5 ms·

In real life, there is only "do not shoot the firearm" and "shoot the firearm with the intent to kill". There is no practical aiming to disable or similar with

by Kalium 10y ago

In real life, there is only "do not shoot the firearm" and "shoot the firearm with the intent to kill". There is no practical aiming to disable or similar with a lethal firearm. There's no difference between the two, and no distinction to be drawn.

grzm 10y ago
Thank you for mentioning this. One minor adjustment I'd make to the above statement is "shoot the firearm with the intent to stop". This is a small, but important distinction. It doesn't change anything with respect to how the firearm is used (e.g., point of aim). At least from the perspective of police use of deadly force, the goal isn't to kill, it's to stop the person from continuing to be a threat. The outcome may be that the person does die, but if the person is stopped and doesn't die, that's an acceptable outcome once the decision has been made to use deadly force.
- bonzini 10y ago
  It's not minor at all, and it's exactly what I was hinting at. If the person is stopped, doesn't die, and can be subject to trial in a court of law, that is a _better_ outcome.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Would you clarify what you understand as alternatives to "aiming to kill" and how they would be effectively different from "aiming to kill"? Edit: clarified question.
    - bonzini 10y ago
      They aren't different at all from "aiming to stop", but the difference from "aiming to kill" is enormous. For example, aiming at the leg can be just as effective as aiming at the heart.
      - grzm 10y ago
        Sorry, I can see how my question was unclear. I mean how "aiming to kill" is effectively different from "aiming to stop". I've edited it for clarity. There are a couple of issues with the idea of, say, aiming at the leg. * A leg wound may not stop the person. * A leg wound can be lethal: you can bleed out very quickly if the femoral artery is hit. * The trajectory of a bullet (and its fragments) once it impacts the body can be very unpredictable: a bullet entering the leg may strike bone and enter the chest cavity. And all of these assume precise aim under stress. You mention aiming for the heart: police won't generally be aiming for something as small as the heart. Police (and all people using firearms) should receive the best training they can (and likely more and better firearms training than is often available today), but precise aim under stress is no easy task. They may be aiming for the torso (which of course includes the heart), because shots to the torso are generally more effective at stopping a person and it's a relatively large target: shots are more likely to hit and therefore less likely to miss (and hit something else: all bullets land somewhere). Firearms are deadly force. Police have less-lethal alternatives available as well, and should be trained to use them effectively when it's appropriate to do so. If a police officer resorts to deadly force, the goal should be to stop the person as effectively and quickly as possible.
bonzini 10y ago
Not at all. In civilized countries, police are specifically trained to stop, not to kill. Sometimes one may imply the other, but not necessarily.
- Kalium 10y ago
  I'm 100% certain that you're absolutely right. Yet, I'm not aware of any way to use a lethal firearm in a capacity to stop in a way that is in some important and practical manner distinct from stopping a person lethally. I'm sure this is just a failure on my part to comprehend your point. Can you clarify, to help me with my personal failures? Perhaps you could detail what you mean about how police are trained in civilized countries? Perhaps what you meant to communicate is that weapons other than inherently lethal firearms should be deployed?

by Kalium 10y ago

grzm 10y ago

Thank you for mentioning this. One minor adjustment I'd make to the above statement is "shoot the firearm with the intent to stop". This is a small, but important distinction. It doesn't change anything with respect to how the firearm is used (e.g., point of aim). At least from the perspective of police use of deadly force, the goal isn't to kill, it's to stop the person from continuing to be a threat. The outcome may be that the person does die, but if the person is stopped and doesn't die, that's an acceptable outcome once the decision has been made to use deadly force.

bonzini 10y ago
It's not minor at all, and it's exactly what I was hinting at. If the person is stopped, doesn't die, and can be subject to trial in a court of law, that is a _better_ outcome.
- grzm 10y ago
  Would you clarify what you understand as alternatives to "aiming to kill" and how they would be effectively different from "aiming to kill"? Edit: clarified question.
  - bonzini 10y ago
    They aren't different at all from "aiming to stop", but the difference from "aiming to kill" is enormous. For example, aiming at the leg can be just as effective as aiming at the heart.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Sorry, I can see how my question was unclear. I mean how "aiming to kill" is effectively different from "aiming to stop". I've edited it for clarity. There are a couple of issues with the idea of, say, aiming at the leg. * A leg wound may not stop the person. * A leg wound can be lethal: you can bleed out very quickly if the femoral artery is hit. * The trajectory of a bullet (and its fragments) once it impacts the body can be very unpredictable: a bullet entering the leg may strike bone and enter the chest cavity. And all of these assume precise aim under stress. You mention aiming for the heart: police won't generally be aiming for something as small as the heart. Police (and all people using firearms) should receive the best training they can (and likely more and better firearms training than is often available today), but precise aim under stress is no easy task. They may be aiming for the torso (which of course includes the heart), because shots to the torso are generally more effective at stopping a person and it's a relatively large target: shots are more likely to hit and therefore less likely to miss (and hit something else: all bullets land somewhere). Firearms are deadly force. Police have less-lethal alternatives available as well, and should be trained to use them effectively when it's appropriate to do so. If a police officer resorts to deadly force, the goal should be to stop the person as effectively and quickly as possible.

bonzini 10y ago

Not at all. In civilized countries, police are specifically trained to stop, not to kill. Sometimes one may imply the other, but not necessarily.

Kalium 10y ago
I'm 100% certain that you're absolutely right. Yet, I'm not aware of any way to use a lethal firearm in a capacity to stop in a way that is in some important and practical manner distinct from stopping a person lethally. I'm sure this is just a failure on my part to comprehend your point. Can you clarify, to help me with my personal failures? Perhaps you could detail what you mean about how police are trained in civilized countries? Perhaps what you meant to communicate is that weapons other than inherently lethal firearms should be deployed?