Inspired by this thread about how justified (or not) a shooting was. The possibility of shooting to wound, or shooting to disable, is brought up.
I’m of the opinion that the bullshit to truth ratio of the ‘shoot to wound’ idea is all bullshit, no truth in all these areas, but that was IMHO so let’s try for a factual answer. Is there any jurisdiction in the world, any court of law that would convict a person based on the idea that they should have ‘shot to wound’ rather than shoot someone dead?
What about medically? Is there any part of the human anatomy that one could ‘shoot to wound’ that would disable an attacker as effectively as a hit to the centre of mass, without killing him?
This article from 2006 about police in New York being forced to comply by a ‘minimal force’ policy or law;
The VP even scoffed at it, reportedly saying it should be called the ‘John Wayne Bill’ because of the Hollywood level of marksmanship that would be required.
Anyway, what other salient facts, medically, legally, tactically, can be shed on this idea?
I presume that you mean regular ammunition, not special less lethal ones like rubber bullets?
The answer is totally bullshit. While you have less chance of a fatality if you hit a limb, there are faily large arteries in both and you can easily die from blood loss or hell complications like infections.
This totally ignorant citizen isn’t sure what the OP is asking.
Suppose The Bad Guy is unarmed, but is running towards his weapon. The Good Guy knows that he will not be able to catch up to the Bad Guy, and fears what the Bad Guy will do once he reaches his weapon. I would think that the Good Guy should aim for the Bad guy’s legs, and that will prevent him from reaching the weapon. Are you saying that this would require a Hollywood level of marksmanship?
The thread in question is about .38 S&W, though the concept is usually applied to all firearms. Whether it would be reasonable to think the idea is more valid with some .22 snubnose than a .50 cal AE I don’t know, but I doubt it. Are officers encouraged to alter their aim with rubber bullets, bean bag rounds and the like?
No, you’ve got it in one, namely are there situations legally/tactically/medically where you have a firearm and discharge it trying not to kill is a better idea than just aiming for centre mass. On the marksmanship, check the link in the OP; when someone’s running getting a guaranteed shot at the leg is difficult due to the rapid motion of the leg. Plus you have the adrenaline going and might be in motion yourself.
Anyway, what other salient facts, medically, legally, tactically, can be shed on this idea?
[/QUOTE]
I saw a “Forensic Files” episode where a guy was shot four times in non-critical locations, supposedly after he and his wife were confronted by an armed robber on the beach (his wife was shot dead, and it later came out that he shot himself four times to further his phony story).
But that was someone with time to deliberate and aim. I doubt any but a very few law enforcement officers are good enough shots in poor light, with an attacker coming at them, their adrenaline flowing etc., to manage a “flesh wound” that will stop the attacker cold. There have also been cases of drugged-up felons (on angel dust for instance) who have withstood multiple gunshots to key organs and still managed to inflict serious harm on officers.
You want to promote more use of Tasers, nets to throw over suspects, talk therapy etc., fine. But it is dumb to suggest that cops can and should “shoot to wound”.
I wouldn’t even try it at 10 feet. It takes less than a second for a grown adult in good physical shape to cross that distance. James Bond can probably aim and fire at a swiftly moving target in such a time, but I can’t. And James Bond can kill the guy with a toothpick anyway.
One, you can’t control your shots that precisely. If you’re an expert sniper with plenty of time and a cooperative target, then sure, you can choose what part of the body to put the bullet. But for 99% of times where you’re justified in using your gun, you’re lucky to send bullets in the general direction of the target. You can’t aim that well. Aim for his leg and you’re just as likely to hit his head.
Two, you can die from any sort of gunshot wound, even in the arm or shoulder or leg or hand or foot.
It’s bullshit because if you don’t have justification to use deadly force against the target you have no business using a deadly weapon against them. A gun is a deadly weapon. It puts holes of unpredictable sizes in unpredictable places in the target. There is no “stun” setting.
Legally, there is no jurisdiction in the United States that would treat it as a crime to use a gun to shoot someone if you kill them, but not a crime if you only wound them. If the shooter is justified in using deadly force, then whether the target dies, or is wounded, or is missed entirely is irrelevant. If the shooter is not justified in using deadly force, then what the shooter gets charged with might change depending on whether the victim dies, or is wounded, or is missed. Do you get charged with murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, or assault with a deadly weapon? Depends on the exact laws and exact fact pattern.
But there is no case where, if you shoot someone and hit them and kill them you’re a murderer, but if you had only wounded them you’re not guilty of anything.
In Texas, in our CHL classes, the instructors tell students that “shooting to wound” is complete bunk. If you are in a situation where using a gun is required, the adrenaline alone would make a normal shots difficult. Deliberate head shots are discouraged for the same reason. Go center mass.
We were also told that legally, there’s not much distinction. You might be able to slip by on “intent” sometimes, but generally any shooting is treated as if the intention were to kill. If you want to merely disable, you shouldn’t be using a gun in the first place. It’s using lethal force even if that’s not always the end result.
Just a thought, but what if a shooter hits the criminal in center mass, and then, as the criminal is lying on the ground (but could still get up again) *then *walks over and shoots him in the knees and wrists to prevent further mischief?
When you put it that way, then I think there answer is yes. I can certainly imagine a reasonable not-completely-contrived situation where firing a warning shot into the ground (or other safe location) is a better idea (legally and tactically) than shooting to kill.
Of course, I’m convinced that ‘shooting to wound’ is BS in nearly all cases, so going on your original formulation in the first post, the answer is “all BS”.
[Though, as a reasonably imaginitive person, I could come up with some contrived situation. OK, how about: Bad Guy is leg shackled to something immobile, but is in the process of slowly bending a piece of metal to get free. Safety is two miles away, and both you and Bad Guy know that he’s fast enough compared to you to catch you, even if you start running now and he has to finish freeing himself, and he’s skilled enough to ambush you and win even when you’re armed with a gun. Let’s also posit that Bad Guy doesn’t want to kill you, just kidnap you/cut off a couple fingers/something better than death, so it’s not a clear your-life-or-his situation. Oh, and there are medical supplies in the room. Now, in this case, it’s probably better to put a bullet through bad guy’s foot than his head/chest. Not that I’d necessarily hold it against you if you’re too stressed to think this all through in the moment. And again, this is a BS completly contrived example which has nothing to do with finding intruders in your home at night.]
In the one study I found online, the hit rate for police at up to 3 yards only approaches 40% and overall their rate drops to 19%. If the average chance of a police officer to hit their target is only 19%, I would say that shooting to wound is a complete myth.
In the other thread, the incident involved a woman who shot at an intruder five times. The first shot missed, the second one hit the suspect, presumably terminating the threat, and there were 3rd, 4th and 5th shots that would have had no additional deterrent effect, which leaves murder as the only remaining motive.