5 ms·

I am very surprised the article doesn't mention the american "shoot-to-kill" policy, despite the fact it gives the perfect example of how this policy is overkil

by mrb 12y ago

I am very surprised the article doesn't mention the american "shoot-to-kill" policy, despite the fact it gives the perfect example of how this policy is overkill (pun intended). If a knife-yielding attacker runs toward you, police in other countries (say western Europe) will shoot at the legs to NOT kill the attacker but sufficiently harm him so that he is not a threat anymore. But in America the shoot-to-kill policy is so deeply ingrained in every officer's training that they only see 2 choices --when should I kill or not kill-- as depicted by that officer's simple question at the beginning of the article ("How close can somebody get to me before I’m justified in using deadly force?"). I have done research in the past on why the shoot-to-kill policy became prevalent in the US but not in other countries, and I have never found an answer. This puzzles me more than it should. Edit: to the replies saying "if you don't intend to kill, don't shoot", you are wrong. This is precisely why tasers and non-lethal weapons were invented: there are many situations were harming or incapacitating an assailant is needed without necessarily killing him. On this note I agree a taser would be a safer weapon than trying to cause harm with a firearm. But my general comment is meant to apply to scenarios where a police officer cannot make the choice of firing with a taser[1]: in this case shooting to harm is better than shooting to kill. [1] For whatever reason: he has no taser, or a firearm is the weapon he has in his hands during the split second where he has to decide to shoot, etc.

