Posted: 10/23/2009 3:18:57 PM EDT
|
So the stated policy of the Spartanburg County Sherrif's Dept. seems to be (from this thread)
"Deputies will fire their weapons not to kill, but rather to stop and incapacitate an assailant from completing a potentially deadly act," the policy states. "For maximum stopping effectiveness and minimal danger to innocent bystanders, officers should shoot at the center of mass of the target."
In other words, we're not shooting to kill, we're shooting to stop. But to stop we're aiming COM (and this is what's unsaid, of course) ––- which will probably kill. Just struck me as funny (odd funny, not funny haha), and the obvious product of lawyer work. Is policy with similar language common to all LEO departments? And what say ye? |
|
Quoted:
So the stated policy of the Spartanburg County Sherrif's Dept. seems to be (from this thread) "Deputies will fire their weapons not to kill, but rather to stop and incapacitate an assailant from completing a potentially deadly act," the policy states. "For maximum stopping effectiveness and minimal danger to innocent bystanders, officers should shoot at the center of mass of the target."
In other words, we're not shooting to kill, we're shooting to stop. But to stop we're aiming COM (and this is what's unsaid, of course) ––- which will probably kill. Just struck me as funny (odd funny, not funny haha), and the obvious product of lawyer work. Is policy with similar language common to all LEO departments? And what say ye? yes the lies of the lawyers have filtered down to all of us |
|
The goal is not killing them. The goal is to stop them. If they stop after being shot but are not dead you accomplished your goal. If the shot killed them you still accomplished your goal.
If you had a policy of shoot to kill, then after wounding them and they stopped what they were doing... you would continue to shoot them until they were dead. BIG difference! |
|
Quoted:
The goal is not killing them. The goal is to stop them. If they stop after being shot but are not dead you accomplished your goal. If the shot killed them you still accomplished your goal. If you had a policy of shoot to kill, then after wounding them and they stopped what they were doing... you would continue to shoot them until they were dead. BIG difference! Needs to be a little more killin' and a little less stoppin' some of those perps. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The goal is not killing them. The goal is to stop them. If they stop after being shot but are not dead you accomplished your goal. If the shot killed them you still accomplished your goal. If you had a policy of shoot to kill, then after wounding them and they stopped what they were doing... you would continue to shoot them until they were dead. BIG difference! Needs to be a little more killin' and a little less stoppin' some of those perps. Our switch to .45 GAP seems to have fixed that for us. |
|
Always seemed like legal and phyco mumbo jumbo to me. If you rightly shoot some one, you're applying DEADLY FORCE. What's the expected outcome?
My military training, military LE/SP training, and civilian security training all used the same verbage. Yet we were trained to shoot COM, and to continue to fire "until the threat was stopped." I used to shake my head at what I feel was an absure policy stance. Realistically, if you shoot some one, especially if you shoot them more than once, you must expect them to die. However, if I ever, God forbid, get in that situation, I'll give the politically and legally correct response. "I was only trying to stop the threat, no, I didn't mean to kill him." Yeah, that's the ticket, wink, wink, nod, nod, say no more. |
|
Quoted:
Common verbage but it's still deadly force. I've never seen any policy that says COM but that's probably from some chief that read a gun article in a police magazine. I have seen several that specifically indicated COM, to include federal LE with that language in the policy and in how the courses of fire are written. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The goal is not killing them. The goal is to stop them. If they stop after being shot but are not dead you accomplished your goal. If the shot killed them you still accomplished your goal. If you had a policy of shoot to kill, then after wounding them and they stopped what they were doing... you would continue to shoot them until they were dead. BIG difference! Needs to be a little more killin' and a little less stoppin' some of those perps. Then GD would be in an uproar about how we deprived the suspect of thier rights , blah blah blah. |
|
I thought we all shoot to "stop"? I mean usually you have to kill someone to stop them, but if you shoot an attacker and they are alive, but have stopped attacking you, hasn't your goal been achieved?
Of course the way they are saying is kind of a wussy, PC way of saying it. |
|
To quote a LEO in the family, "Shoot twice or pay for the wheelchair..."
Sounds harsh, but after reading those horror stories of repeat felons that get maimed during apprehension by Police after committing armed robbery/rape that end up winning millions in a civil suit, I always wonder whats wrong with the straightforward policy of, "Shoot to kill if threat is present". You can PC the reality all you want, but in the end everyone is better off with dead rather than "Stopped" imo. |
|
Quoted:
So the stated policy of the Spartanburg County Sherrif's Dept. seems to be (from this thread) "Deputies will fire their weapons not to kill, but rather to stop and incapacitate an assailant from completing a potentially deadly act," the policy states. "For maximum stopping effectiveness and minimal danger to innocent bystanders, officers should shoot at the center of mass of the target."
In other words, we're not shooting to kill, we're shooting to stop. But to stop we're aiming COM (and this is what's unsaid, of course) ––- which will probably kill. Just struck me as funny (odd funny, not funny haha), and the obvious product of lawyer work. Is policy with similar language common to all LEO departments? And what say ye? Everywhere. Accepted law of self defense, all LEOs are shooting to stop the use of lethal force or severe bodily harm against them or others. It has always been like that. You shoot to stop, never to kill. You aim for COM for 2 reasons, 1. to help ensure your rounds only hit the intended target and not other people ( you aim for the biggest area ) and2. in order to stop the attack, you need to cause loss of blood or wind, or a CNS hit and hitting someone in the leg is not going to do that or stop their attack. The intended goal is to stop the attack. You must use lethal force to do that. Lethal force has the potential to kill. If you had the authority to shoot to kill, after the BG was down you would put a round in his head to finish him off and or not bother to call an ambulance. Obviously if you do that, you are going to be convicted of murder. Shooting to stop may have the unintended consequence of causing death, but that is not the intent and you don't have the legal authority to intentionally kill, rather it is a result of the need to stop an attack of lethal force or severe bodily harm and the need to do it right now. It's not PC bullshit. It is a function or law and biology. If you are a LEO and don't fully understand this concept, I think you need to do some research and figure it out before you end up using your weapon and doing and saying the wrong things that will destroy the life you know.. Same goes for everyone else that carries a weapon for self defense. |