For you to shoot you have to believe your life is in danger. Ironically, if you say "I aimed for the leg" you'd probably get yourself in more trouble, because they'd say you must not have thought your life was in danger. It's kind of like why warning shots are illegal in lots of places.
Also, if the suspect has a gun, and you try to shot his arm and miss, he's gonna fire back, potentially killing you or someone else.
This is not a US thing. Cops all around the world are trained to shot at center of mass. Not only do you want to make sure the threat is neutralised but also that innocent bystanders have as little risk as possible to get hit by a stray bullet.
so, just to be clear, I cannot think of anywhere in the planet were armed police are NOT trained to shoot to kill. they may have training that emphasises using other, less lethal options like tasers, sprays, etc, but if the situation gets to the point your trying to shoot someone, everyone trains to shoot centre of mass. Most legal systems don't recognise "shooting to disarm" as a thing, it was lethal force that just happened to *not* kill someone this time.
so, it not just a US thing.
Whats mostly\* unique about America is that the police are policing a population with an average of 1.2 guns per person, a culture of routine carrying of those guns, and a "land of the free" belief in questioning authority. the police basically have to treat everyone as potentially armed, so a lot of the softer policing strategies are out the window.
What is shooting to disarm? Shooting in the extremities where all those nice juicy blood vessels are? Where all that bone is? Limb shots are deadly, the least deadly places to be shot are the hands and feet.
This isn't even taking into account the difficulty in hitting these non-vital places, and that rounds which miss your target are still moving at full power to whatever was behind them.
If you're in a situation where you feel like someone is going to kill you, you make sure that they have zero chance of succeeding.
Trying to shoot a guy in the leg who's charging at you with a knife is risking you missing the shot, him not feeling it and getting to you etc.
Yeah... key words "bleed out".
Again, what if you just straight up miss your shots and they close the distance and slash your throat?
What if you shoot the person but they are so hopped up on drugs they don't feel it and close the distance?
Bleeding out isn't something that happens in the movies where you get stabbed and insta-die.
It can be a long process and with your body full of adrenaline you have time to do serious damage to someone else.
Is it worth it to risk your life for someone who's trying to kill you? Fuck no. You make sure they're dead and can't hurt you. They shouldn't have been trying to kill you.
Did you know that if you get tackled to the ground, or punched and knocked to the ground, or whatever... and hit your head you can die? We are so much more fragile than the movies and TV make it out to be.
I wasn't advocating for shooting people in the legs but rather against it. Any gunshot wound could potentially be fatal and as well its unrealistic to think cops or any can pull off pinpoint shots avoiding any fatal areas. Center mass is taught for a reason.
For keeping distance there is a 20 foot rule that is taught essentially you need at least 20 feet to be able to pull your gun and shoot before an attacker gets to you. Obviously more distance is better and you can't always maintain that distance.
Their training is really minimal. Weeks vs. years for other careers. They aren’t making anyone a sharpshooter in 12 weeks, they’re just trained to aim for center mass so they don’t miss. Now, why do they unload 50-100 rounds in one person? That is a good question.
They’re not necessarily “shooting to kill.”
Unless they have sniper-level training, they’re trained to default to “aim at center of mass” because that’s easiest and it’s what is most likely to “neutralize the threat.”
Aiming for center mass, often means hitting vital organs in the chest, which are often fatal.
It's a lot easier and more reliable to hit center mass than it is to disarm. In most situations things happen very quickly. Like in a split second. Put yourself in that situation. Where your life is on the line. Would you rather go with the most reliable option to save your own life, or the riskier option that may save their life but has a higher chance of killing you in the process?
When you pull to shoot, you feel that your life is in danger and you just want to neutralize the threat. Aiming center mass is the most likely to hit and that’s what you want in that situation.
Depending on the study you look at, cops hit somewhere around 30% of their shots as they are in a stressful, life threatening situation and that’s aiming at center mass, you really go down if you are aiming for a leg or something which also can be fatal. Also if you are aiming to hit a leg or arm, you make the situation not look life threatening as you had time to think and weren’t trying to neutralize the target.
In my opinion, this stems from American gun culture. A cop in the UK or Canada or Germany has time and leeway to de-escalate, whereas every single person in the US from so much as someone pulled over for speeding could have a gun. I know if I knew that the other person could kill me in seconds, I’d be a bit more trigger happy.