mod 12y ago
(I'm American) Despite having some major complaints with police, I do not have any problem with police using deadly force against an assailant running at them with an exposed knife. Additionally, I think aiming for the legs in that situation is largely a mistake. Perhaps the article skipped that point because it would be lost on us, given that I think my opinion is widely-held in this country.
BWStearns 12y ago
The intent, as I have been explained about this policy, is to bias the officer towards the "not shooting at all" side of the equation. If I can shoot to maim when killing would be inappropriate I might shoot more often and gunshot wounds can be lethal in a surprising amount of places (shoot the leg, get the femoral artery, still get a dead guy). Ultimately it looks like this logic might have failed, but without knowing more we can't know that we don't just have a trigger happy culture and lessening the threshold for gunplay wouldn't have an even more negative effect. If someone has data beyond European stats (there seem to be too many disparities for even comparison; gun ownership, police armament, societal attitudes towards police, etc.) I'd be very interested.
yarrel 12y ago
Any shot may cause a fatal wound. And aiming anywhere other than the centre of mass increases the likelihood of missing. Shoot-to-kill makes sense given these facts. I'm from the UK so I absolutely don't think the police should be armed as a matter of course, but where they are we should be honest about the task they are being asked to perform.
- rodgerd 12y ago
  New Zealand is the same. Police are not routinely equipped with firearms, shootings are very rare, but they shoot for the biggest target (the body) and I'm very comfortable with the policy. The important point is that they don't shoot at people very often. The idea that the police would e.g. shoot a running, unarmed suspect, or follow you (in a car) to your home and shoot you through the window is the stuff of a dystopian nightmare.
Someone1234 12y ago
> If a knife-yielding attacker runs toward you, police in other countries (say western Europe) will shoot at the legs to NOT kill the attacker but sufficiently harm him so that he is not a threat anymore. That sounds more like a movie than "Western Europe." Nobody shoots at legs since it is ineffective, can end their life anyway, and can risk collateral damage (what is behind that leg? What if the bullet bounces off of the bone?). You shoot to kill, period. Here's what the UK police do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf3RZ7gi2f0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf3RZ7gi2f0 Which is exceptional policing in my opinion. But no shooting at his leg. PS - Not disagreeing with the argument that US police are too quick to kill people, even unarmed people. Just that shooting at people's legs is a legitimate alternative. Even when armed, other countries kill citizens much more rarely. PPS - Another good video showing UK police's constraint, this time armed officers: https://youtu.be/nVOLH_aN-zI?t=3m35s https://youtu.be/nVOLH_aN-zI?t=3m35s contrast that with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwYVJ4W7DPo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwYVJ4W7DPo both incidents involve a cap gun and armed police (one in the US one in the UK).
- htns 12y ago
  Here in Finland armed men getting shot in the leg is not that rare of an occurrence, e.g. http://yle.fi/uutiset/prison_guard_arrested_after_shooting_at_police/5778062 http://yle.fi/uutiset/prison_guard_arrested_after_shooting_a...
  - kevinnk 12y ago
    The question here is what did the police aim for not what did they hit.
- mcintyre1994 12y ago
  Yea, tasers seem superior by pretty much any measure to shooting to immobilise. The only advantage I can see a gun having is range, and far outside taser range I don't think trying to shoot a leg is exactly reasonable. They don't of course solve the problem of police using too much force for the situation - they're nasty and threatening at a peaceful protest for instance, but when the force is appropriate they seem like a no brainer.
svachalek 12y ago
I saw someone asked about this (sorry, can't remember who) in an interview after one of the many recent shootings and he said that in a scenario where deadly force is not required, the gun should not be used at all. It makes a lot of sense and I can only imagine the lawsuits and riots we'd have here if police were allowed to say "I was just trying to shoot his foot".
rcurry 12y ago
Police officers in the United States, as well as in Europe are trained to shoot for the center of mass when engaging an armed attacker. Do you know why? Google "Tueller Drill" for an understanding of just how dangerous someone with a knife is to an officer - at 21 feet away, that person can close the distance and kill the officer in 1.5 seconds.
- swombat 12y ago
  Most people with knives aren't Bruce Lee. Some evaluation of the actual danger the person poses is necessary. A man standing idly with a knife is not the same as some sort of ninja commando running towards you at full speed. From inevitably watching a bunch of videos recently of unlucky black people being shot by racist cops, the US police definitely does not seem to take the attitude of the victim into consideration when deciding to shoot - half of those guys are running away from the policeman. How fast can someone kill you with a knife if they're running away from you as fast as they can?
  - kelukelugames 12y ago
    Actually rcurry is right. If Mythbusters is correct then the knife wielder always wins if they are within 20 feet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill
    - swombat 12y ago
      rcurry is right if the knife wielder is within 20 feet AND the gun holder has their gun holstered, uncocked, with the safety still on. Why not also do a test where the officer has to front-load the powder into their musket and put a bullet in and arm the gun? Have you seen those videos? The policemen are the ones who approach the knife wielder, not the other way around! They have the power to set the distance and to prepare themselves if they're going to close the distance! They're not hapless policemen standing idly by, suddenly assaulted by a knife wielder who surprise-jumps out of a doorway within 20 feet. That's a totally different situation. What's more likely to be happening in a real situation, based again on all those countless snuff films floating around the internet, is that the officers have the safety off, have their hand on the gun, or even have the gun out of the holster in their hand, long before the 20-feet distance is reached. That reduces the dangerous distance pretty significantly I would think. So again, my point totally stands: unless the victim (I refuse to call them an attacker when they're clearly the one who always dies in practice when these scenarios happen, especially if they're black) is actually actively moving towards the policeman, there is no reason for the policeman to shoot their gun at a victim that's standing 20 feet away. If they feel the victim is a threat, then unholster the gun, take off the safety, cock the gun, and be ready to shoot, but maintain your distance. It totally refuse that the only reasonable course of action after you deliberately approach a knife wielder is to shoot them when you get them within your 20-foot radius. That's murder, pure and simple.
mml 12y ago
I've always assumed this policy was in place to limit potential liability. Depts have been sued for non-lethally using deadly force. The logic goes that if a person is not dangerous enough to kill, one should not be firing a gun at them at all. If you are firing a gun at someone, you'd better mean to kill them.
JulianMorrison 12y ago
I think that in Britain, if they shoot, they kill. Guns are extremely ineffective at "set phasers to stun". Blowing someone's hip apart is quite enough to kill them.
hippich 12y ago
for what it worth, when i was taking concealed handgun course, i been told never do "warning shot" in the air (can kill bystander), never try to shot legs/arm/hands/etc (you will miss, even if you will not miss, it still often fatal, and if not fatal, often not enough to stop person with blood full of adrenaline). On top of it chance of hitting someone behind leg/arm is high. What been taught is to only use deadly force to stop imminent danger. And to stop someone means to shoot into center of the mass (so aiming at head is not advised too.) Now, how you decide if using deadly force is necessary - is totally different area from how to properly use deadly force to stop attacker when you already decided you have to do it.
- tomschlick 12y ago
  Yup. Anyone who has a decent amount of experience with guns / carries knows this. Shooting for the legs/arms is not practical and poses more danger to bystanders than it's worth.
tomschlick 12y ago
Real life is not like the movies. People don't go down after the first shot unless you hit something critical. Shooting center mass provides the best odds for disabling that person and the best odds to hit your target. Shooting a moving target is already hard enough, trying to shoot at the legs of a moving target is even harder. You also have to consider than an officer is responsible for every round that leaves the barrel. If you miss, thats just one more chance for that round to hit an innocent bystander and increases the odds that that guy with the knife is going to reach you before you can take him down.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

