Finally one police chief is implementing a "Shoot to incapacitate" instead of "Shoot to kill"

[Maraya1969]

policy! I've wondered for years why they haven't done this. And this is only one station and people are complaining but to me, it is a win.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/a-shoot-to-incapacitate-policy-puts-georgia-police-chief-and-town-in-the-spotlight/2021/10/24/d64b86f4-3378-11ec-9241-aad8e48f01ff_story.html


LAGRANGE, Ga. — A fundamental tenet of police training in the United States is that officers who fire their weapons in response to a deadly threat should always aim for "center mass," generally the chest. That's the biggest target and so the easiest to hit. But a bullet that finds its mark there is likely to kill.

The police chief in this picturesque Deep South town says there’s a better approach. Louis Dekmar, who has run the LaGrange Police Department for 26 years, is training his officers to shoot for the legs, pelvis or abdomen in situations where they think it could stop a deadly threat without killing the source of that threat. Doing so, he believes, could make a difference in the more than 200 fatal police shootings nationwide every year that involve individuals armed with something other than a gun.

“Every time we avoid taking a life,” Dekmar says, “we maintain trust.”

The chief’s “Shoot to Incapacitate” program has drawn interest from academics who say it merits further study. In the national law enforcement community, however, it has elicited harsh, widespread criticism.

Other police leaders in Georgia found the idea so controversial that they made it a focus of their annual conference in August, flying in nine experts to discuss the pros and cons. One group’s executive director will soon release a position paper advising departments throughout the state not to follow Dekmar’s lead.

[Me.]

1. FINALLY!

[Dial H For Hero]

2. Terrible idea. A limb is considerably harder to hit than center mass on a stationary target,

let alone a moving one. What's more, the officer involved may well be more likely to shoot, since he or she is now "just" trying to wound the target (and a bullet which strikes the leg, pelvis, or abdomen can still kill). The officer will also be more likely to miss, putting more rounds down range where they may strike an unintended target.

One shoots to incapacitate the target, which means center mass.

[USALiberal]

7. Lol! Nt

[Maraya1969]

10. If you shoot someone in the hip or abdomen you incapacitate them. And this

is practiced in other places.

[Dial H For Hero]

16. Or they bleed out. And in any case, it's a much smaller target than the torso. Pure Hollywood.

[Act_of_Reparation]

43. Not quite.

I don't disagree that police should always use the least lethal response available to them, but I think we need to temper our expectations here.

Bullets don't travel in a straight line once they strike something. They tumble, twist, and turn. You shoot someone in the hip, and the bullet can very easily veer towards the center body mass and strike something load bearing, like an organ or a major blood vessel.

Ashli Babbitt, for example, was shot in the shoulder. I haven't read the medical reports, but from the video of her passing it seems like the bullet tumbled into the chest cavity and punctured her heart or lungs.

[uponit7771]

22. I don't want to hear the "afraid for my life" shit from cops seeing the FOP is fighting COVID ...

... mandates and covid has killed more caps in the last 2 years than anything.

They can shoot to maim, I don't believe they fear for their lives any longer

[Dial H For Hero]

29. "Shooting to maim" is pure Hollywood. How many times has one seen someone hit in the leg or arm

on film or television only to groan through clenched teeth, "It's not too bad. It's just a flesh wound, I'll be all right."

Not to mention that the policy in question specifically calls for shooting people in the "pelvis or abdomen". I don't think the wound left by a 9mm hollow point to the crotch or liver is going to buff out.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

3. Lol so they bleed out instead of dying immediately? Come the fuck on.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

4. Imagine cops giving first aid to someone they just shot lmaooooooo.

[NickB79]

5. So shoot them in the liver, genitals, or femoral artery instead?

Wow, that's a great idea

[Decoy of Fenris]

6. Can't wait for the lawsuits from maimings and agonizing bleedouts, I guess.

It's one thing to preserve life, but outside the reckless disregard for anyone/thing behind the limb being targetted, you just know the first guy that gets his hand wrongfully blown apart will get a fat taxpayer-funded payout for that maiming.

A handgun shot to the chest, if you're promptly delivered to a hospital, has a 95%-ish survival rate. Get hit in the femoral and you'll bleed out 100% unless EMTs are already on site. Since this policy is limited to "Deadly threats", this also places both police and bystanders in more elevated risk of danger, injury or death (Think trying to stop a guy with an AK by shooting him in the foot while he magdumps at you) Throw in a few random kids/pets/storefronts that get hit due to this, and I'd wager it's going to cause a lot more pain and suffering than the original.

