Then why didn't he just shoot the gun!?!?! Even this inbred idiot could'a told you that.

Right. When you shoot someone, there's the risk of killing them. If the killing can't be justified, then you don't need to shoot them in the vast majority of cases.

Yes, but it's also much harder to shoot an extremity instead of center mass. Cops are trained to shoot at center mass to stop an immediate threat. It's easy to claim that someone should shoot an arm or leg, but in practice, it's much more difficult to do. The chances of an innocent bystander being shot because of a missed shot is not worth the risk. I do agree that there's also the added risk of hitting a major artery though.

That's not why people aim for center mass. The torso is a larger target, and hitting it is more likely to stop the attacker.

Is that somehow worse than aiming center mass when you are trying to go less than lethal.

Typically when shooting someone, it's to kill, not injure. You aim at center mass. Shooting a weapon at someone is lethal force and is not used to just injure or maim someone. The training is designed for a black and white scenario but there is always some grey area where discretion must be used, of course. This guy used his expert training and discretion and shot homies gun out of his hand. Pretty gnarly.

plus in situations like that, you want to aim center mass. It's the biggest target, and most likely to ensure a hit.

Yeah there isn't really a "good" spot to get shot.

Well. No. the first risk is that you won't hit that fast moving limb. The second risk is that the bullet will travel through and hit someone else. The third risk is that it won't stop the aggressor.

Cops are rightly taught to shoot to kill. Many, however, seem to lack the proper knowledge of when to shoot, period.

Yea! Sniper rifles generally are pretty powerful. Just shooting an arm or leg is pretty brutal as far as physical damage is concerned. Shooting a body part could kill someone pretty easily.

Not even the reason. But I assume you are being sarcastic. A lot of reddit, (the same people who think they know best on gun laws) don't know anything about guns and think that every gun is a James bond golden gun.

Shoot him in the toe and he will go down.

People don't realize that you can get shot in an arm or leg or even body and continue on. Especially when adrenaline kicks in.

Shooting someone in the leg will just make someone mad and shoot back.

If they are a real threat you want to put them down quick.

One of the benefits of a T-800! They only hit kneecaps.

Disclaimer: I am not from Skynet.

True. Which is why training in marksmanship and accuracy is a thing.

I asked a cop about this when i was like 8, he said that it's way too dangerous because they can still pose a threat.

Is that more risky than going for centre mass?

Yeah, but first responders Re literally on the scene. Probably wouldn't bleed out, and even if he did, he's probably have a higher chance of survival than If he shot his head off

You won't really bleed out if hit in the arm. The leg however can be lethal

Most Reddit users wouldn't know what an artery is unless there was a /r/TodayILearned_ post about it.

Yup, whereas the jaw is the strongest muscle in the body and the skull is like at least the 5th hardest bone system. Best bet to be for sure.

If someone is doing something that makes shooting them a viable option, I can honestly tell you that I don't care if they bleed out afterward.

(Obviously if your main concern is THEIR safety then that isn't an option)

Yeah better shoot directly through vital organs it's less risky.

better shoot him in the chest, where there's no major arteries /s

Tourniquet?

Then people will say "Why did the police need to resort to using a gun?!"

So a chance of being hit in the artery is worse than taking multiple bullets to the chest or head? TIL...

So you just shoot to kill instead? How does that make sense?

I'm no expert on this at all, I'm just some kid in high school

Don't worry, you're in good company

Another thing, whether your talking cops or concealed carry, is that when a person intends to do you harm, they've sort of implicitly "made their choice". The victim now is in the position of defending their own life. Compared to shooting center mass shooting for an extremity increases the chances of a few bad scenarios: (1) the bullet misses, the assailant keeps coming and hurts the victim, (2) the bullet misses, injuring a bystander (which the victim is legally responsible for), and (3) the shot to the extremity is ineffective, and the assailant still manages to cause harm. Many people get this, but the legal and moral key to this is that someone forced to defend themselves is under no obligation to increase these risks to themselves in order to save an assailant. Their job is to stop the threat, however the have to, in the way that is safest possible for all innocent parties.

Well if it's any consolation, you're right. Went through the police academy and you never shoot to wound always to kill. If the situation has reached the point of using deadly force then you try to kill eliminate the threat. Doesn't matter how many bullets, doesn't matter how many officers, you shoot until the threat is gone.

