taking the decision making out of the hands of the street cop as to what is justified makes for indecisiveness. Once you take away center mass to concentrate on smaller targets, will cause stray shots and jeopardize other people. Not the smartest bill, thought up by idiots.
 
I'll cite an example of an actual event here in my home city.

A young guy was surrounded by 5 cops. He was told to get down and did not. He reached into his pocket and was shot dead (what he was reaching for is irrelevant to my point, you're free to assume it was a weapon).

So, in that situation, couldn't cops immobilize him without killing him? I would think so. He wasn't shooting at anyone, and didn't clearly have a weapon in his hands.

I'm being devil's advocate, but in this discussion should be examples like the one above where the vast majority of the public can't understand why they had to kill the kid and not attempt to shoot to wound.
 
IMO, I think alot of the time, the vast majority of the public just doesnt understand, because they have no clue what being a LEO entails. Just like the vast majority of non martial artists, have no clue about the arts, they think the UFC is equivilant to a cock fight, and think the arts in general are brutal.

People see Chuck Norris, Walker, Texas Ranger, shoot a gun out of someones hand, shoot someone in the leg, etc., and assume that everyone can do that, forgetting its a tv show.

In the story you mentioned, the guys actions gave a resonable impression that he was reaching for something. I'm not a cop, but I dont think that they're going to wait, anymore than we, as martial artsist should wait, if we saw someone drawing their hand back, to think they may not hit us.

Would it be possible for them to use a taser? I'd bet anything, that that question came up.
 
JDenver said:
So, in that situation, couldn't cops immobilize him without killing him? I would think so. He wasn't shooting at anyone, and didn't clearly have a weapon in his hands.
Click to expand...

Probably not and here's why. Lets assume that the guy DID have a gun, and his intention was to kill a cop or a civilian standing by... He goes for his gun, cop shoots him in the Butt/Leg whatever... he screams in pain as he continues to draw his weapon and fire.

Even people who are shot fatally often continue to fight until they collapse. Its ridiculous to assume if you wound someone that means you win and they lose.
 
In a situation I can see a rule being enforced to where shooting should be to wound, and I see a situation where it doesnt matter where the bullet hits but that it hits to save the officers lives. I am not an expert at laws, but I imagine the shoot to wound is a word of mouth agreement among officers when they arent "sure" of the situation, but its not supported by a law, now it is.

There has been situations where numerous gunshots were fired wrecklessly at people who werent armed. Its not like any bill or law doesnt have something to back it.
 
KenpoTex said:
The utter stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze me...

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/local_news/nyc/cops-blast-no-kill-legislation-20100525

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/cops_furious_at_don_kill_bill_SkSRn51FKIeHqY85ZHJSYI?sms_ss=email
Click to expand...


My dad was a cop. So is my best friend's dad. Do the law makers even care what the officers families think? My dad dying for a reason like that.... I would lose it. Grief is bad enough but to make it over something senseless like that.
Really? I can't even imagine the amount of anger their families would have were to come to that.
 
JDenver said:
I'll cite an example of an actual event here in my home city.

A young guy was surrounded by 5 cops. He was told to get down and did not. He reached into his pocket and was shot dead (what he was reaching for is irrelevant to my point, you're free to assume it was a weapon).

So, in that situation, couldn't cops immobilize him without killing him? I would think so. He wasn't shooting at anyone, and didn't clearly have a weapon in his hands.

I'm being devil's advocate, but in this discussion should be examples like the one above where the vast majority of the public can't understand why they had to kill the kid and not attempt to shoot to wound.
Click to expand...

Thats what the tazer guns are for.
 
Hi ho Silver! The Lone Ranger says, “I will shoot the gun out of their hand and never mind those pesky citizens behind the bad guy, I use silver bullets so they don’t get lead poisoning! “

Marshal Dillon, “Kitty, it’s just a scratch, but will you pick up that piece of shoulder blade bone of mine off the floor?”

For the life of me I just don’t understand liberals who think you can just wound. I had one ask just why cops can’t shoot those guns out of the bad guys hands!

