Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobi
Hopefully there are some law enforcement types on this site who can explain why shootings like this are shoot to kill versus shoot to disable. Never understood that.
|
I was always told to shoot to stop - which means generally aiming for the torso since it's the biggest target - that attempting to disable rather than stop a person was too big a risk - of lost time, of missing the person. And never to point a gun unless willing to shoot a person.
But those are just my local gun-nut cohorts, not cops.
Happily I don't own a gun.
However, I have shot handguns, rifles and shotguns. I had terrific aim with a rifle, but shitty aim with the handguns. Even with regular target practice, I don't think I could confidently/successfully shoot to disable on-the-spot, without time to brace myself or take perfect aim and with a moving target.
One thing that sucks is that tasers and pepper spray were supposed to reduce the need for lethal force, but instead they have been used in cases where lethal force would never have been used. I'm not sure if they have reduced the number of times lethal force was used.
BTW I didn't read the news story - just responding to the shooting-to-disable vs shooting-to-kill thing from the land-o-guns.