You're correct, the rule is to neutralize the threat. Slowing down, distracting or injuring the threat isn't sufficient to protect the officers life. Besides if you only maim them they might get real crazy...

Yes, that's the reasoning given by cops and criminal justice programs. Not using a lethal weapon could still kill and is far too expensive, even when used as an alternative to deadly force, so it's generally not used. Using a gun, not all cops are of the same level of marksmanship as a military sniper, so it's not as simple as shoot him in the arm so he can't fire, as there's still a human error to it.

Officially, it’s “shoot to stop”.

Cops are definitely trained to aim center of mass. Arms and legs are hard targets to hit because all the angles they move in and unpredictable. Your torso is predictable...Sure, you can duck or jump but it can't travel along many angles like your limbs.

Second, thing I might add is I think people often forget the adrenaline and mental well being of the officer. If I remember correctly it only takes 4 seconds for an assailant with a "knife" to travel towards the cop from 30 feet away. Adrenaline just throttled past max and only 4 seconds to take aim and fire.

Of course in this instance it's a sniper rifle which is a bit different...

Your reasons are good and valid, but there's an assumption that's made and core point that's missed.

Police and other civilians should shoot to stop, not to kill. However, any time you shoot someone, that's using lethal force. It doesn't matter where you aim. Given that, the biggest target with the best chance to stop the threat is the best option.

// Also, since you're in high school - if you are enumerating a list in sentence form (e.g. "Number one"), then you should follow that up with something that continues the count.

They don't even "shoot to kill". They shoot for "center of mass". It's the most likely to hit, and if you do hit, it's the most likely to STOP the person immediately, even if it's not fatal.

Except in extreme circumstances, I don't honestly believe cops are trying to kill suspects. Just stop them as quickly as possible.

Of course... that said... I'm the guy who believes cops should have clear escalation of force protocols that start with calm talking, escelate to nonlethal, and then finally to lethal as a last resort...

Police aren't supposed to draw their firearm unless there is no other option, it's meant to be a last resort when they feel they or someone else is in mortal danger.

Cops are trained to only shoot to eliminate the threat. If death is a result of stopping the threat, so be it. As long as it's a justified use of force: for instance, the suspect poses an immediate danger/risk of serious physical harm/death to himself, others, or officers.

There is no "shoot to kill" in a cop's playbook. This is not the military, it's law enforcement. The suspect has to be brought in to face a judge or a jury, and it's hard to do that when he's dead. Unfortunately for some, if they leave an officer no other choice but to use lethal force, they never get to exercise that right. Even in an active shooter scenario, your primary goal as an officer is to stop the threat. It's just that the actions of the shooter have opened up a lot of alternative avenues to make that happen besides slapping a set of cuffs on the dude and shouting, "book 'im, dano!"

...arms *than a torso

You need to pay more attention in class.

Yeah.. whenever I hear that, I used to link them the story of the 2014 knife attack in china. 30+ dead and over 120 wounded. "just a knife"

Police wounded by a knife are somewhere near 3x more likely to die compared to a gunshot wound.

At close distances it has even been shown that someone that knows what he's doing can be a hell of a lot more dangerous with a knife than a gun (even in a knife vs gun situation)

Middle, inner thigh, stab, twist, pull. How long does it take someone to bleed out from their femoral artery?

I'd be way more scared of someone with a knife than with a gun tbh.

Cops are trained in self defence and in disarming people. They also have tasers.

Did you just quote the onion as a source?

How do these other first world countries deal with missed shots?

In America, even buying a gun for home defense, you'll want to consider not perforating your sleeping neighbors when choosing what gun to buy, which is why you are generally recommended smaller calibers or shotguns with small pellets (not buck shot).

I'd imagine aiming at tiny targets like arms/legs/guns results in a lot of missing.

Oh wow The Onion! That's a great source. You know that website is satire right?

I could say anyone that's actually fired a gun in their life, let alone at a live moving target, knows training to shoot for limbs is not feasible. Find some statistics from another country saying shooting people in the limbs is feasible, reduces crime, and prevents deaths.

I may get some heat for this but I'm only relaying what I unserstand to be the reason based on what I've learned from my 20 year chp detective step-father and his co-workers.

