05-15-2019, 05:15 PM
(05-15-2019, 04:39 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't think anyone expects an officer to "shoot to wound" if a gun/knife/axe-wielding person is bull rushing the officer.
But this woman was sitting when she was shot 5 times. The officer had disengaged.
But in point of fact officers do shoot to wound-
https://ktla.com/2019/05/12/armed-ex-felon-shot-in-the-leg-by-police-during-late-night-foot-pursuit-near-fontana-church/
--sometimes before properly working to de-escalate.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/utah-officer-cleared-after-shooting-suspect-holding-screwdriver-leg-n898576
So it is a thing.
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.
