Why the Police do not shoot for the arms and legs

It seems we have many people, after an incident, claim that the officer or citizen should have just "shot him in the leg". This is a Hollywood myth that people still do not understand. I have found a few videos showing people taking many rounds, hits to the legs and arms, and still continuing to fight and/or shoot back.

Some people may be stopped by a non-vital hit, but that is because they chose to. That is called a psychological stop. When a person is determined, these types of hits do not stop them. Even fatal hits many times do not stop the person right away until they have lost enough blood to lose consciousness.

Warning: Some videos may be graphic to some. Use your own discretion. These are just a TINY example.

1st video's thumbnail may be to graphic so here is the link. This is the craziest one.

www.youtube.com...

Yeah i hear this a lot...in fact just today a work colleague was saying why didn't the police JUST shoot the 3 x terrorists in London in the arm or leg then they could be questioned...when i responded that not only were they wearing what was thought at the time bomb vests(turned out to be fake) but that wasn't known at the time that they could have then set off if not shot to kill but taking those shots under pressure with civilians running, screaming etc... all around you is way harder than the movies would have you think.

To this i got but yeah they are trained so should be able to do it...at that point i could only shake my head in disbelief and leave the conversation there...Hollywood has a lot to answer for.

A moving arm or leg is a tough target. Center mass, much less so.

Those cops weren't trying to take prisoners, they were trying to stop 'em. Stopping them means center mass, and as many shots as it takes.

My instructor has told me innumerable times, if you ever have to pull that trigger, it's life or death for somebody--make sure it's the other guy, then be prepared for consequences. In other words? Shoot to kill, questions will follow.

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

In the US use of a firearm is essentially a deadly force encounter. If you are in that much fear for your life / someone elses life then you shoot to stop the threat.

You do NOT shoot to wound. Shooting to wound means you did not consider the person a deadly threat, making it even harder to justify using a firearm against the suspect.

People who keep making those claims, shoot to wound, most likely have never been involved in that type of situation. Officers are trained to push through the body's responses to danger - Audio exclusion / visual exclusion / tunnel vision etc.. Its why we yell at people during dangerous encounters and why we constantly have our heads on a swivel. A person will lose fine motor control, reducing control to gross motor control and muscle memory (why we are trained to shoot center mass - * - Fight or Flight response). The same effects occur to the person being dealt with and chances are they are not trained to deal with the responses, making them even more dangerous.

Fight or Flight body response -

Acceleration of heart and lung action
Paling or flushing, or alternating between both
Inhibition of stomach and upper-intestinal action to the point where digestion slows down or stops
General effect on the sphincters of the body
Constriction of blood vessels in many parts of the body
Liberation of metabolic energy sources (particularly fat and glycogen) for muscular action
Dilation of blood vessels for muscles
Inhibition of the lacrimal gland (responsible for tear production) and salivation
Dilation of pupil (mydriasis)
Relaxation of bladder
Inhibition of erection
Auditory exclusion (loss of hearing)
Tunnel vision (loss of peripheral vision)
Disinhibition of spinal reflexes
Shaking

Function of physiological changes

The physiological changes that occur during the fight or flight response are activated in order to give the body increased strength and speed in anticipation of fighting or running. Some of the specific physiological changes and their functions include:[14][15]

Increased blood flow to the muscles activated by diverting blood flow from other parts of the body.
Increased blood pressure, heart rate, blood sugars, and fats in order to supply the body with extra energy.
The blood clotting function of the body speeds up in order to prevent excessive blood loss in the event of an injury sustained during the response.
Increased muscle tension in order to provide the body with extra speed and strength.

Emotional components
Emotion regulation
See also: Emotional self-regulation

In the context of the fight or flight response, emotional regulation is used proactively to avoid threats of stress or to control the level of emotional arousal.[16][17]
Emotional reactivity

During the reaction, the intensity of emotion that is brought on by the stimulus will also determine the nature and intensity of the behavioral response.[18] Individuals with higher levels of emotional reactivity may be prone to anxiety and aggression, which illustrates the implications of appropriate emotional reaction in the fight or flight response.[19][20]
Cognitive components
Content specificity

The specific components of cognitions in the fight or flight response seem to be largely negative. These negative cognitions may be characterized by: attention to negative stimuli, the perception of ambiguous situations as negative, and the recurrence of recalling negative words.[21] There also may be specific negative thoughts associated with emotions commonly seen in the reaction.[22]
Perception of control

Perceived control relates to an individual's thoughts about control over situations and events.[23] Perceived control should be differentiated from actual control because an individual's beliefs about their abilities may not reflect their actual abilities. Therefore, overestimation or underestimation of perceived control can lead to anxiety and aggression.[24]
Social information processing
See also: Social information processing (cognition)

The social information processing model proposes a variety of factors that determine behavior in the context of social situations and preexisting thoughts.[25] The attribution of hostility, especially in ambiguous situations, seems to be one of the most important cognitive factors associated with the fight or flight response because of its implications towards aggression.[26]

A person does not rise to the occasion... They fall back to their level of training. If you are going to own a gun then you not only must know how the gun works but what happens in situations where you think you are going to use it. If you arent familiar with the effects then owning a firearm is probably not a good idea. If you are unsure if you can take another human beings life then, again, a firearm is most likely not for you.