The issue of why we don't shoot to maim has to do with the fact if the person shot survives, then it becomes good grounds to sue the department. This put's money and (maybe) jobs on the line. Now, there are some good reasons police have had to draw/fire their gun. If, in a high-crime-rate city, a department had say, 30-40 shootings-to-maim per year because it subdued a criminal and saved that criminals life, that alone would be fodder for opponents to spread poor publicity.

Another reason we don't shoot-to-maim, as I understand it, is that it's easier as a human (who's job is to "serve and protect") to think about shooting to subdue rather than shooting to kill. Its not an easy decision to kill another person in some circumstances. But only maiming them wouldn't be so bad. Heck it might be like a "well he will hopefully learn a lesson from this" sort of thing. Suddenly shooting to maim becomes an easier decision to make with a HUGE gray area.

And lastly, because I'm just about done on the pooper, what if an officer meant to shoot-to-maim but "WOOPS... that was you corronary artery wasn't it? Oohh yeaaa, shooot. Sorry about that!" Suddenly that cop is in even deeper shit than if the rules stated he only shoots to kill and his actions are backed by the laws that bind him as a police officer.

Tl;dr shooting to maim creates more legal headaches than shooting to kill and (hopefully) causes an officer to think twice before unholstering his firearm.

Edit: some words

Time people face facts. US is a piece of shit as far as first world nations go. No, we are not the greatest nation in the world. We may not be the greatest nation in this hemisphere.

[deleted]

Incidents where lethal force is used IS extremely rare. There are around 12 million arrests every year. 1200 -1500 of those people are killed by police.

That's 1 death for every 8,000 -10,000 arrests.

Tasers are pretty bad overall. You get one single shot and it has to land right to do anything.

White male privilege?

Our countries?

Oh, Christ, I don't wanna have to go to Voat.

This. You shoot till the threat is no longer a threat. That means they stop doing everything that they are doing. You don't shoot to kill, you shoot to incapacitate.

EDIT: The distinction I am trying to make here is that you do not shoot to kill. If that did, that would mean even after the target is down, you would walk over and put another round in their head to finish them off. That is different than shooting to incapacitate. By saying "shoot to incapacitate," I am not saying don't think of it as lethal force, because you should only use it when the target is a lethal threat. When you shoot someone, it should be because they were a threat to life, and you should understand that shooting them brings about the strong chance that they will die, however, you should not "shoot to kill," rather, shoot until the target is no longer a lethal threat, i.e. they are on the ground no longer putting up resistance or reaching for a weapon, etc.

DOUBLE EDIT: See reply below. Hopefully it further helps clear up what I am saying. I know the distinction between "shoot to kill" and "shoot to stop" seems small, but it is not. It is the difference between wanting to kill someone, and using lethal force in self-defense because someone else initiated potentially life-threatening violence.

example

Shitty cops that do deplorable things should have the book thrown at them.

They do not shoot to kill, but to stop

If you're shooting to stop a threat then you should be shooting center of mass so you actually have a chance to hit them

I've never ever heard of ANYWHERE saying "shoot for the arms or legs!" Mind giving us what countries?

Police do actually shoot for legs, arms, etc, and can actually be legally obligated to do so if time and situation premit it.

source please.

Well yeah, shooting someone so they don't kill themselves doesn't fall into the category that was just discussed. What that user was talking about was homicidal situations, not suicidal ones.

And the difference with officers being unarmed in other countries is from the differences in armed citizens.

Saying American cops don't shoot to kill with the amount of police brutality and killings they commit. American police are not taught de-escalation but to shoot if they feel any threat even if there is no actual threat

Theres a reason why using your firearm is called 'Deadly Force', Officers are not trained to shoot for limbs, they should only ever shoot when the life of themselves or someone else is in jeopardy with the goal of stopping the suspect immediately, furthermore, shooting at limbs may end up killing someone anyway, hitting an artery has a high chance of causing death, hitting a elbow or a kneecap or something can cause devastating, irreparable damage.

Officers should not be trained to shoot for anything less than because they have to attempt to kill their target.

This violates the safety rules. Never point a gun at anything you do not intend to destroy.

Hence the term less-lethal.

And guns have killed how many? Tasers are definitely MUCH safer than guns.

In some countries police do shoot for legs, arms, etc, and can actually be legally obligated to do so if time and situation premit it)

Source?

Are there many cases where a taser was not enough to stop someone?

If you're closer than 5ft or more than 20-25ft away, wearing thick clothing, have something in your pocket that stops one of the probes, flail enough to break a wire & end the connection, hopped up on enough drugs to take 5 seconds of pain...