Let’s make it simple.

a) Handguns are weak in power. To shoot to wound invites them to keep shooting.
b) Shooting to wound, because of the anatomy you have to aim for, increases the likelihood the bullet will pass through and endanger anyone behind.
c) Police have a 25 percent hit rate shooting for the center of mass, so just how do they shoot for a non-lethal part of the anatomy and get a good chance of a hit. And any miss endangers bystanders.
d) Even parts of the anatomy like legs and arms have vital blood vessels and a wounding shot is no guarantee it’s not lethal, yet it dramatically lessons the chance of a stopping hit.

In short, it's a silly law. No a dangerous law! For it forces police to try a tactic that is to difficult to do under stress. The stress of having ones live in jeopardy.

Deaf
 
Hopefully mayor bloomberg is paying for all of the additional ammo and training time from his pocket LOL

Armed professionals shoot to instantly neutralize a threat if the result is a survivable wound okay, if the wound proves to be terminal oh-well.....

Stupid people become stupid politicians and their stupid ideas make everyone suffer.
 
I guess the cops will just have to write in their reports.

...was trying to wound him. BUT, I hit him in the heart..:)
 
JDenver said:
A young guy was surrounded by 5 cops. He was told to get down and did not. He reached into his pocket and was shot dead (what he was reaching for is irrelevant to my point, you're free to assume it was a weapon).

So, in that situation, couldn't cops immobilize him without killing him? I would think so. He wasn't shooting at anyone, and didn't clearly have a weapon in his hands.
Click to expand...

When someone is told "don't move, let me see your hands" or "get on the ground" (or whatever), and they make a sudden move toward a location where people commonly carry weapons (i.e. a movement consistent with a drawstroke), it is reasonable to assume that they are attempting to deploy a weapon. At that point, the level of force appropriate for dealing with a weapon threat is justified.

Kyosanim said:
Thats what the tazer guns are for.
Click to expand...

No, that's not what tasers are for...tasers are for people who are resisting, but not a deadly threat at that moment in time. Someone making a sudden move toward a possible weapon after being told to put their hands up or get on the ground does not, in my mind, qualify as someone who is not a threat.

Aside from all the "justification" issues, the amount of training time and the pallet-loads of ammo per officer to get them to the point where they can make consistent hits on the limbs of moving, fighting bad guys would make this whole thing financially impossible. And then you have to maintain that skill. We're talking about a level of proficiency that would make a CAG guy jealous...
 
Cryozombie said:
Probably not and here's why. Lets assume that the guy DID have a gun, and his intention was to kill a cop or a civilian standing by... He goes for his gun, cop shoots him in the Butt/Leg whatever... he screams in pain as he continues to draw his weapon and fire.

Even people who are shot fatally often continue to fight until they collapse. Its ridiculous to assume if you wound someone that means you win and they lose.
Click to expand...


EXACTLY. Just because he shoots doesn't mean he'll hit you, and just because he hits you doesn't mean you're gonna die.
 
repz said:
In a situation I can see a rule being enforced to where shooting should be to wound, and I see a situation where it doesnt matter where the bullet hits but that it hits to save the officers lives. I am not an expert at laws, but I imagine the shoot to wound is a word of mouth agreement among officers when they arent "sure" of the situation, but its not supported by a law, now it is.
Click to expand...

You're right. You are nowhere near an expert at laws.

A firearm only fits at one level on the force continuum: deadly force. If you are not justified in shooting to stop a deadly force threat such as may result in the shootee's death by circumstance,, you are not justified in shooting AT ALL.

There has been situations where numerous gunshots were fired wrecklessly at people who werent armed. Its not like any bill or law doesnt have something to back it.
Click to expand...

And were these shots fired by police? During which specific incidents? You gotta cite the ones you mean.

And yes, a bill always has something to back it, but that something isn't automatically legit. Whoever thought up this bill and then whoever was handicapped enough to sponsor it, both need to be sent to LFI.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Observation Techniques

Previous Thread

The Pat down....

Next Thread

Similar threads

Drac
Cop Attackers and Their Weapons..
2
Replies
26
Views
4K
Drac
Drac
lklawson
Request for Comments: Newbies Guide to Self Defense
Replies
9
Views
11K
lklawson
lklawson

Latest Discussions

Back
Top