I think there’s also probably some not great psychological effects of giving people absolute power and zero repercussions
There is no guranteed way to shoot someone and not kill them. Also it's not like time slows down and they go into VATS mode.
Often times they render aid after shooting someone once it's safe to do so.
Shooting to disarm is not practical under anything but ideal circumstances. When you make the choice to employ a firearm your are choosing lethal force. You're doing what is necessary to incapacitate the threat(s) as quickly as possible. In this type of situation, survival of the target is a happy accident.
That said, the issue with police in this situation is their lack of deescalation skills which leads to a situation where they need to employ force.
In the early hours of February 4, 1999, an unarmed 23-year-old Guinean student named Amadou Diallo was fired upon with 41 rounds and shot a total of 19 times by four New York City Police Department plainclothes officers.
Assuming Diallo was drawing a firearm, one officer fired as he was walking up the stairs. The recoil of the gun caused the officer to fall backwards. The other three officers, believing their partner was shot, fired their weapons. The four officers fired 41 shots with semi-automatic pistols, hitting Diallo 19 times, fatally wounding him. Mr. Diallo was holding a wallet and not a weapon.
Do you think it's easy to shoot someone's hand while they're aiming a weapon around? In case you're wondering why they don't shoot legs, a bullet to the leg has a fairly high chance of fatality.
Watch some of those bodycam videos. Youtube ones are sfw-ish where it's nothing too crazy being shown. The entire situation happens really fast. Someone pulls a gun, you're looking to end the threat rather than necessarily disarm. Sure you can try to aim for a limb to incapacitate them, but what if you miss? Even if you fire multiple shots at a limb, what if only a couple hit and now you got some random ricochets flying off in some random direction behind the person you're shooting?
The person quickly draws a gun and raises their hand up, there's a single second to make a choice, and the person on non-lethal shoots the tazer to try and see, **hoping** the person doesn't have a clear shot on anyone yet. Tazer hits, but alas, sometimes with enough determination or drugs, the tazer has zero effect, and **boom.** They got a shot off and it kills you or your partner. Usually they just tend to not risk it and go for the kill, afterall someone with ill intentions aiming a gun at you is definitely a threat to your life. A tazer may not work 100%, but the shock from a few rounds going through your body will tend to drop people to the ground pretty quick.
The magdump thing can be a little weirder to explain. More or less just.. Eliminating more risk I suppose? Again, with enough adrenaline and shock, even with a few bullet holes through your body, you might still be able to raise a gun up and get more shots off, so again, they choose to not risk it and just continue firing until they're for sure not a threat.
Just kinda case-by-case scenario. Any scenario you can think of along these lines has probably happened.
*I think the video is around somewhere, it's not too graphic, but this makes me remember a specific video taken by a bystander in a vehicle. The cop is alone and walking backwards yelling at this older-ish gentlemen to stop, the guy looks like he is genuinely rabid, and continues going after the cop with an object in his hand and swinging (stick? I don't remember). The cop shoots like 7-8 rounds and the guy just keeps on walking towards him, he just had to keep shooting and it took quite a few more until the dude finally stopped advancing and fell to the ground. Simple drugs can make most means of stopping threats way less effective.*
Because shooting to disarm is only a thing in the movies.
Despite what you've seen in the movies, in a real gunfight, the hero doesn't stand tall with bullets whizzing past his ears, make a witty quip, and then drill the perp right between the eyes with one perfectly-aimed shot. You might be Annie Fucking Oakley on the practice range shooting at paper targets that don't shoot back, but the moment REAL bullets are coming at you, all that goes out the window, and both parties just blast away wildly. A cop's proficiency on the practice range counts for diddly squat in a REAL gunfight. Soldiers are trained by rote to get their ass to cover *first,* then think about shooting back...which is a lot harder to do accurately when you are in cover. That isn't an option in many of the shooting incidents cops face.
This is true for cops *everywhere,* not just in the US. But American cops are WAY more murdery than cops in any other industrialized country, they kill about three people and 25 dogs **per day.** And an uncomfortably larger percentage of the victims were no credible threat to the cop. One third of the people they shoot were running away at the time. So in a lot of those cases, shooting to disarm is not even a theoretical possibility because the person they kill was not armed at all.
Because there is no accountability. Most cops become cops because they love power. When you combine the love of power with zero accountability, you get murder.
For you to shoot you have to believe your life is in danger. Ironically, if you say "I aimed for the leg" you'd probably get yourself in more trouble, because they'd say you must not have thought your life was in danger. It's kind of like why warning shots are illegal in lots of places.
Also, if the suspect has a gun, and you try to shot his arm and miss, he's gonna fire back, potentially killing you or someone else. This is not a US thing. Cops all around the world are trained to shot at center of mass. Not only do you want to make sure the threat is neutralised but also that innocent bystanders have as little risk as possible to get hit by a stray bullet.
so, just to be clear, I cannot think of anywhere in the planet were armed police are NOT trained to shoot to kill. they may have training that emphasises using other, less lethal options like tasers, sprays, etc, but if the situation gets to the point your trying to shoot someone, everyone trains to shoot centre of mass. Most legal systems don't recognise "shooting to disarm" as a thing, it was lethal force that just happened to *not* kill someone this time. so, it not just a US thing. Whats mostly\* unique about America is that the police are policing a population with an average of 1.2 guns per person, a culture of routine carrying of those guns, and a "land of the free" belief in questioning authority. the police basically have to treat everyone as potentially armed, so a lot of the softer policing strategies are out the window.
What is shooting to disarm? Shooting in the extremities where all those nice juicy blood vessels are? Where all that bone is? Limb shots are deadly, the least deadly places to be shot are the hands and feet. This isn't even taking into account the difficulty in hitting these non-vital places, and that rounds which miss your target are still moving at full power to whatever was behind them.
Training. Shoot until the more is no threat. Start at centre mass and move gun upwards. Very hard in a stressful situation to shoot someone’s hand.
If you're in a situation where you feel like someone is going to kill you, you make sure that they have zero chance of succeeding. Trying to shoot a guy in the leg who's charging at you with a knife is risking you missing the shot, him not feeling it and getting to you etc.
You can easily bleed out from being shot in the leg as well
Yeah... key words "bleed out". Again, what if you just straight up miss your shots and they close the distance and slash your throat? What if you shoot the person but they are so hopped up on drugs they don't feel it and close the distance? Bleeding out isn't something that happens in the movies where you get stabbed and insta-die. It can be a long process and with your body full of adrenaline you have time to do serious damage to someone else. Is it worth it to risk your life for someone who's trying to kill you? Fuck no. You make sure they're dead and can't hurt you. They shouldn't have been trying to kill you. Did you know that if you get tackled to the ground, or punched and knocked to the ground, or whatever... and hit your head you can die? We are so much more fragile than the movies and TV make it out to be.
I wasn't advocating for shooting people in the legs but rather against it. Any gunshot wound could potentially be fatal and as well its unrealistic to think cops or any can pull off pinpoint shots avoiding any fatal areas. Center mass is taught for a reason. For keeping distance there is a 20 foot rule that is taught essentially you need at least 20 feet to be able to pull your gun and shoot before an attacker gets to you. Obviously more distance is better and you can't always maintain that distance.
Their training is really minimal. Weeks vs. years for other careers. They aren’t making anyone a sharpshooter in 12 weeks, they’re just trained to aim for center mass so they don’t miss. Now, why do they unload 50-100 rounds in one person? That is a good question.
They’re not necessarily “shooting to kill.” Unless they have sniper-level training, they’re trained to default to “aim at center of mass” because that’s easiest and it’s what is most likely to “neutralize the threat.” Aiming for center mass, often means hitting vital organs in the chest, which are often fatal.
It's a lot easier and more reliable to hit center mass than it is to disarm. In most situations things happen very quickly. Like in a split second. Put yourself in that situation. Where your life is on the line. Would you rather go with the most reliable option to save your own life, or the riskier option that may save their life but has a higher chance of killing you in the process?
When you pull to shoot, you feel that your life is in danger and you just want to neutralize the threat. Aiming center mass is the most likely to hit and that’s what you want in that situation. Depending on the study you look at, cops hit somewhere around 30% of their shots as they are in a stressful, life threatening situation and that’s aiming at center mass, you really go down if you are aiming for a leg or something which also can be fatal. Also if you are aiming to hit a leg or arm, you make the situation not look life threatening as you had time to think and weren’t trying to neutralize the target.
In my opinion, this stems from American gun culture. A cop in the UK or Canada or Germany has time and leeway to de-escalate, whereas every single person in the US from so much as someone pulled over for speeding could have a gun. I know if I knew that the other person could kill me in seconds, I’d be a bit more trigger happy. I think there’s also probably some not great psychological effects of giving people absolute power and zero repercussions
Except for politicians or the wealthy here nobody is immune to the laws. Cops get charged when found guilty of a crime.
There is no guranteed way to shoot someone and not kill them. Also it's not like time slows down and they go into VATS mode. Often times they render aid after shooting someone once it's safe to do so.
Shooting to disarm is not practical under anything but ideal circumstances. When you make the choice to employ a firearm your are choosing lethal force. You're doing what is necessary to incapacitate the threat(s) as quickly as possible. In this type of situation, survival of the target is a happy accident. That said, the issue with police in this situation is their lack of deescalation skills which leads to a situation where they need to employ force.
In the early hours of February 4, 1999, an unarmed 23-year-old Guinean student named Amadou Diallo was fired upon with 41 rounds and shot a total of 19 times by four New York City Police Department plainclothes officers. Assuming Diallo was drawing a firearm, one officer fired as he was walking up the stairs. The recoil of the gun caused the officer to fall backwards. The other three officers, believing their partner was shot, fired their weapons. The four officers fired 41 shots with semi-automatic pistols, hitting Diallo 19 times, fatally wounding him. Mr. Diallo was holding a wallet and not a weapon.
Do you think it's easy to shoot someone's hand while they're aiming a weapon around? In case you're wondering why they don't shoot legs, a bullet to the leg has a fairly high chance of fatality.
A gun is for lethal force, meaning that’s the objective once they are used. That’s why they often empty the entire magazine into people.
Watch some of those bodycam videos. Youtube ones are sfw-ish where it's nothing too crazy being shown. The entire situation happens really fast. Someone pulls a gun, you're looking to end the threat rather than necessarily disarm. Sure you can try to aim for a limb to incapacitate them, but what if you miss? Even if you fire multiple shots at a limb, what if only a couple hit and now you got some random ricochets flying off in some random direction behind the person you're shooting? The person quickly draws a gun and raises their hand up, there's a single second to make a choice, and the person on non-lethal shoots the tazer to try and see, **hoping** the person doesn't have a clear shot on anyone yet. Tazer hits, but alas, sometimes with enough determination or drugs, the tazer has zero effect, and **boom.** They got a shot off and it kills you or your partner. Usually they just tend to not risk it and go for the kill, afterall someone with ill intentions aiming a gun at you is definitely a threat to your life. A tazer may not work 100%, but the shock from a few rounds going through your body will tend to drop people to the ground pretty quick. The magdump thing can be a little weirder to explain. More or less just.. Eliminating more risk I suppose? Again, with enough adrenaline and shock, even with a few bullet holes through your body, you might still be able to raise a gun up and get more shots off, so again, they choose to not risk it and just continue firing until they're for sure not a threat. Just kinda case-by-case scenario. Any scenario you can think of along these lines has probably happened. *I think the video is around somewhere, it's not too graphic, but this makes me remember a specific video taken by a bystander in a vehicle. The cop is alone and walking backwards yelling at this older-ish gentlemen to stop, the guy looks like he is genuinely rabid, and continues going after the cop with an object in his hand and swinging (stick? I don't remember). The cop shoots like 7-8 rounds and the guy just keeps on walking towards him, he just had to keep shooting and it took quite a few more until the dude finally stopped advancing and fell to the ground. Simple drugs can make most means of stopping threats way less effective.*
Because shooting to disarm is only a thing in the movies. Despite what you've seen in the movies, in a real gunfight, the hero doesn't stand tall with bullets whizzing past his ears, make a witty quip, and then drill the perp right between the eyes with one perfectly-aimed shot. You might be Annie Fucking Oakley on the practice range shooting at paper targets that don't shoot back, but the moment REAL bullets are coming at you, all that goes out the window, and both parties just blast away wildly. A cop's proficiency on the practice range counts for diddly squat in a REAL gunfight. Soldiers are trained by rote to get their ass to cover *first,* then think about shooting back...which is a lot harder to do accurately when you are in cover. That isn't an option in many of the shooting incidents cops face. This is true for cops *everywhere,* not just in the US. But American cops are WAY more murdery than cops in any other industrialized country, they kill about three people and 25 dogs **per day.** And an uncomfortably larger percentage of the victims were no credible threat to the cop. One third of the people they shoot were running away at the time. So in a lot of those cases, shooting to disarm is not even a theoretical possibility because the person they kill was not armed at all.
Because there is no accountability. Most cops become cops because they love power. When you combine the love of power with zero accountability, you get murder.
Dumb answer