I'm wondering how widespread this line of thought is?

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Evil-Twin:

Cops are not trained to " wing " a criminal..

That is true, and for good reason.

no one trains to shoot someone in a non vital spot.

Also true.

All tactical training is concentrated on vital " Kill shot placement ".....

That's an assumption about wounding effectiveness and about the human anatomy. It has little if anything to do with the subject at hand here, but if that statement was made to substantiate an assertion that police officers train to kill, it doesn't do that at all. One has to hit critical parts of the anatomy to stop an attacker timely.

you never see a bulls eye, on the hand or leg of a tactical silhouette target.

No, but a number of suspects are shot in the hand and leg, both by police officers and by civilian defenders. Silhouette targets do not move, and they do not shoot.

Folks, we do need to stay on track. Some posts have disappeared.

This thread started with an account about an officer who, for reasons having to do with the potential public reaction, elected to not use deadly force, and was beaten with his own gun.. The hypothetical question that was posed was whether that is becoming widespread.

The discussion has addressed a supposition that, simply because neither the officer, nor the attacher, who incidentally has been charged with attempted murder, has expired, the officer made a prudent decision.

In the course of that part of the discussion, the subject of the likelihood that a shooting victim will be killed came up. That has been adequately addressed.

That somehow took us to the question of whether law enforcement officers are properly trained to intentionally shoot to kill. That has been answered. the answer is no.

No more on that one, please.

Does anyone have anything to add regarding the original question?

 

[VoteforCookies]

I just got to say I'm glad I'm not a cop. It is a difficult job that can change day to day. I'll stick with desk work

 

[herrwalther]

As a deliberate act of engagement, the military applies deadly force with maximum lattitude (sic) in COMBAT. But still, the goal is to simply apply deadly force as effectively as possible in order to achieve the overall tactical and/or strategic goal...which is the submission of enemy forces to our own. If they submit...we stop trying to put holes in them. If they don't, we keep applying deadly force until they do, one way or the other.

Not to get too far off topic in a branch war, but there is no reason to clarify. I have never attended or ran a gunfighter training where we shot at targets with the mindset to just stop them. Nor did I shoot at anyone overseas to just get them to stop. It was always with lethality in mind. Says right in the job manual for my former job title "relies almost exclusively on the human dimension of the individual rifleman to close with and destroy the enemy."

In an urban environment DOD directive 5210.56 would prevent all forms of combat. Civilians will get injured in urban conflict. That is a fact of warfare.

Back on topic: I hope the detective messed up somewhere and is using the media court as an excuse. If not, and this fear of media backlash is widespread, the consequences would be much worse than getting beat unconscious.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Of course you shoot with lethality in mind. That's the whole point of applying deadly force...you don't shoot to "wound", most especially on the battlefield.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by herrwalther:

I hope the detective messed up somewhere and is using the media court as an excuse. If not, and this fear of media backlash is widespread, the consequences would be much worse than getting beat unconscious.

The second does not depend upon the first.

 

[Jeff White]

I think this one has about run its course.