That’s why the police don’t shoot to injure in case of fatal force

June 13, 2019 11:30 AM update: US marshals shot and killed a man in Frayser, Tennessee, a suburb of northern Memphis on Wednesday, sparking a protest that turned violent and left 24 officers injured, two reporters and an unspeakable number of demonstrators.

The protest began when the marshals were trying to arrest Brandon Webber, 20, according to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, when Webber reportedly “rammed his vehicle into officers’ vehicles several times before going out with a weapon”, said the office. “Officers fired by hitting and killing the individual. No officers were injured.”

Below is a 2016 story, following two fatal shootings by police officers, and describes the police training that comes into play in a situation like Frayser’s on Wednesday.

Original story:

People took to the streets in both Tulsa and Charlotte last week to protest the killing of two men by police officers in those cities.

These incidents, along with other high-profile fatal shootings involving the police over the past two years, have led some to ask the question: why are the police shooting to kill? Why not try to shoot the wound instead?

While the question seems to be valid considering the cases where unarmed people were hit by agents, in a nutshell, police officers shoot people they perceive as a threat because that’s what they are trained to do to end that threat .

That’s why the police don’t shoot instead to hurt.

->

Do the agents really operate under a shooting policy?

Police officers are trained to fire all the shots necessary for the threat they face until the threat is neutralized, i.e. they are trained to shoot until the suspect is able to shoot or otherwise injure the agent. , other police or bystanders.

Why not “shoot the wound” instead?

For a couple of reasons: first, shooting to hurt someone might not stop the threat. If a person is hit in the leg, the threat may still exist as a suspect could still use his hands to shoot with a gun or stab with a knife.

Second, and most importantly, it takes an experienced shooter to hit someone exactly in the arm or leg, and most officers are not skilled marskmen. In fact, outside of an old western-style TV, few people can do that shot, regardless of training.

Dr Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Institute, explained in a summary document for the Institute the physics involved in the notion of training officers – who often run after suspects – to “shoot the wounds”.

“The hands and arms can be the parts of the body that move faster,” said Lewinski. “For example, an average suspect can move his hand and forearm across the body at a 90 degree angle in 12/100 of a second. He can move his hand from his hip to shoulder height in 18/100 of a second. .

“The average officer who pulls the trigger as fast as possible on a Glock, one of the semi-cars with the fastest cycle, takes 1/4 second to unload each round.

“It is not possible for an officer to react, track, shoot and hit the forearm of a threatening suspect or weapon in a suspect’s hand reliably over the time periods involved.”

David Klinger, professor of Criminology and criminal justice at the University of Missouri-St. In other words, Louis talks to ABC News: with officers trying to stop a threat to their lives or the lives of others, “Why should we want to hurt or mutilate people?” He said. “It doesn’t stop them.”

What is the law on police that use deadly force?

Mortal force use policy has been shaped by four United States Supreme Court rulings in the past 30 years.

A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1985 canceled the policies that allowed officers to shoot a suspect just because they are fleeing the police. The court ruled that a suspect must pose an immediate threat of serious physical harm to allow the police to justify the use of deadly force.

In 1989, the court went further by saying that officers could use mortal force if it proved “reasonable” under the circumstances of a specific situation.

The third death force ruling came in 1994 when the court ruled that officers should not use less lethal force before resorting to deadly force – for example, an officer should not use a Taser before using a gun in a situation.

In 2015, the court ruled that citizens could not sue the police for using deadly force against fleeing suspects unless it was “beyond the debate” that a shootout was unjustified.

Candace McCoy, a professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York, suggested in an article in The Guardian that shooting a wound would lower the legal threshold for the use of mortal force.

“As a politics, [shoot to wound] It’s a bad idea because it would give police permission to take that gun out of the holster under any circumstances, “he said.