Bad Boys II

[Dill]

(05-15-2019, 05:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I can't speak to department policy for every law enforcement agency.  I can tell you that any policy to allows for shoot to wound is a bad policy for reasons I have covered ad naseum.  Also, you're making an immense assumption in the KTLA link that the leg is what the officers were aiming at.  Lastly, I find it curious you would use the second example as the DA's office actually charged the officer in the incident.  I'd be willing to bet he was also out of policy by aiming at an extremity instead of center mass.

Just so everyone is clear, if you shoot you aim center mass.  The only exceptions would be for a person wearing body armor, in which case you aim for the head of, preferably IMO, the pelvic girdle.  Anything else is asking to miss and hitting something behind your target.

First about the leg. No, I don't assume the officers were only shooting for the leg. But they apparently stopped once the guy was down. He didn't go down under a hail of bullets.

I use the second example precisely because of its legal "variety."  In this case, not shooting for body mass is why the woman is still alive. The officer is charged because he jumped a step or two and went to deadly force. He was "out of policy" for that reason.  Had she a gun instead of a screwdriver, things might have been different.  But we still see reports of police who handle similar situations--e.g. someone brandishing a weapon--very differently; in some cases, the subject goes down in a hail of gunfire, in others there is a stand off until the subject is talked down or surrenders.