As an aside, "Aiming for the legs, pelvis, or abdomen?" Good lord that's just cruel. Not only will it do nothing to deter a hardened maniac even if he -is- shot, what happens when an officer is charged and gets their face blugeoned in with a golf trophy because of it? Can the family sue the chief for putting that cop's life in danger by restricting his ability to protect himself?

More importantly, if there are only 200 cases of "Police kill guy wielding pool cue" a year nationwide, is this really a problem that needs to be addressed? 450 people nationwide die of falling out of bed each year. 300 die in their own bathtubs. 210 die a year from cars hitting large animals. Whatever minimal gain there may be is far offset by the risk of collateral damage and/or injury or death because a cop wasn't allowed to stop the guy reliably.

[marie999]

8. And in response to a deadly threat what cop is not going for center mass?

If I was a cop my response to a deadly threat would be to kill the person as quickly as a could.

[uponit7771]

24. I no longer believe cops when they say they're afraid for their lives after the FOP reaction

... to COVID mandates.

[Dial H For Hero]

30. What about the cops who have been vaccinated? Are they never in fear of their lives

when confronting dangerous suspects?

[uponit7771]

42. Of course but they are also represented by the FOP, the claim of endanger

... is that minimum in question..

They shoot at what's not the danger to them, and fight protections against what's obvious dangers

[sarisataka]

9. I envision two common results

1- the lawsuit from a bystander who gets injured when an officer misses. General public questions why did the officer risk such a shot instead of aiming center of mass.

2- criminal sues police for use of excessive force. General public supports saying why didn't police use less-lethal means; if it was truly life and death officer should have shot center of mass.

[LiberatedUSA]

39. That is how it works for the rest of us.

Telling the cops you shot your attacker in the leg to only wound them tells the prosecution you had time to clearly think things through and were not in fear for your life.

[Maraya1969]

11. Reading the comments on this thread makes me sad for humanity.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

12. I don't think cops should shoot people at all, because I don't think we should have cops, so.

[kcr]

13. Sorry. Nothing sad about it.

It isn't sad to think that encouraging cops to use their guns even more is a horrible idea. I'm sad for anyone who is gun happy.

[Hav]

20. Posters react that way because while it

might have been an idea with good intentions, it's simply such a flawed and naive proposal. As others noted, this seems rather a movie inspired than reality based idea.
For instance, aiming for the leg is harder and blowing out the main artery is just as deadly.

This has nothing to do with not appreciating ideas to reduce the number of police killings.

[Maraya1969]

21. There are police forces in other countries who don't even carry guns. And in Ireland

about 30% of the people own, (or carry) guns and the police still do not carry guns.

I can't get back to the site where I just read this because all of a sudden they want me to pay but it is at Quartz.

[Ace Rothstein]

23. Ireland doesn't have the violence problem we have.

Solve that and the police can stop carrying guns.

[uponit7771]

25. Police were carrying guns ... BEFORE ... we had a gun violence problem in the US.

[Maraya1969]

26. Maybe one of the ways we start solving the problem is getting the police

to stop gunning down our citizens.

[Ace Rothstein]

27. The math isn't even close.

It would be great if police didn't shoot anyone but they shoot a small fraction of the people shot in this country.

[Dial H For Hero]

31. Quite so. Of all the people who die due to gunshots in the US, 2% are killed by police.

[Crunchy Frog]

28. That doesn't happen without meaningful gun control. Which the police oppose overwhelmingly.

Probably because they don't actually fear for their lives, as shown by their response to their current #1 killer, Covid.

[Crepuscular]

14. Terrible idea

Might work in Hollywood but when adrenaline is pumping so hard your arm feels like a licorice stick, you are hyperventilating and your target is potentially shooting back at you, you are going to be lucky to hit your target at all, let alone being able to pick and choose which extremity you are going to aim for. Center mass gives the biggest margin of error that you will at least hit something. Trying to wing someone is total bullshit.

I believe that waaay too often cops decide to use lethal measures when non-lethal alternatives would work instead but in cases where the use of lethal force is justified, center mass and trying to put the target out of action as quickly as possible is the only reasonable option.

Suggesting that shots that hit other areas of the body are more likely to be non-lethal also borders on fantasy. Many of those areas are rich in arteries and will result in someone bleeding out long before any treatment can be given.

[Oneironaut]

15. That's not how real life works.

- Its hard to hit a target with a gun
- Factor in panic and adrenaline, and it’s even worse
- Shooting anywhere is lethal - even the feet. There are veins everywhere where you can bleed out.
- Center mass is best because it allows for the biggest target
- A gun is ALWAYS a shoot to kill instrument. You cannot assume someone will be wounded. Tissue damage from bullets is immense, and bullets fragment.
- Even with the above, shooting in limbs isn’t guaranteed to stop someone trying to kill you.

