If a man was unarmed why wouldn't police shoot him in the leg instead of the chest?

After all of these shooting towards men who were a "danger" but were unarmed, I can't help but wonder why the police aren't taught to shoot at these men's legs instead of point blank in the chest, where they would most likely be killed. Why is it not a problem that police are not aiming towards the legs for unarmed men???

 

How would the police know for sure he was unarmed? Do they wear xray glasses?

Here is a hint: No one knows he is unarmed until after the fact.

 

They are trained to shoot them in the torso because it is the easiest place to hit.

This too.

 

i was told trained why a officer armed in the las vegas casinos for years not to shoot to wound arm leg etc, because you will be sued for injury's sustained in court, because they would assume, you thought i wanted to mane the person for life.

 

that's part of the problem.

cops are trained to aim for center mass.....which will likely kill

 

no the problem is the lawyers and judges..

 

lawyers and judges don't tell cops where to shoot.

 

Police are not trained in shooting the extremities.

Furthermore there is no guarantee that a shot in the legs would not lead to death, as there is a significant chance of perforating the femoral artery, leading to immediate death in the process.

 

yes they do.. go to court and find out whos got the real power over yah as a cop or security officer..

 

Because cops value their life over every other life. "Officer safety" is drilled into their heads like a religion, they know they will be protected if they kill someone.

 

You're 100% correct.

If you're defending your home or business, kill the bastard. If you don't, he's going to sue your ass as soon as he's out of the hospital. You can sue someone while your sitting in prison. That's the way trial lawyers want it.

 

i never assumed that, my s&w 9mm 459 [video=youtube;Kfc2GbbWKP8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfc2GbbWKP8[/video] stayed in the holster a lot in my 9 years of caring it

 

Using a firearm is prima facie deadly force. If someone, including police, uses deadly force without the intention and justification to kill, then they are committing a crime.

Also bullets are not magic. Unless a nerve is severed or a bone broken, it will take some time for a perpetrator to stop. Police have a surprisingly high miss rate, and hitting thin legs vs hitting a torso is a big difference.

 

It's harder to hit a leg. If the guy is a threat and you miss the leg, you don't stop the threat. Tasers are a better solution. They can be abused, but they're good solutions to many problems. Tasers are less likely to cause deaths and are very effective in taking down people who, even unarmed, pose a threat.





​

 

Most people including police are not that accurate with handguns. You aim for center mass to give the best odds of hitting your target. The real world is not the movies where everyone has a deadeye.

 

Because a ricochet may very well kill an innocent person.

 

Because as leg shot is also likely to be fatal?

Ever heard of the femoral artery? Yeah you hit that and they're dead in minutes as well.

 

a few reasons

Their accuracy when aiming for center mass is only 28% - guess what their accuracy is when aiming for a foot? Joe Biden even called a bill requiring officers to shoot to wound a "John Wayne bill" because it was unrealistic. What you've got to keep in mind is that when officers use their firearms, it's understood to be a last resort. The standard use of force continuum is as follows.

It's generally understood that this isn't always a step by step process. Depending on the circumstances, officers are supposed to use the least force possible, but sometimes options are ruled out, particularly when they believe that there is serious imminent danger to themselves or others. Cops make mistakes, but they're far more likely to make mistakes when people attack cops. If people didn't attack cops this would be far less common.

 

Why would they be shooting an unarmed man again?

 

Are you under the impression that someone unarmed is not able to injure or kill someone?

 

Unfortunately, as many others have pointed out, you simply cannot shoot to wound. You would get sued to high heaven and probably lose.

My question is, was backup not available, or was a tazer not available?

 

You should only use deadly force in a situation where there is a threat to your life. The purpose of using the gun that you carry is to end the threat. Wounded individuals can still be a threat.

Perhaps you haven't heard what happened in Ferguson Missouri, where a cop was confronted by a man who was trying to take his gun. In the initial struggle the cop managed to shoot the individual in the hand. After doing so, the cop then attempted to arrest the individual, who then charged the cop representing a second threat to his life. He was then shot dead. Things would have been simpler if he had been shot in the torso with the first shot. Even then, a large man shot in the torso can still function normally until he loses sufficient blood. That's why a deer will run several hundred feet or yards, after a good shot. The damage caused by the bullet has no immediate impact until there is no longer enough blood pressure to keep the brain functioning.

 

you watch too much TV cop shows and movies where the hero has pinpoint accuracy and can shoot the knives out of hands and cigs out of mouths....


Reality is, legs are very small targets, and moving very fast

 

dead men don't talk, less chance of getting into trouble afterwords

I think all cops should where cop cams

 

Here we go with this weeks "DFQ"

A gun is considered deadly force yes? Ok good, try to keep up now.

If and when the LEO has made the decision to use deadly force, he/she is aiming center mass (chest area for the challenged people) because it's the easiest to hit, and most likely to stop the threat by hitting vital organs.

If a LEO shot a suspect in the leg then that persons lawyer would ask something along the lines of:

"Officer, if my client was not a big enough threat for you to kill, then why did you choose to use deadly force?"

Get the point? Good, thread over.