by mrb 12y ago

mod 12y ago

(I'm American) Despite having some major complaints with police, I do not have any problem with police using deadly force against an assailant running at them with an exposed knife. Additionally, I think aiming for the legs in that situation is largely a mistake. Perhaps the article skipped that point because it would be lost on us, given that I think my opinion is widely-held in this country.

BWStearns 12y ago

The intent, as I have been explained about this policy, is to bias the officer towards the "not shooting at all" side of the equation. If I can shoot to maim when killing would be inappropriate I might shoot more often and gunshot wounds can be lethal in a surprising amount of places (shoot the leg, get the femoral artery, still get a dead guy). Ultimately it looks like this logic might have failed, but without knowing more we can't know that we don't just have a trigger happy culture and lessening the threshold for gunplay wouldn't have an even more negative effect. If someone has data beyond European stats (there seem to be too many disparities for even comparison; gun ownership, police armament, societal attitudes towards police, etc.) I'd be very interested.

yarrel 12y ago

Any shot may cause a fatal wound. And aiming anywhere other than the centre of mass increases the likelihood of missing. Shoot-to-kill makes sense given these facts. I'm from the UK so I absolutely don't think the police should be armed as a matter of course, but where they are we should be honest about the task they are being asked to perform.

rodgerd 12y ago
New Zealand is the same. Police are not routinely equipped with firearms, shootings are very rare, but they shoot for the biggest target (the body) and I'm very comfortable with the policy. The important point is that they don't shoot at people very often. The idea that the police would e.g. shoot a running, unarmed suspect, or follow you (in a car) to your home and shoot you through the window is the stuff of a dystopian nightmare.

Someone1234 12y ago

> If a knife-yielding attacker runs toward you, police in other countries (say western Europe) will shoot at the legs to NOT kill the attacker but sufficiently harm him so that he is not a threat anymore. That sounds more like a movie than "Western Europe." Nobody shoots at legs since it is ineffective, can end their life anyway, and can risk collateral damage (what is behind that leg? What if the bullet bounces off of the bone?). You shoot to kill, period. Here's what the UK police do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf3RZ7gi2f0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vf3RZ7gi2f0 Which is exceptional policing in my opinion. But no shooting at his leg. PS - Not disagreeing with the argument that US police are too quick to kill people, even unarmed people. Just that shooting at people's legs is a legitimate alternative. Even when armed, other countries kill citizens much more rarely. PPS - Another good video showing UK police's constraint, this time armed officers: https://youtu.be/nVOLH_aN-zI?t=3m35s https://youtu.be/nVOLH_aN-zI?t=3m35s contrast that with this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwYVJ4W7DPo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwYVJ4W7DPo both incidents involve a cap gun and armed police (one in the US one in the UK).

htns 12y ago
Here in Finland armed men getting shot in the leg is not that rare of an occurrence, e.g. http://yle.fi/uutiset/prison_guard_arrested_after_shooting_at_police/5778062 http://yle.fi/uutiset/prison_guard_arrested_after_shooting_a...
- kevinnk 12y ago
  The question here is what did the police aim for not what did they hit.
mcintyre1994 12y ago
Yea, tasers seem superior by pretty much any measure to shooting to immobilise. The only advantage I can see a gun having is range, and far outside taser range I don't think trying to shoot a leg is exactly reasonable. They don't of course solve the problem of police using too much force for the situation - they're nasty and threatening at a peaceful protest for instance, but when the force is appropriate they seem like a no brainer.

