Originally posted by yourmaker
I just want to know why they don't fire warning shots or in the moments leading up to having to feel fear for their lives why not incapacitate him with a shot to the thigh or arm unless we are all simply combatants?

Fire a warning shot? Would that be shooting straight up in the air? Where are you going to aim whlle firing this warning shot? Any bullet shot up will come down. In the most densely populated city in America, this is VERY likely to end in tragedy.

"winging" a target is almost impossible to do on purpose. Have you fired a handgun? Getting a good aim is something that takes a LOT of practice over several years. To be able to "wing" someone is a trick shot. When bystanders are there, you just don't take a trick shot. You shoot center of mass.

When you go on a knife attack, you (obviously) take on the risk of death from someone who takes exception to seeing you attack people with a knife.

So much for restraining the use of force..

I learned a whole different way of scaling up voilence against suspects.. :-/ And shooting a man down without aiming for the legs or anything is like the maximum amount of violence you can express to a suspect.. :-/

Why did they aim for the chest/head right away? :-/

Originally posted by Elexio
So much for restraining the use of force..

I learned a whole different way of scaling up voilence against suspects.. :-/ And shooting a man down without aiming for the legs or anything is like the maximum amount of violence you can express to a suspect.. :-/

Why did they aim for the chest/head right away? :-/

In all my life and years around guns, I have NEVER heard someone who has ever received any training say that you do not aim for center of mass.

If you are going to fire your weapon, it must be a very dire situation. In a very dire situation, it is life and death. Yes, it is unfortunate. But if you are going to fire your weapon you make preservation of your life the only priority (in the case of an officer, i presume that extends to the life of innocents as well).

When you draw, your intent is to incapacitate the victim with certainty This means shooting center of mass. If thise kills them, it is unfortunate. But when you fire your weapon, that is what the risk is.

This isn't the movies. There are no trick shots. If you take a trick shot and hit someone else, you are now the criminal.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
I would presume that police are trained in that regard the same as a CCW: fire center of mass. There is no shooting to "wing" him or incapacitate him. That is how grandma and her grandchild get shot. Take the easier, lowest risk/highest return shot: center of mass. Unfortunately, center of mass tends to lead to death of the person being shot.

Sorry for the long response.. I have some strong opinions on civilians and weapons and wanted to be sure I pointed out items that people are not familiar with.

All of the training i have recieved for law enforcement is a lot different than the training I received as a civilian with a ccw. The laws that govern law enforcement are different simply because of the advanced / continual training and the legalities involved.

A civilian can get his CCW and a few years down the road they get a refresher on the ccw law.

For law enforcement we get the same ccw law updates. However we also receive training based on new / case law from our state, federal appeals circuit and Supreme Court. A civilian may make a concious effort to fire a warning shot or shoot to wound and in the end those actions would be justified / excused / not looked at with the irritation had it been an officer etc. (it varies state to state but you get the idea).

Law Enforcement is held to the higher standard. We are prohibited from shooting to wound and we are not allowed to fire a warning shot. For police the moment we draw our weapon we are stating the situation as we see it at that moment is going to be potentially life threatening. In the courts life threatening means life or death, which means we cannot use a deadly weapon in order to give a "warning shot" nor can we use a deadly weapon in order to "wound". Both of those actions, wound and warning shot, implies the situation was not deadly.

Both civilians and law enforcement are trained to shoot center mass. When looking at a human it is the largest possible target we can aim at and is also the safest part to aim at. Aiming center mass and missing still allows the shot to hit the body instead of going down range.

People (civilians) tend to either ignore or just dont know / understand the elements of a deadly force encounter. Its not as simple as shooting center mass. On the range for ccw you shoot at a stationary target that is not pointing a gun at you / shooting at you and there are no people beyond your target that can be injured. There is no adrenaline dump and they dont experience the effects of high stress on the body...

* - Auditory exclusion occurs - This is why you hear the police screaming verbal commands over and over. We are not yelling at the person to be an ass we are doing it to break there auditory exclusion. If we can get through it and the person hears us, there is a chance they will comply before we stop the threat.

* - Visual distortion / tunnel vision - Its why you will see law enforcement constantly looking at the situation and even after discharging a gun you will see them scan to their left / right and behind. Just because the person we just shot is now dead does not mean he is alone nor does it mean there is no other danger present.

* - Time distortion - You will find officers who have discharged weapons in deadly force encounters state they oonly fired 3 rounds when in fact they fired 9 or vice versa. Some will experience the entire encounter, from start to finish as only taking a 1/10th of a second when in reality it took several minutes. Others will report that time seemed to slow down, almost matrix like. They describe every action as if they were viewing it as a slow motion video.

* - Center mass targeting - A high stress situation cause a loss of fine motor control. The ability to focus / perform fine motor control degrades very quickly, which means those people who think we should be allowed to wound will quickly find that the only place we can hit is the center mass. The term for police is called muscle memory....
Add in the fact that the target is moving and you are forced to move along with it.

* - In addition to watching the suspect we have to be conscious of everything / one around us. That same principle does not apply to the suspect the police are engaging with, who is usually only looking out for themselves and dont care if they squeeze off 6 rounds that hits the school children, so long as they can get away / take people down with them.

