Shoot to not-kill?
Discussion
I don't want to pollute the thread regarding the incident on London bridge, so thought I'd start this.
It's there ever a shoot to not kill policy? It's that a thing? I'd have thought not.
I'd have thought
A) If you're going to shoot someone, you have to accept there's a decent chance of them dying from it
B) If you've made the decision that the situation is serious enough to warrant actually shooting another human being with a gun, you what to make bloody sure it stops them doing whatever it is they're doing and not miss - the best chance of that is the middle of the target, which is where some of the more important squishy bits happen to be.
I just can't imagine a situation in the UK (maybe it's different in the USA or elsewhere) where a police officer or military person would shoot someone, but with the intention of just winging them a bit as an official policy.
I'm excluding tasers as they're intentionally non-lethal (usually).
It's there ever a shoot to not kill policy? It's that a thing? I'd have thought not.
I'd have thought
A) If you're going to shoot someone, you have to accept there's a decent chance of them dying from it
B) If you've made the decision that the situation is serious enough to warrant actually shooting another human being with a gun, you what to make bloody sure it stops them doing whatever it is they're doing and not miss - the best chance of that is the middle of the target, which is where some of the more important squishy bits happen to be.
I just can't imagine a situation in the UK (maybe it's different in the USA or elsewhere) where a police officer or military person would shoot someone, but with the intention of just winging them a bit as an official policy.
I'm excluding tasers as they're intentionally non-lethal (usually).
I can't ever see it as a practical policy.
If some police chief gives the 'shoot to wound' order and the person dies where does that leave the person who gave the order and who pulled the trigger?
I remember reading about swat teams who've disabled guns by shooting them but maybe they claimed that was the plan all along after missing the soft bits.
If some police chief gives the 'shoot to wound' order and the person dies where does that leave the person who gave the order and who pulled the trigger?
I remember reading about swat teams who've disabled guns by shooting them but maybe they claimed that was the plan all along after missing the soft bits.
All the people banging on about shooting things out of hands, shooting legs etc. are deluded, and think shooting is like in the movies, where the noble hero can shoot the dick off a flea at 100 yards with a handgun held by their hip, centre mass all the time, if you think you need to stop someone being able to do something immediately e.g. a bomb trigger, head may be a possibility, but that is still a complicated shot with a lot that can go wrong especially if other people are in the area, and will still require even competent marksmen to be right on top of the target in the immediate reach of danger, but does happen sometimes ala Jean Charles de Menezes.
I was of the understanding that is why the army moved to a smaller calibre gun so that it was less likely to cause death but wound the enemy and hold them back looking after the wounded.
I also understand after the last few conflicts it has been noted that the enemy has not dropped their guns to look after the wounded , thus a rethink is going on to return to the larger calibre weapons.
Hence the overall policy of the armed forces was to wound and not kill.
I could have cause just made it up
I also understand after the last few conflicts it has been noted that the enemy has not dropped their guns to look after the wounded , thus a rethink is going on to return to the larger calibre weapons.
Hence the overall policy of the armed forces was to wound and not kill.
I could have cause just made it up
There is no ‘shoot to kill’.
There is shoot to ‘stop the threat’.
However your options change how you shoot in order to stop the threat.
Where you aim, how many rounds you fire are all assessed whether it is necessary and you’ve used the minimum amount of force to stop the threat. There is supposed to be assessment between shots.
Normally the standard point of aim is central body mass. This is basically because it is the biggest mass to hit, but obviously contains the risk of hitting vital organs. Shooting guns, knives out of hands or shoot the legs to disable in dynamic situations is the stuff movies or TV dramas.
Shooting the head deliberately is still shooting to stop the threat but your options have changed. The reasons you might alter the point of aim could be subject wearing body armour, risk of hitting explosives or capability to detonate something. Someone with an explosive belt can still potentially operate it if shot in legs, arm, body. A shot or shots to the head is designed to immediately stop the capability of the subject. If they can still press a button then the threat still exists. You’d still be justifying why you fired 1,2,3..6,7,8 shots though.
It’s pretty graphic to see in reality, but be in no doubt those firearms officers would been processing a lot in the seconds they had to act.... ‘do I shoot’, ‘other options’, ‘where to aim’, ‘is this justified’, ‘how much force to use’. It is very clear on the video they have processed the explosive risk before taking the decision to shoot and their actions afterwards.
There is shoot to ‘stop the threat’.
However your options change how you shoot in order to stop the threat.
Where you aim, how many rounds you fire are all assessed whether it is necessary and you’ve used the minimum amount of force to stop the threat. There is supposed to be assessment between shots.