Owning a firearm requires understanding all aspects and not just how to shoot a non moving paper target in a controlled environment.

A good watch that addresses several issues, including shooting to wound.

Hollywood vs. Reality Officer Involved Shootings

a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm in the UK and do not have much direct involvement with guns of any sort these days but i agree if you are drawing/using a firearm its to kill...guns are not something you use unless there is no alternative and you always shoot to kill if you are at the point of using a firearm.

Guns are not to injure then capture they are to stop an immediate threat FULL STOP.

originally posted by: nickovthenorth
a reply to: Xcathdra

I'm in the UK and do not have much direct involvement with guns of any sort these days but i agree if you are drawing/using a firearm its to kill...guns are not something you use unless there is no alternative and you always shoot to kill if you are at the point of using a firearm.

Guns are not to injure then capture they are to stop an immediate threat FULL STOP.

Unfortunately people think what occurs on tv shows is the same in the real world.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Great topic. Fight or flight is something not talked about much as to why things happen the way they do.

originally posted by: nickovthenorth
a reply to: Xcathdra

...you always shoot to kill if you are at the point of using a firearm.

I know the distinction seems like splitting hairs, but you should shoot to stop, not shoot to kill. They often end up being the same thing, but the emphasis is on stopping them. A gut shot will kill someone eventually, but it won't stop them right here and now.

I think that many of the issues and arguments revolve around a failure to appreciate what an officer is actually trying to achieve when they shoot at a threat. They don't want the guy dead, they just want the threat stopped.

Former cop here.

As a police officer (LEO), you do not use your primary weapon (gun) unless you plan to destroy (i.e. kill) what you use it on.

When firing your primary weapon, you aim at the safest place on the target (safest for bystanders NOT the target), which is center mass (the middle of the available target). Trying to hit an arm or leg is STUPID when aiming at a moving object/target.

You are responsible for every bullet which leaves your weapon, so if your bullet aimed at a leg misses (or even goes through) and then ricochets off the concrete only to hit a small child playing in the next yard . . . you got it, you are held responsible for shooting said child the same as if you put the gun to the kid's head.

So, always aim center mass. We are/were taught to put two rounds in the center of the chest and hesitate for beat (long enough to see if that stopped the target), and if those did not work (on some people it won't for either physical or chemical reasons) then the next round goes to the center of the head. If that doesn't work (I have only heard of two cases of this and both were PCP related), then find cover, call back-up, and pour led into target until it stops.

This has been your daily lesson on how to service a target.

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

One of the things I've learned on ATS is 'centre mass' and the reasonable arguments for the 2nd. The unreasonable ones are for another thread...

Yes, it's Hollywood stupidity to expect people to ding attackers with clever leg shots or winging their fighting arms.

"Well I only had the one round left and shot the firearm from his hand before restraining 'em for the police."

I think the following is an excellent read for anyone wanting to look into the matter further. I don't know if there is an updated version, there probably is, but it's still a very good insight.

The link is to a PDF file.

gundata.org...

a reply to: Xcathdra

You might enjoy this...or not

Bill Burr makes the case for having a .22 to defend against night-time home invaders. It's a good bit.

a reply to: Kandinsky

I worked in an inner city level 3 trauma center's ER for a decade or so. Ive seen more than a few folks with several bullets from 22's and 9's in them when they walked in the door or were brought in pissed off and trying to get off the stryker. For home defense your 22 should be only there to get you to your 12 gauge.

Some of the worst things Id seen regarding firearms were times when they were displayed WITHOUT the follow through of only draw your weapon if you are ready to kill. People get their firearms taken from them and used against them more than you hear about.

a reply to: Advantage

Please be aware I'm UK and shooting the breeze,

Burr's arguing that a .22 has benefits if you're woken up at night, in the dark and don't want to be deafened and blinded by the discharge of a higher calibre weapon. It's stand up and played for laughs.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Advantage

Please be aware I'm UK and shooting the breeze,

Burr's arguing that a .22 has benefits if you're woken up at night, in the dark and don't want to be deafened and blinded by the discharge of a higher calibre weapon. It's stand up and played for laughs.

I think we should make a pilot program between US and UK members. You send me some clotted cream and I send you a Mossberg 12. Sorta like foreign exchange students without the annoying students.

a reply to: Advantage

Our gun laws prohibit your kind offer.

...and clotted cream doesn't travel well.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Lol that is awesome.

Ok.. damn... PIIICKY picky Brit!~ .

Ill send blunderbus plans. You can shoot forks and spoons.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Advantage

Our gun laws prohibit your kind offer.

...and clotted cream doesn't travel well.

No they don't. I have a mossy 500 and a box of slug in the gun safe as we speak!

a reply to: EvillerBob

I'll expect Advantage's Mossburg 12 by ParcelForce next week

...and hand-delivered by a man in a flack jacket and crew cut. "Sign here, Sir."

"I would do Sir, but my wrists appear to be handcuffed."