* - CCW classes revolve around the laws and use of the weapon for personal home defense. The odds of a person using a firearm occurs primarily in their home with an intruder. Because of castle doctrines (state laws vary so check yours) the moment a person breaks into your house they have automatically met all criteria for the homeowner to use deadly force, regardless if the person is armed or not.

LEO's receive advanced training in how to approach / stand / speak / interview people we deal with on the off chance they are armed.

Civilians dont get the indepth training I pointed out above simply because its not something they deal with. We perform traffic stops, respond to calls of people with weapons, domestics, suicidal / homicidal individuals. All situations where people call 911.

Higher standards = greater accountability.

I am all for that with law enforcement. For a civilian though I would prefer the law view them as a civilian and continue to view their actions from the standard of "what would a reasonable person do" and not "what did the officer perceive the exact moment the use of force occured".

By all means allow civilians the opprotunity to take advanced training. The more knowledgable about the law and how to operate their weapons is a good thing. I just dont want to see higher standards set for civilians in the same manner they do law enforcement.

I freely chose to work in this profession knowing the risks and requirements / demands. A civilian generally does not get the choice.

Lastly and most importantly I do not want to see any possibility of requiring civilians to conform to a higher standard only to see down the line the government use that higher standard to strip weapons from the citizens I serve and whom the government answers to.

Advice for any person who takes on the responsibility of a weapon -
You never rise to the occasion... You only fall back to your level of training.

Originally posted by Cosmic911
This is not true in New York State. There are rules of deadly force for civilians as well. A civilian with a weapon may also use deadly force in cases of burgularly and arson.

When it comes to a civilian using deadly force, the legal requirements are different than if they are law enforcement.

If I remeber right New York State is a duty to retreat state. That means even if the civilian is armed and being threatened from another person who is armed, as long as there is a way to safely leave the situation a civilian must retreat. Failure to retreat when an opprotunity exists negates self defense (I hate that legal concept btw).

The requirements / standards / laws in deadly force situations are different than the laws civilians are subject to. It goes back to the training and totality of circumstances. From my research I have found no state laws that require law enforcement to retreat - just civilians.

As far as my comment goes about a civilian being looked at differently. What I mean by that is how its investigated and the standards used.

It is entirely possible for a civilian and an officer, in the exact same scenario, both use a gun to stop the threat in the exact same manner. Depending on circumstances its possible for a civilian to be justified in their actions and the officer is not justified in theirs or vice versa.

An investigation into a civilian using deadly force is pretty standard. Investigate, collect all evidence / witness statements / forensics etc and go from there.

For law enforcement -
* - A criminal investigation occurs, just like in the civilian investigation. However it usually results in another agency doing the investigation to remove any conflicts of interest.

* - An internal investigation by the department is done to determine if the officer broke any departmental policies / procedures.

* - A civil rights investigation can be conducted by the FBI to determine if the officers actions violated the suspects civil rights.


Process -
* - Civilians and Law Enforcement are protected by Miranda Rights.

LEO only -
* - Law Enforcement Officers are also read their Garrity Rights. Because we have a chain of command we can be ordered to answer questions. If we refuse to answer it can be used against the officer in the IA investigation. The reason is a police officer knows the law and should know if their actions are lawful or not. A refusal to answer is considered an admission of guilt and can be used against the officer in the IA investigation. In this area an officer is essentially considred guilty until they prove their innocence.

* - Law Enforcement is subject to 42 USC 1983 (Civil rights laws). The FBI can investigate the officer for any violations of civil rights that may have occured.

If its determined an officer was within the law but violated department policy / the officer violated state law but not department policy, the officer violated department policy and state law they lose their protection of civil immunity. It not only allows the officer to be sued civiliy, it allows the department / city to disassociate themselves with the officer, meaning that officer is on his own for all legal issues / costs. It also allows the officers personal property to be considered if a judgement is entered against them in court.

So when I say differences the above is what I was referring to. Sorry about that.. I have a bad habbit of providing a lot of info and have been trying to par it down some.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
And to further that understanding I still stick to my belief that training can include shooting target areas appropriate to the situation i.e. disabling mobility if target has a close-ranged weapon.

Please don't confuse my position, I am saying that de-escalation and mitigation are the first choice but if it is determined that lethal force - a firearm is justified shooting center mass is the only acceptable answer.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
I see no reason a human is incapable of that training considering more elite agencies train special forces operatives etc. It's possible. And when human life is on the line it's of utmost consideration at least

Again, no agency or entity in either law enforcement or military trains to shoot less than lethally. I have been on a mission to capture/kill HVTs and while the priority is to capture if you have to shoot because he is a threat to you or the team it’s for keeps.

Now Delta Counter Terror guys might have access to some whiz-bang gasses and crap like that for incapacitation but I never did.

Surprise is of course the best COA not giving the person time to react and fight back ten it’s all over. Taking them while they are indisposed (In a sex act, showering, taking a crap etc) or in transition between their hardened locations. If a firefight ensues the team leader decides what is best he can either maneuver the guy (and once a gal) into a position that is undependable for them and convince them it is so and that they have to either comply or die or just take them out and hope the medic can keep him alive long enough to get to a hospital.