Lots of cops today, are just not very good shots anymore. Many of them, esp the young ones, went into police work for the money, and many had no prior experience with guns, nor much interest in guns. They just shoot well enough to qualilfy, and spend the minimum required range time whatever that might be for any particular department. I doubt if the cops in Canada are any better, esp since none of them are good shots with a pistol before they join the police force(since they cant own pistols in canada as a civilian). It is very common for today’s police to miss more often than they hit the target, I would say that if that cop hit the criminal at all, with only one shot being fired, he is probably a better shot than most of that force. I personally saw a big city “police pistol team”(the best shots on that force) entirely miss 2/3rds of the time when shooting at 12 inch plates at 20 feet.
The story says"
"Four officers and a canine immediately entered the
home and fifth officer went to the backyard.
…the suspect was cornered in the dining room by officers and
the police dog. Additional demands to drop both knives were
made but the suspect ignored the demands and was pepper
sprayed again, which had no effect.
Additional demands to drop both knives were made and shots
were then fired and the man was struck in the leg. He is in
non-life threatening condition at Foothills Hospital. "
It was extremely close range, and they had plenty of time to take very careful aim- a cant miss situation for anyone who knows how to shoot. Anyone reasonably proficient with a handgun could shoot the guys thumb off with only one shot. They outnumbered the suspect 5-1, a barely self defense situation. It doesnt say how many shots were fired, but it is plural, which means they missed (whatever they were shooting at - leg or vitals) at least once at point blank range.
Whether they were trying to wound or not, unless all shots actually fired went into his leg(unlikely), they missed, so it really doesnt matter if they were trying to wound or kill, a miss would change an intentional miss to a fatal shot, and vice versa. Obviously these cops cant shoot straight, so it doesnt matter where they were aiming.
You’re kidding, right? Shooting at a stationary (and unarmed) paper target is one thing. Shooting at a moving human target who is armed and capable of killing you or someone else is quite another. Make no mistake, if a police officer is in a situation that has deteriorated to the point where he feel it is necessary to draw his weapon, he is going to be pumped with adrenaline, under severe stressand possibly afraid for his life. Under these conditions, hitting the broad side of the proverbial barn is problematic for most people, and even with training, nothing can truly prepare a police officer for real-life field conditions. It’s important to bear in mind that in a situation such as this, the oficer has a lot more on his mind than “taking careful aim” ands lining up the perfect shot.
For anyone with no handgun training, maybe. Personally I’d be ashamed if I had 1 OUT of the kill zone at 20 feet, and I consider myself an average shot. It’s all a matter of training, and the police ARE supposed to be trained, aren’t they?
Yeah, I meant for people with none to little handgun experience. However, I’ve been at the range with police officers, some with over 25 years of experience, and you’d be surprised how many are below average, even terrible shots. A few times I’ve seen them miss the kill zone on EVERY single shot from a full magazine (high-capacity law enforcement mags at that) at 10 yards. Absolutely freaking amazing when you see it in person. A lot of this is due to most officers nowadays getting probably 10 times as much training in paperwork and procedures than in firearm training. Here, officers go once a year to the range at the academy, for an hour or so of actual shooting. Meaning some officers on the street may not have fired a gun in almost a year, much less had any training in shooting anything other than stationary paper targets.
No, I am not kidding. Did you read the article? It says there were 4 cops and a police dog. They had the guy cornered in a dining room. They pepper sprayed him, they seemed to have plenty of time, he was not moving, they were all in that room- it was no hurried shot against a moving target - just how much moving can someone do in a dining room surrounded by 4 people and a dog? If I had 3 armed friends around me who knew how to shoot backing me up, if I was armed, and an attack dog with me also, surrounding just one guy with just a knife who I had already pepper sprayed, I wouldnt miss whatever I was shooting at, 10 feet or less away. Frankly, I dont think lethal force was justified, if I was a cop in that situation, I probably would have used the billy club if pepper spray did not work, or just took my time until he disarmed himself after he realized that he was not going anywhere. It doesnt say he was attacking 4 armed police officers and a dog, it says he wanted to get away, not fight 1 against 5(4 of them with guns) . I think it was foolish to have fired a gun in that situation, (and even more of a joke that they missed at least once? )
You would bring a club to a knife fight?
I’m sure you feel that a cop should get cut a few times, beat up maybe shot. All part of the job right? It all sounds nice and clear cut in a press report written by someone who wasn’t there.
I don’t think I would but I DON"T KNOW and neither do you. You might get the shakes so bad that you shoot yourself in the foot. Until you are in the situation yourself you can’t know. If you say any different its because all you know about being a cop is from watching Leathal Weapon.
The article said the man had TWO knives, and you’re going to engage him in melee combat with your billy club?
Can I have your autograph?
