Miami Police Endorse "Shooting to Wound" as a policy -- for citizens.
Homeowner Walked in on Burglars, Shot Suspects.
"Absolutely, something that we're seeing that was quite cleaver from that homeowner is what he did was shoot them in the legs to immobilize them. So, clearly, these two men, who have an extensive past for home invasion robberies, are behind bars today simply because the homeowner chose for them to have life and just immobilize them," said Kenia Reyes, spokeswoman for Miami Police."
I guess the cops are just grateful for some more repeat business in the future. The reader who forwarded me this link had this cogent comment:
Sorry, Police.....WRONG ANSWER. You ALWAYS shoot to kill.
What if the invading suspect(s) had been armed with concealed weapons and returned fire? Zzzzt. GAME OVER.
I'll also be surprised if the gun owner is not sued.
(It's happened before.)
21 comments:
"WRONG ANSWER. You ALWAYS shoot to kill."
Wrong answer, Mike. Always shoot to stop the attack. That involves doing the most damage with both bullet type and shot placement, so that the attack is stopped as quickly as possible. If the attacker dies as a result, it is an acceptable consequence of THEIR action and choices, but it is never appropriate for their death to be the goal.
And a prosecutor could use your words against you very easily, painting you as some sort of blood thirsty vigilante - in the event you were involved in an otherwise very justifiable self defense shooting. It has happened.
And, of course, the idea of deliberately missing CBM to 'wound' is utter nonsense.
And the commenter is wrong, as well. You don't shoot to kill, you shoot to stop. Killing is incidental to stopping the attack. Once the criminal has ceased his attack you can't legally shoot him again.
Yep, a firearm is DEADLY force. If you're not in mortal peril, then the law won't let you use deadly force to protect yourself - well, maybe it would in Texas ;-)
The police may say this is OK, but what will the district attorney say, or the soon-to-be-plaintiff's lawyers? "Deliberate maiming, your Honor."
Absolutely not. Always, ALWAYS shoot to kill. Like the original commenter said, wounded bad guys have successfully sued home and business owners in the past. Hard to file suit with a couple hundred pounds of dirt sitting on the box you're lying in.
Disgusting. Political Correctness and Liberal stupidity once again trumps public safety. You always aim center-mass. I hate what this country has become.
I'll defend myself however i see fit, i don't need the police suggesting tactics or methods.
Dead men don't sue.
Your reader gave the wrong answer as well. You shoot to STOP. It just happens that the most effective way to stop is to hit vital organs, which often leads to death.
I do agree that shooting to wound is just asking to get yourself killed.
Most sources, however - like the late Col. Cooper - will tell you to never ever use that phrase around cops because if you have to defend your actions in court, the phrase shows deadly intent.
Cooper said to 'shoot until the threat is no longer a threat' and to tell the cops that you simply shot until the suspect stopped threatening you as you were afraid for your life.
You shoot to stop the attack. Thankfully, the most effective stop is center mass heart and lung shots. If you miss and the misses happen to take their legs out and doesn't kill them, then you stop shooting.
Reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32oVKipcIEs
You NEVER shoot to kill. You shoot to stop the perpetrator's action that is threatening your life or limb. If it results in the perp's death, so be it. That means, you always aim at center of mass. For those in Rio Linda, that means the chest area. That's because it is the biggest target area on a human being and therefore, the target you're most likely to hit under stress. You are far less likely to hit any other smaller target area on the human body. "Shoot to wound" will likely get you killed, because you will probably miss altogether. The training of Miami police must be done by illogical idiots, or that woman wouldn't have made that statement.
- Old Greybeard
But does deliberate maiming as opposed to stopping the threat lessen the defender's legal standing, reduce his defense that he was in fear of his life or was acting to protect the lives of others.
If I'm in a situation where I feel my life or safety is threatened to an extent that I feel compelled to use deadly force, I will shoot for a center of mass target. When seconds count, it's no time to attempt to recreate some cowboy movie scene.
Seems to me, shooting a perp in the leg opens the self defense shooter to potential criminal and civil liability.
actually Florida law FORBIDS that. It is seen as an indicator that you were not in mortal danger / true fear for your life if you chose to shoot to wound / maim.
googlefu is weak right now or I would post the quote.
I've had a couple of cops tell me (after an incident where I drew my .45 on someone in my driveway) that if you are going to shoot, you shoot to stop. If they die, well then, that's unfortunate. But that's how it is. In WA, deadly force is authorized to stop the commission of a felony.
I find that problematic for the reasons most other comments noted. The goal of shooting someone is to stop the behavior that is endangering you (or others). The knee capping is a catch .22. If you need to shoot somebody you need to stop them for sure, if you are shooting them in the knee/ leg/ shoulder you probably should not be shooting them in the first place.
If lethal force is not justified then one has no business shooting somebody.
As I posted on the article earlier...
A totally moronic comment from an inept and corrupt police administration. No rational person who encounters two thugs ransacking his house would shoot to wound only, you shoot to stop the threat. If the perps had concealed weapons they would have turned them onto the homeowner in an instant. Aim for center mass, and don't stop until they can't hurt you. And BTW, at my house we use "roadhouse rules", ie. everybody gets served once before you give out "seconds"
The most effective way to stop the threat is to cause enough damage the perp can no longer continue the fight. That sort of "shut down" generally requires massive trauma. (Multiple wounds to torso, and perhaps cranium)
Those sorts of injuries generally result in death, but the objective is to end the threat.
If I missed the torso and hit legs or pelvis, I'd keep shooting because a prep on the ground without rounds in the torso or cranium is almost always still capable of killing you, even if he would eventually bleed out after putting a few rounds into you. You don't have to take those rounds if yiu truly stop the threat.
Florida has specific statutory immunity to civil liability when deadly force is used in self defense.
On December 17th, a little over a year ago I shot a burglar. Hit him 3 times out of 3 shots and I think it bothered me more than it did him. Never expected to be in a me-or-him situation, but if I had it do do all over again, I would not have held the cell phone to my ear while talking to 911 but instead would have terminated the situation once and for all with one shot. The arriving cops told me that I should have killed him. Learned later that the 37 year old drug addict has started armed robberies when he was only 16 years old and had been a "Career Criminal" for the past 20+ years. You can never know when a burglar will get interrupted, and the stress level is beyond belief. Better to shoot to kill and know the proper catch phrases to keep some over zealous prosecutor from going after me than to end up dead at the hand of some drug addict who is looking to steal enough for his next fix. Learned my lesson and the burglar lost 6 feet of intestine so he is now a "SHORT SHIT". Buy a bigger gun and invest some time at the gun range.
The only reason to shoot other-than-center-mass is when the criminals are obviously armored. It doesn't make sense to waste time denting a rifle plate, when you can shatter a hip or an eye socket.
As mentioned above, "shoot to stop" then render aid as you are able (including securing them and any weapons they have). Finishing them off will land the defender in jail and is tragic.
In England, continue clubbing them until they stop moving, then call in a slip & fall to their imam or book them a bed at a NH hospital?
Cheers.
@pdxr13:
stay away from them. Don't attempt any sort of aid. That can backfire on you. The claim can be made that you did some harm, either intentionally, or accidentally.
It makes you vulnerable to actions by him, or his buddy sneaking up behind you.
Plus, you don't want to risk contact with possibly tainted blood, or other bodily fluids. (do you walk around with the proper gloves for this sort of thing? Got safety glasses, for spitting, projectile vomiting, etc?)
Even if you are a trained/licensed doctor, nurse, EMT, etc, don't go there. You've already been put at major risk, why add to it.
Kick the weapon away from them, and step away.
Post a Comment