There are plenty of times tasers aren't enough. Hell, there's times when actually shooting someone isn't enough to stop them. There's no one thing that's perfect for every situation.

You know when tasers are shit? When you miss the one and only shot you get.

I'm not a cop.

Thanks for the answer (and for not calling me an idiot)

oh okay, thanks for the explanation!

Then my work here is done - it is a good book despite my massive shift in politics and stances on militarism and violence. I still do love most of Tom Clancy's work though despite the reports that he was a huge asshole.

Crazy. I never played the first game (love the franchise though) - but I did read the book a long time ago - and I never realized the first game was the same exact plot as the book.

I remember having to play it at 640x480 with software graphics. It was like trying to play a game looking through binoculars, but that's what we had back then.

Edit: resolution

He's referring to the book

They got even better up until the third one. After that, it became a genertic shooter instead of the classic counter-terrorist simulator that it started out as.

Third is the best because you can give squad commands on the fly and the AI is smart enough that you don't have to personally command each one through the entire level.

Rogue Spear was better multi-player.

Yeah, but it's 19 years old, so spoilers are probably fine

Yes.

It's a spin-off from the Jack Ryan series. Both the book and the game feature John Clark (Willem Defoe's character in Clear and Present Danger) as the leader of Rainbow and Ding Chavez (Raymond Cruz's character in the same film) as an operative (playable in the game).

Honestly though it's not really a very good book.

The book.

I don't know about the games, I was referencing the first R6 book to come out

I read it years ago, but from what I can remember, it was something about how the team existed to stop deadly threats, not inflict pain. When snipers lined up shots, the goal was to stop the event from happening. The easiest way was a bullet through the head, as it was painless. But occasionally they'd miss. I don't remember exactly what happened, but I distinctly remember a description of not getting the head shot, and hitting them in the stomach. It stopped the threat, but now there was a dude writhing in pain on the floor slowly bleeding out. Since the threat has been stopped, the sniper can't re-shoot him since the threat was subdued, but also, realistically, that guy wasn't gonna live.

I remember this exact point in the book. The crew is called out to an amusement park where a group of terrorists has taken a group in a magic mountain style ride hostage. These kids taken hostage are kids on a make-a-wish type event. So they're either sick or disabled.

During the hostage process Rainbow Six's skilled marksman Dieter Weber is positioned o top of the rollercoasters highest point overlooking the building that houses the ride. So he can see everything up close in good detail.

The hostage situation goes on for a while, Dieter is watching over the front entrance to the ride, and the terrorists start to get ancy as things are being drawn out.

Then a terrorist comes out of the building with a small girl in a wheelchair making demands, with a pistol aimed at the back of her chair. Dieter is watching this and calls to make a shot, he is denied as Rainbow Six are not fully set up to go in. Terrorist makes more demands, and as he looks set to go back inside he shoots the disabled girl in the back and pushes the chair down the stairs.

Dieter sees this through his scope, knows he had a shot (the books makes him out to be the best shot in the world) and is upset.

Rainbow clears the building later in the hostage crisis after infiltrating into the ride. The terrorist, who it seems was the front door guy, runs out. Dieter sees it, same dude who executed the disabled girl.

This German is pissed, lines up his shot, and instead of taking the head shot, which he is well capable of taking, shoots the terrorist through the side of the neck. The terrorist drops to the ground clutching his neck as he begins to choke and drown in his own blood.

(At this part of the book it's a "Fuck yes Dieter, Fuck yes")

At the debrief John Clark, CO of Rainbow Six, speaks to Dieter, mentions his poor accuracy and he will need to spend some time on the range, as his inaccuracy was unacceptable. But gives him a knowing nod and wink as he knows Dieter didn't hit the neck because of a lack skill.

yea obviously. Which is why I said please help me out if you find any info, and I'm still skeptical. but even then, accounting for murder suicide the numbers I saw were drastically higher.

(and you dont need to be a dick about it, you think I want the suicide rate to be higher then homicide?, no lets all be happy)

That everyone should be able to just walk into their doctors office and ask for medically assisted and they will right out whatever so you can go to wherever that does it no matter what.

I know that will never happen though, so I just believe that we shouldn't try to shame people into staying alive and maybe try to make them happy enough to want to.. sigh

If you got anymore questions feel free to ask, it doesn't bother me.