I’m not a gun nut, but, this is nonsense. No cop would ever do this.

[Straw Man]

17. Sorry, but this is based on faulty reasoning.

Shooting center-mass is not "shoot to kill." Head shots are "shoot to kill." Shooting center-mass is the most efficient way to neutralize a threat with the fewest shots fired and the least danger to innocent bystanders. Period.

[Brainfodder]

18. Non-lethal ammo or powerful tranquillizer guns?

[Raine]

19. Ridiculous, not going to work and will only make things worse. 👎 nt

[Aristus]

32. "I tried to incapacitate him, Chief, but he moved his head into the path of the bullet!

His fault, Chief; not mine."

IOW, nothing changes except now cops get more plausible deniability.

[SYFROYH]

33. Gut shots may be reasonable/practical and allow more lives saved, but the results won't be pretty.

Center mass is a big area and really this sheriff is recommending shooting in the low half of the center mass zone.

[madville]

34. I had to annually qualify on firearms and justified use of force for 20 years

With the federal agency I retired from (even though I rarely ever carried a firearm in my specific role).

That’s a horrible policy for so many reasons. Next they’ll be directing them to shoot the weapon out of the suspect’s hand just like they do it in the movies lol.

[Dial H For Hero]

36. News flash! Police are not the Cisco Kid!

[MineralMan]

35. Given the number of rounds fired in most police shootouts

that miss, most cops can't hit the broad side of a barn with their service pistols. So, where they aim is irrelevant, really.

[Kaleva]

37. I was going to post something similar earlier today.

Given how often trained police miss now while aiming for center mass, it's going to take an extraordinary amount of extra training in order to successfully aim for the lower extremities, hips or abdomen.

[MineralMan]

38. I remember a big bank robbery in California years ago.

There was live TV coverage from helicopters of it. Literally thousands of rounds were fired by police at the perpetrators. Cops had handguns and AR-15 rifles galore. Not one bullet hit any perpetrator, but there were bullet holes in buildings and vehicles all over the area where the shootout occurred.

Regardless of training, most shots fired by police in the heat of a confrontation are not aimed carefully, or not aimed at all. It's more of a point in the general direction and keep pulling the trigger, hoping that one of the bullets will hit the target sort of thing. More training won't fix that, I'm afraid. An excess of adrenaline makes for poor accuracy, apparently.

[GregariousGroundhog]

40. Are you thinking of the North Hollywood shootout in 1993?

The perpetrators actually were hit by police gunfire, Emil Mătăsăreanu in the right buttock, right leg, and left forearm; Larry Phillips in the shoulder and right hand.

Between both sides, 2000 rounds of ammunition were fired. Twelve police officers and eight civilians were injured; both perpetrators died.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

[Kaleva]

44. IMO, most will not see their gun, much less their sights, during a shooting situation.

They'll be so focused on the bad guy, they won't be able to see anything else or everything but the baddy, including the sights, will be blurry.

I practice point shooting as I very highly doubt I'll be concerned about proper sight alignment in the very remote chance some bad guy is kicking in my bedroom door and I know I'll never put in enough training to automatically sight in a target without thinking during a very stressful situation.

A method i use to break tunnel vision, if it were to happen, is that after I shoot at a target and bring the revolver back to ready position, I'll look to my right and then to my left. To look for other potential threats and break tunnel vision. I've done this so often that it's automatic now and I don't even have to think about it.

[Ohio Joe]

41. I guess it's ok but... I'm not sure it really addresses the problem...

As I see it, the problem is that cops shoot their weapons far more often then needed.

[hardluck]

45. So he's implementing this policy for deadly weapons that are not firearms

Seems to me that most of these shootings of suspects with deadly weapons that are not firearms (knives, blunt objects) happen when a single officer arrives on scene, or arrives first. Seems a better approach would be to have all officers ride two to a car. That way when they arrive at a scene where there is a suspect with a deadly weapon that is not a firearm, one can provide lethal cover with a pistol while the other uses less than lethal - pepper spray, taser, beanbag shotgun, etc.

Shooting at the legs/hips invites misses and I'm not convinced it would lower the percent of suspects killed although my dad was shot in the hip by a police officer and survived. My feeling on that shooting was the officer was aiming center mass and anticipating the shot, pulled the pistol low and to the left which is a typical problem shooters have when they do not practice enough. If he had been aiming at the hip he might very well have missed endangering bystanders.