Just because a suspect is outnumbered does not render them any less dangerous. In close quarters such as inside a room usually makes it MORE dangerous of a situation. Obviously after not disarming himself after being pepper-sprayed, the guy wasn’t going to be taken into custody without a struggle. No matter how much you outnumber someone, a struggle in close quarters with someone wielding a knife is going to end up with someone being cut, usually very seriously. All it takes is one slash to the throat and an officer is probably dead. Just watch a couple episodes of Cops, and you’ll see suspects continue to fight after being doused with multiple cans of pepper spray or mace, and it still takes 7 or 8 officers a LONG time just to subdue some of these people, then they’re STILL fighting after being handcuffed, sometimes even after being hogtied.
Obviously you have no experience at all with firearms, otherwise you would see how asinine that last statement was. I’m personally amazed that they stopped shooting after the suspect was only hit once, I feel it was some incredible self-control on the part of the cops that the suspect didn’t have at least half a dozen more holes in him.
Please don’t spread disinformation on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance. Civilians certainly can own handguns in Canada. Handguns are regulated, yes, but are perfectly legal to own.
Balle_M: Under adrenal stress conditions, trained police officers hit statistically with only 3/10 shots at ranges of 15’ or less. Those with less training, for example those people who simply go to the firing range periodically, typically land only 1/10. Note, that most trained police officers can hit the kill zone 9/10 times at 15’ or less under normal conditions. Adrenal stress has a profound influence on the capability to use fine motor skills such as those required to properly aim a pistol.
Some books you may be interested in:
“StressFire volume 1 & 2” by Massad Ayoob
“Defensive Shooting” don’t remember the author and don’t have the book handy
“The Farnam Method” by John Farnam (surprise)
“Real Fighting” by Peyton Quinn
Hmm, maybe each lane in the gun range should be equipped with a spark generator and some alligator clips.
I am a retired law enforcement officer in Ontario, and in my years of service, we were always trained to aim for centre of mass.
Whatever you see in your sites, you aim for the centre of it. That’s what would be said in a court of law anyway.
This shooting for a leg or an arm to disable a perp is something you see on television, in real life situations, this is highly unlikely.
Like others have said, if I must use deadly force, my goal is to hit my target and nothing less.
If the situation does not warrant the use of firearms, then a lesser force will be used.
This of course is a judgment call by the officer, and a decision must be made in a split second.
Typically, centre of mass will fall anywhere between the waist band and the neck.
In a target shooting setting, you want all your rounds to hit a small cluster right in the centre of the chest area, but occasionally (for me anyway) some miss the target altogether, and a few hit the arms, once in a while you get a head shot, and sometimes you are looking at your neighbors target by mistake.
I doubt that leg shot was done on purpose, a lucky break for the perp if you ask me.
Regards
Lets not overlook the fact that said officers not only gave the suspect a chance to put the knife (or knives) down when he was close enough to do damage with them, they maced him as well (tried less lethal methods of subduing him). I don’t see why anyone would have any reasion to complain.
He got shot because he wouldn’t listen. And once the shooting starts, like in any high stress situation, training kicks in. You don’t think, you act.
I’m sure it went something like this:
Excuse sir could you please drop those knives?
I don’t believe I will.
Pretty please?
No I do not wish to. I will be standing here quietly while you fine fellows decide what to do.
What to do hmmmm.(sorry forgot it was Canada) What to do eh?
Gordy what do you think eh?
Don’t know eh. Wayne what do you think eh?
Don’t know eh. Guy what do you think eh?
Fetchez la vache.(sorry the only French I know is from Python)
Hosehead how about you?
Woof, eh.
I guess I’ll have to shoot him. Sir we have decided to shoot you.
What? sorry I dozed off a little. OK do what you must. I’ll just stand hear nice and still.
Thank you for your cooperation. BANG.
Darnnit, hit him in the leg.
Sound about right
should have ended with a ? :rolleyes:
Quiznos delivers to your house? Wow!
[off topic] Personally I think it counts as natural selection in a case like that. Who would be stupid enough to charge a gun-wielding person in any kind of agression in the first place? If you’re a stranger coming towards me, you’d better be doing it slowly and Creed-style, “… with arms wide open”.
Yea, I have trouble mustering a whole lotta sympathy for those people who charge the cops with knives, screwdrivers, etc., then get shot.
This must be a regional thing. When I worked for a police department in this area, the third shift cops were out at the range very frequently. I’m not sure what the policy was, but they seemed to be out there several times a week – some practically daily.
Of course, they would get pulled away if there was a priority call, but they were there with such great frequency that I remember at least a half dozen occasions being irritated by it (because of low-priority trips – say, a strange dog wandering the area – where people kept calling over and over, and all of the other officers were off doing something time-consuming, like dealing with a DUI or booking someone in the jail; I remember thinking, sigh, I know it’s important to do time at the range but I hope he’s done soon and gets this guy off my back!).
If this concerns you, you might want to speak with some folks at your local city hall. It’s probably a funding issue - get one or two more cops on the beat and, given some prodding, I’m sure the police department could make some time for more routine practice.
Keep in mind this happened a half-dozen times and I was working as a dispatcher only for about a month out of training, and a few weeks in the latter part of training where I was doing the job with monitoring.