You misunderstand. Focal adjustment are just for getting the focus right. The target actually being in focus depends on the shooters eyesight. It'snot meant for range finding, only for getting the target in focus.

To actually gauge distance you use range finders or a calibrated scope reticle

Every tactical ("sniper") scope is outfitted with some form of reticle system that can be used for gauging ranges and making holdover/windage adjustments. Mil-dots, BDC, etc. etc.

Either way, range finding wasn't an issue in this case. He was about 25 yards away.

Source: Firearms instructor

Military, police or other?

That was the strangest voice over and music combo for the situation. I guess it beats overdramatic action cuts and loud music but I'm still confused.

Tell that to my ex :(

People dying in videos honestly. Not a movie.

Nah he was in the scope, they use special risers that angle the scope for much longer ranges. Still, the target was far down in the circle.

Context for people who have never shot -

For a trained shooter under controlled circumstances (like at the range), this is a very very easy shot. For him to do it in a live scenario is obviously more difficult, but still very easy.

Of course, it would be. It's a very risky shot, so it absolutely would not have been attempted if it was from further away.

Bro 75 feet the shot can be made with a pistol.

Hell even a shotgun could make that shot if youre using slugs instead of buckshot.

25 yards is literally the closest the Marine Corps trains with rifles. And it's extremely fast drills hitting a spot not much larger than the pistol here

That’s exactly what I’m talking about. In order to pass the zeroing portion you have to get three bullets in the same grouping in a little circle.

That’s at 25 yards so 75 feet.

I was a reservist so we still had m16s not the m4s

Literally the majority of the U.S. Marine Corps uses M16s.

Source: username

Not really. As long as your rifle is zero'd properly and you're executing proper shooting drills you should be able to do it.

Normally for zero'ing tests (Atleast in my country's military) you have to be able to get tight grouping (Say 5 inches radius) at 100m.

It’s a rifle designed to shoot something up to 600 meters away and to be accurate for area shooting 1000m away. You should be able to put a bullet in the same hole on a piece of paper 25 meters away when using sandbags to rest your rifle

I’m talking about zeroing. In order to say your gun is zeroed you have to do what I said. I had a feeling people were going to ask what the hell I was talking about

Right, I was referring to the 50,000 shots per hit from all forces combined - not the snipers. Sorry if that wasn't clear, I thought it was.

I do know what I'm talking about.

The amount of blood going through a femoral artery at rest is about 600ml/min. In reality, after a gunshot wound one does not lose all the blood that was going through the artery. There is vasoconstriction right after trauma, which reduces blood flow, and there is generally some tissue left around the wound that provides resistance to the blood leaving and slows down bleeding. So the rate of blood loss is much smaller than 600ml/min. Let's take it's on the higher end and assume a blood loss of 300ml/min (about a can of soda per minute), which is a lot.

One can survive blood loses of 30-40%, which is around 2 liters.

So if someone can set up a tourniquet within 6-7 minutes, the blood loss won't kill him. If someone can put pressure on the wound right away, that buys some more time, etc.

In combat situations, if there is still danger, it can take a while until help can be provided. But in this situation if the guy was suicidal and was not a threat he could have been helped probably within a couple of minutes.

Also, bull fighters often get horned and have the femoral artery ripped off, and they typically survive unless the wound is complex and deep enough that you can't hold the bleeding with a tourniquet.

I'm curious about why you've reacted so aggressively, though. Have you had anyone close die like that?

Being shot in the Femoral artery is not a death sentence as long as they receive immediate care first off, at least according to the training I received in boot camp. Also, there aren't a bunch of vital organs that can be ripped to shreds in legs or arms like there is center mass... It's not just about being a bigger target, it's also about being a great kill shot since you can damage so many organs...

yeah, having the new language incept my mind freaked me out a bit. Feel like it's infecting my mind with it's "knowledge" involuntarily

Welp, I'm going to go watch The Incredibles now...

Am I the only person that kinda feels bad dude didn't get his wish for death fulfilled?

I'm not :,(

You just earned one Tool Point. With 500 Tool Points, you can get a McDonald's application! Keep up the good work citizen.

Ba dop bop bop baaaa

I'm Donovan McNabb

From that day forward, he was known as Doctor Sniper.

The Heimlich snipers would be a cool band name.

Not really. And to top it off, this was one of the cringiest flirtations I've ever seen.