Why shoot to kill?

[Feck]

If shot guns didn't kill people then the US military wouldn't use them .

[Pappa]

My question is why don't they shoot to wound in these situations?

Because it isn't practical to do so.

It was clearly practical to do so.
.

No. It isn't.

If you want to shoot a person to wound rather than kill, you have 2 options. Use a low power weapon, such as a 9mm submachine gun, or aim for a non-lethal shot. Either of those options just offer you the possibility of lowering the probability that you'll kill a person straight away.

They also both increase the probability that the person will shoot back after being shot.

There are also options that don't involve shooting them. The use of "non-lethal weapons" to incapacitate is a notoriously grey area and mostly full of marketing bullshit at the moment.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Anyone who thinks it's easy to shoot to wound is invited to go hunting with me. We'll start on opposites sides of a patch of woods I know near here. The one who comes out wins!

[mistermack]

My question is why don't they shoot to wound in these situations?

Because it isn't practical to do so.

It was clearly practical to do so.
.

No. It isn't.

If you want to shoot a person to wound rather than kill, you have 2 options. Use a low power weapon, such as a 9mm submachine gun, or aim for a non-lethal shot. Either of those options just offer you the possibility of lowering the probability that you'll kill a person straight away.

They also both increase the probability that the person will shoot back after being shot.

The point IN THIS CASE was that this happened after a five hour stand-off.
If any officer was in danger of being shot, they were even more incompetent that I first thought.
.

[mistermack]

Anyone who thinks it's easy to shoot to wound is invited to go hunting with me. We'll start on opposites sides of a patch of woods I know near here. The one who comes out wins!

You're determined to make me start a sad list. I'm not falling for it.
.

[Pappa]

Surely a marksman must necessarily expose some of their body to shoot, right?

And a shotgun is a dangerous weapon that could kill an exposed marksman, right?

[mistermack]

Surely a marksman must necessarily expose some of their body to shoot, right?

And a shotgun is a dangerous weapon that could kill an exposed marksman, right?

Modern body armour would have no problem stopping shotgun pellets. They are designed to kill birds, at 40 metres. The shot spreads out, to maximise the area covered at 40 metres. The damage done decreases exponetianlly with distance.
Raoul Moat shot his girlfriend twice, leaning through the window of a small room. She had no body armour but she wasn't killed.
If a marksman is worried about a few inches showing, from across the street, he shouldn't be a marksman.
Here's a link that shows that the Coroner seems to be of my opinion, if you read between the lines:
(Link)
Here's a link to a video :
(Link)
Here's another couple of links on the story.
(Link)
(Link)

[Trolldor]

Lee Harvey Oswald had absolutely no prior experience or training and look what he did.

Shit happens, so you play safe not sorry.

[Pappa]

Lee Harvey Oswald had absolutely no prior experience or training and look what he did.

Shit happens, so you play safe not sorry.

Likewise, if I got drunk, fired a shotgun several times and waved it in the direction of police marksman... I wouldn't expect to live very long.

[mistermack]

Likewise, if I got drunk, fired a shotgun several times and waved it in the direction of police marksman... I wouldn't expect to live very long.

To be honest, if I wanted to know, if I got drunk, fired a shotgun several times and waved it in the direction of police marksman, should I expect to live very long?, I could probably manage that one myself.
I'm asking why shoot to kill, why do they never shoot to incapacitate or wound?

I think the answer is that there is no paperwork that covers that. Just like the coroner was hinting.
They have to cover their backs. There is no formal procedure for shooting to wound, and they are just too dumb to use common sense.
It has to be written down for those dumb fuckers, before they can operate.
So someone should be writing it down for them.
.

[Tigger]

Surely a marksman must necessarily expose some of their body to shoot, right?

And a shotgun is a dangerous weapon that could kill an exposed marksman, right?

Modern body armour would have no problem stopping shotgun pellets. They are designed to kill birds, at 40 metres. The shot spreads out, to maximise the area covered at 40 metres. The damage done decreases exponetianlly with distance.
Raoul Moat shot his girlfriend twice, leaning through the window of a small room. She had no body armour but she wasn't killed.
If a marksman is worried about a few inches showing, from across the street, he shouldn't be a marksman.
Here's a link that shows that the Coroner seems to be of my opinion, if you read between the lines:
(Link)
Here's a link to a video :
(Link)
Here's another couple of links on the story.
(Link)
(Link)

And everyone knew "all" this latest guy had was bird shot. What about the possibility of his having slugs loaded? One big fuck-off bit of fairly accurate, penetrating metal.

[mistermack]

And everyone knew "all" this latest guy had was bird shot. What about the possibility of his having slugs loaded? One big fuck-off bit of fairly accurate, penetrating metal.

You're right. They should have sent in a tank.
.

[Clinton Huxley]

The police will shoot you dead if you are carrying a table leg or look unacceptably Brazilian. This chap actually had a gun, so he stood no chance

[Trolldor]

And everyone knew "all" this latest guy had was bird shot. What about the possibility of his having slugs loaded? One big fuck-off bit of fairly accurate, penetrating metal.

You're right. They should have sent in a tank.
.

No, because there was an injured girl they needed to rescue.

[mistermack]

No, because there was an injured girl they needed to rescue.

A job for US special forces with grenades then.
.