Normally the standard point of aim is central body mass. This is basically because it is the biggest mass to hit, but obviously contains the risk of hitting vital organs. Shooting guns, knives out of hands or shoot the legs to disable in dynamic situations is the stuff movies or TV dramas.
Shooting the head deliberately is still shooting to stop the threat but your options have changed. The reasons you might alter the point of aim could be subject wearing body armour, risk of hitting explosives or capability to detonate something. Someone with an explosive belt can still potentially operate it if shot in legs, arm, body. A shot or shots to the head is designed to immediately stop the capability of the subject. If they can still press a button then the threat still exists. You’d still be justifying why you fired 1,2,3..6,7,8 shots though.
It’s pretty graphic to see in reality, but be in no doubt those firearms officers would been processing a lot in the seconds they had to act.... ‘do I shoot’, ‘other options’, ‘where to aim’, ‘is this justified’, ‘how much force to use’. It is very clear on the video they have processed the explosive risk before taking the decision to shoot and their actions afterwards.
robwilk said:
I was of the understanding that is why the army moved to a smaller calibre gun so that it was less likely to cause death but wound the enemy and hold them back looking after the wounded.
I also understand after the last few conflicts it has been noted that the enemy has not dropped their guns to look after the wounded , thus a rethink is going on to return to the larger calibre weapons.
Hence the overall policy of the armed forces was to wound and not kill.
I could have cause just made it up
I believe militarily the decision to up the calibre is down to distances of the fire fights.I also understand after the last few conflicts it has been noted that the enemy has not dropped their guns to look after the wounded , thus a rethink is going on to return to the larger calibre weapons.
Hence the overall policy of the armed forces was to wound and not kill.
I could have cause just made it up
Of course wounding takes up resources but I don’t think that’s still the primary goal.
7.62 is virtually gone for the specialist snipers having moved to 3.38 or .50.
There’s also the balance for infantry of 5.56 weapons and ammo being lighter than being equipped with a 7.62.
You would have to be quite the sharp shooter to "shoot to wound". Don't get me wrong, there are people out there who can shoot that well, but it takes hundreds of hours of training and thousands of rounds to even come close to being that accurate.
The average police officer is, with all due respect, simply not that accurate. Therefore you shoot at the largest target because (1) You want to hit the damn target and not have bullets flying around where they can hit innocents and (2) You want to make sure the target it stopped. Shooting a hand or the gun out of a hand (if you are Buffalo Bill that is) is simply not going to ensure that the target is stopped. What good is it to shoot a hand if someone can still detonate the bomb? Or Stab another person?
The average police officer is, with all due respect, simply not that accurate. Therefore you shoot at the largest target because (1) You want to hit the damn target and not have bullets flying around where they can hit innocents and (2) You want to make sure the target it stopped. Shooting a hand or the gun out of a hand (if you are Buffalo Bill that is) is simply not going to ensure that the target is stopped. What good is it to shoot a hand if someone can still detonate the bomb? Or Stab another person?
An ex-copper on the radio last night said all decisions regarding whether to shoot or not in any given situation are made by the individual firearms officer. Then this morning another ex-copper said of the situation yesterday, that as soon as explosives are suspected then shooting so they are neurologically dead is the protocol.
dogbucket said:
An ex-copper on the radio last night said all decisions regarding whether to shoot or not in any given situation are made by the individual firearms officer. Then this morning another ex-copper said of the situation yesterday, that as soon as explosives are suspected then shooting so they are neurologically dead is the protocol.
It is down to the officer whether they shoot, where they shoot and how much they shoot... except where they might not have the full info/intel due to time constraints and ‘ordered’ to take critical shot. Even then they might see something not right with the info/intel and not shoot though.
Let’s say the commanders had clear intel this person had an explosives belt and had already attacked people and ARV still on route but things are time critical, unable to pass info. You could have command to take critical shot on sight of subject.
DS240 said:
dogbucket said:
An ex-copper on the radio last night said all decisions regarding whether to shoot or not in any given situation are made by the individual firearms officer. Then this morning another ex-copper said of the situation yesterday, that as soon as explosives are suspected then shooting so they are neurologically dead is the protocol.
It is down to the officer whether they shoot, where they shoot and how much they shoot... except where they might not have the full info/intel due to time constraints and ‘ordered’ to take critical shot. Even then they might see something not right with the info/intel and not shoot though.
Let’s say the commanders had clear intel this person had an explosives belt and had already attacked people and ARV still on route but things are time critical, unable to pass info. You could have command to take critical shot on sight of subject.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff