We were told when I was in junior high about 30 years ago by one of our teachers that cops weren’t allowed to attempt non-lethal shots with guns. It either had to do with being sued for intentional maiming or something, or that if a person isn’t endangering you enough that lethal force isn’t necessary, then shooting your gun at all is putting someone at risk of death when it isn’t warranted. We were also told it was better to just run away because cops weren’t allowed to shoot you in the back because you are no longer a threat.
I don’t know if any of that was true then or if it is still true now, but it makes me really sad as an adult that a teacher felt it was important to teach kids about how to not get shot by police.
The thinking is that a gunshot is always lethal force. If you want to stop the threat most effectively you aim for center mass. So in this case someone is attacking you with a weapon capable of causing death or great bodily harm and legally you can defend yourself with deadly force.
Legs are suuuuuper lethal. Hit the thigh, good chance of obliterating the femoral artery, gives you well less than a minute to stop the bleed before the person loses consciousness and maaaayyyybe a couple of minutes before they are unalived.
And as others have pointed out, they are massively under trained in the US, and the training they receive is basically that every person you interact with has a gun and they want to kill you, so pull your gun ASAP and make your first shot a kill.
I’ve wondered the same thing. That’s what police often do where I live. Here’s an example.
To my knowledge they’re not exactly instructed to do so but probably choose to do that of their own will likely because killing someone is going to fuck you up wether it was justified or not.
I wonder why they don’t shoot in less vital spots like legs or hands in cases like that. Distance seems to be small enough to precise shoot.
Are they undertrained or deliberately escalating?
We were told when I was in junior high about 30 years ago by one of our teachers that cops weren’t allowed to attempt non-lethal shots with guns. It either had to do with being sued for intentional maiming or something, or that if a person isn’t endangering you enough that lethal force isn’t necessary, then shooting your gun at all is putting someone at risk of death when it isn’t warranted. We were also told it was better to just run away because cops weren’t allowed to shoot you in the back because you are no longer a threat.
I don’t know if any of that was true then or if it is still true now, but it makes me really sad as an adult that a teacher felt it was important to teach kids about how to not get shot by police.
Some wisdom doesn’t last the course of time
The thinking is that a gunshot is always lethal force. If you want to stop the threat most effectively you aim for center mass. So in this case someone is attacking you with a weapon capable of causing death or great bodily harm and legally you can defend yourself with deadly force.
The training deliberately is to aim for center mass, the police have made no secret to that.
Legs are suuuuuper lethal. Hit the thigh, good chance of obliterating the femoral artery, gives you well less than a minute to stop the bleed before the person loses consciousness and maaaayyyybe a couple of minutes before they are unalived.
And as others have pointed out, they are massively under trained in the US, and the training they receive is basically that every person you interact with has a gun and they want to kill you, so pull your gun ASAP and make your first shot a kill.
Doesn’t a chest have more lethal zones in comparison to limbs?
I’ve wondered the same thing. That’s what police often do where I live. Here’s an example.
To my knowledge they’re not exactly instructed to do so but probably choose to do that of their own will likely because killing someone is going to fuck you up wether it was justified or not.