Local police shooting..

[notbythesword]

You are responsible for every round of ammunition you discharge.

I think I’m being misunderstood then. First off, know that I am pro law enforcement. I wasn’t saying that I think that police should start shooting people in the legs rather than in the torso. This would not only be difficult to impossible to achieve but dangerous for the officers and civilians alike.

I was simply saying that I think that in addition to shooting in center mass, they should also have the right to shoot someone in the leg to stop them. That they shouldn’t have to worry about getting in trouble for using “lethal force” when “lethal force” was not actually used.

Like I said before, when I was taking my conceal carry class, they made this point emphatically. I always thought it was stupid that you could get in trouble for purposely shooting non-lethally, but apparently, people have gotten in trouble with the law for this very thing.

They try and use the argument that because you shot to wound, that the use of lethal force was not necessary. This is something that I would want to change for both law enforcement and civilians alike. Hope this makes sense.

 

[Tommy379]

I think I’m being misunderstood then. First off, know that I am pro law enforcement. I wasn’t saying that I think that police should start shooting people in the legs rather than in the torso. This would not only be difficult to impossible to achieve but dangerous for the officers and civilians alike.

I was simply saying that I think that in addition to shooting in center mass, they should also have the right to shoot someone in the leg to stop them. That they shouldn’t have to worry about getting in trouble for using “lethal force” when “lethal force” was not actually used.

Like I said before, when I was taking my conceal carry class, they made this point emphatically. I always thought it was stupid that you could get in trouble for purposely shooting non-lethally, but apparently, people have gotten in trouble with the law for this very thing.

They try and use the argument that because you shot to wound, that the use of lethal force was not necessary. This is something that I would want to change for both law enforcement and civilians alike. Hope this makes sense.

Well thats the problem with concealed carry classes. I sat in the one my wife took and they come up with stupid legal arguments that have no basis in fact. Instructors can be a bunch of outhouse lawyers with not a single juris doctorate between them. I doubt you will find a single man, languishing in prison for deploying justified deadly force with an intent to not kill the attacker.

It's called deadly force because it could likely cause death, not because it's intended to do so.

 

[notbythesword]

Well thats the problem with concealed carry classes. I sat in the one my wife took and they come up with stupid legal arguments that have no basis in fact. Instructors can be a bunch of outhouse lawyers with not a single juris doctorate between them. I doubt you will find a single man, languishing in prison for deploying justified deadly force with an intent to not kill the attacker.

It's called deadly force because it could likely cause death, not because it's intended to do so.

I’m not a lawyer so I’m not sure of all of the legal ramifications involved in “shoot to wound”. I’m just making it noted that our instructor did comment on this. I don’t believe that if an officer or private citizen “shoots to wound” they should have to face legal ramifications of it…if shown it was justified anyway.

It’s something that I would like to investigate further though.

 

[notbythesword]

The Police Firearms Officers Association or PFOA, does touch on the legal ramifications of “shooting to wound” on their site. Scroll down to the “Legal Issues” section.

https://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound

 

[Tommy379]

I’m not a lawyer so I’m not sure of all of the legal ramifications involved in “shoot to wound”. I’m just making it noted that our instructor did comment on this. I don’t believe that if an officer or private citizen “shoots to wound” they should have to face legal ramifications of it…if shown it was justified anyway.

It’s something that I would like to investigate further though.

Don’t think I wouldn't shoot the gun out of the bad guys hand if I was confident enough. I'm a pretty good shot, but they say stress cuts your accuracy by 2/3.

 

[notbythesword]

Don’t think I wouldn't shoot the gun out of the bad guys hand if I was confident enough. I'm a pretty good shot, but they say stress cuts your accuracy by 2/3.

LOL They only shoot the gun out of the bad guys hand in the movies...some of those old westerns are pretty good though.

 

[notbythesword]

Don’t think I wouldn't shoot the gun out of the bad guys hand if I was confident enough. I'm a pretty good shot, but they say stress cuts your accuracy by 2/3.

Actually, I have seen a gun shot out of a suspects hand one time by a sniper on one of those Wildest Police Videos I think. But that’s extremely rare for that to happen.

 

[Tommy379]

The Police Firearms Officers Association or PFOA, does touch on the legal ramifications of “shooting to wound” on their site. Scroll down to the “Legal Issues” section.

https://www.pfoa.co.uk/110/shooting-to-wound

The article doesn't really speak to what your concealed carry instructors discussed. I've read that one before in police one magazine a few years ago.

I just can't think of a single case I've ever read about where a defender became liable for deploying justified lethal force without the intent to cause the death of the attacker.

 

[Tommy379]

Actually, I have seen a gun shot out of a suspects hand one time by a sniper on one of those Wildest Police Videos I think. But that’s extremely rare for that to happen.

Yeah, I saw that. That happened over 20 years ago and the sharp shooter had plenty of time to line that shot up.

 

[Tommy379]

LOL They only shoot the gun out of the bad guys hand in the movies...some of those old westerns are pretty good though.

I saw a movie called rustlers rhapsody about that when I was a kid. I think Tom Beringer stared in it. He went on to star in sniper.

 

[notbythesword]

I saw a movie called rustlers rhapsody about that when I was a kid. I think Tom Beringer stared in it. He went on to star in sniper.

Yeah, I’m more of a rifleman myself, so I can appreciate those kind of shots. The simultaneous shots made by US Navy Seals onboard a floating vessel against Somali pirates was impressive too. Ever seen that movie Captain Phillips?

 

[Tommy379]

I do kind of wonder if maybe tasing could have been an option

You would be shocked by how many police leaders in major cities or larger departments refuse to deploy that technology.

 

[Tommy379]

Yeah, I’m more of a rifleman myself, so I can appreciate those kind of shots. The simultaneous shots made by US Navy Seals onboard a floating vessel against Somali pirates was impressive too. Ever seen that movie Captain Phillips?

Yeah, I saw it. If that's how it really went down, those seals had part skill, part luck, and part devine intervention.

 

[Susanna]

It's not before somebody actually is pointing a gun at you you realize that theory is good for nothing.

 

[hornetguy]

Lol. Okay then. If you don't think that shooting in center mass is shooting lethally then that's your belief. I personally am not of that opinion.

um, yes, that is what was stated. If someone, either policeman or civilian fires at another person, it had BETTER be a situation that justifies using lethal force.

However, police are NOT taught to "shoot to kill"... they are taught to shoot to "stop the threat", and the best/safest/quickest way to do that is to shoot center-mass. If the perp dies from being shot to stop them from whatever threat they are posing, then that's sad.

MANY people get shot multiple times, center-mass, and do not die.

Your grasp of using "lethal force" is sort of skewed. You should go take a CHL class and have it explained to you.

 

[hornetguy]

Actually, I have seen a gun shot out of a suspects hand one time by a sniper on one of those Wildest Police Videos I think. But that’s extremely rare for that to happen.

Yes... the one where he was sitting on a chair in the middle of the street? In that one, the sniper used an extremely frangible bullet, one that would disintegrate completely on impact, so there was little to no danger downrange..... shot it right out of his hand. BUT... that was a sniper, who can regularly, on demand, shoot a multiple shot group of much less than an inch at 100 YARDS. In that video, he was much closer than that, so the chances of him missing were practically non-existent.

Most handguns won't shoot less than an inch at 5 yards, much less at distance. And that's with no stress....

 

[Susanna]

People underestimates the extreme stress levels caused by thugs, gun in hand, worming their way out of their snake dens...

 

[Billyd]

My CC instructor was an active Deputy Sheriff. He gave us three things to remember if you are ever involved in a situation requiring you to fire your weapon. Do not fire warning shots. Aim at the center of mass and fire. Wait at least 24 hours before making a statement.

If you have a cc permit, I recommend that you subscribe to one of the nation organizations that provide liability insurance and legal representation. I have a card with an 800 number to call before talking to anyone.

 

[Dude653]

I've talked to people who knew the guy from high school and they say that he's always been mentally unhinged and that he has had multiple violent criminal charges. I can't help but wonder why a judge never ordered him to be committed

 

[Oncefallen]

I've talked to people who knew the guy from high school and they say that he's always been mentally unhinged and that he has had multiple violent criminal charges. I can't help but wonder why a judge never ordered him to be committed

The laws in most states make legal commitment difficult to do outside of cases of a person being an immediate threat to themselves or others. A diagnosis of metal illness is not enough to fill that burden of proof. They have to be an IMMEDIATE thread, not a likely threat.