svachalek 12y ago

I saw someone asked about this (sorry, can't remember who) in an interview after one of the many recent shootings and he said that in a scenario where deadly force is not required, the gun should not be used at all. It makes a lot of sense and I can only imagine the lawsuits and riots we'd have here if police were allowed to say "I was just trying to shoot his foot".

rcurry 12y ago

Police officers in the United States, as well as in Europe are trained to shoot for the center of mass when engaging an armed attacker. Do you know why? Google "Tueller Drill" for an understanding of just how dangerous someone with a knife is to an officer - at 21 feet away, that person can close the distance and kill the officer in 1.5 seconds.

swombat 12y ago
Most people with knives aren't Bruce Lee. Some evaluation of the actual danger the person poses is necessary. A man standing idly with a knife is not the same as some sort of ninja commando running towards you at full speed. From inevitably watching a bunch of videos recently of unlucky black people being shot by racist cops, the US police definitely does not seem to take the attitude of the victim into consideration when deciding to shoot - half of those guys are running away from the policeman. How fast can someone kill you with a knife if they're running away from you as fast as they can?
- kelukelugames 12y ago
  Actually rcurry is right. If Mythbusters is correct then the knife wielder always wins if they are within 20 feet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill
  - swombat 12y ago
    rcurry is right if the knife wielder is within 20 feet AND the gun holder has their gun holstered, uncocked, with the safety still on. Why not also do a test where the officer has to front-load the powder into their musket and put a bullet in and arm the gun? Have you seen those videos? The policemen are the ones who approach the knife wielder, not the other way around! They have the power to set the distance and to prepare themselves if they're going to close the distance! They're not hapless policemen standing idly by, suddenly assaulted by a knife wielder who surprise-jumps out of a doorway within 20 feet. That's a totally different situation. What's more likely to be happening in a real situation, based again on all those countless snuff films floating around the internet, is that the officers have the safety off, have their hand on the gun, or even have the gun out of the holster in their hand, long before the 20-feet distance is reached. That reduces the dangerous distance pretty significantly I would think. So again, my point totally stands: unless the victim (I refuse to call them an attacker when they're clearly the one who always dies in practice when these scenarios happen, especially if they're black) is actually actively moving towards the policeman, there is no reason for the policeman to shoot their gun at a victim that's standing 20 feet away. If they feel the victim is a threat, then unholster the gun, take off the safety, cock the gun, and be ready to shoot, but maintain your distance. It totally refuse that the only reasonable course of action after you deliberately approach a knife wielder is to shoot them when you get them within your 20-foot radius. That's murder, pure and simple.

mml 12y ago

I've always assumed this policy was in place to limit potential liability. Depts have been sued for non-lethally using deadly force. The logic goes that if a person is not dangerous enough to kill, one should not be firing a gun at them at all. If you are firing a gun at someone, you'd better mean to kill them.

JulianMorrison 12y ago

I think that in Britain, if they shoot, they kill. Guns are extremely ineffective at "set phasers to stun". Blowing someone's hip apart is quite enough to kill them.

hippich 12y ago

for what it worth, when i was taking concealed handgun course, i been told never do "warning shot" in the air (can kill bystander), never try to shot legs/arm/hands/etc (you will miss, even if you will not miss, it still often fatal, and if not fatal, often not enough to stop person with blood full of adrenaline). On top of it chance of hitting someone behind leg/arm is high. What been taught is to only use deadly force to stop imminent danger. And to stop someone means to shoot into center of the mass (so aiming at head is not advised too.) Now, how you decide if using deadly force is necessary - is totally different area from how to properly use deadly force to stop attacker when you already decided you have to do it.

tomschlick 12y ago
Yup. Anyone who has a decent amount of experience with guns / carries knows this. Shooting for the legs/arms is not practical and poses more danger to bystanders than it's worth.

tomschlick 12y ago

Real life is not like the movies. People don't go down after the first shot unless you hit something critical. Shooting center mass provides the best odds for disabling that person and the best odds to hit your target. Shooting a moving target is already hard enough, trying to shoot at the legs of a moving target is even harder. You also have to consider than an officer is responsible for every round that leaves the barrel. If you miss, thats just one more chance for that round to hit an innocent bystander and increases the odds that that guy with the knife is going to reach you before you can take him down.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]