Shoot 'em in the arm

[Katya Mullethov]

Posted for the lul factor .





City cops are livid over a legislative proposal that could handcuff the brave officers involved in life-and-death confrontations every day -- requiring them to shoot gun-wielding suspects in the arm or leg rather than shoot to kill, The Post has learned.

The "minimum force" bill, which surfaced in the Assembly last week, seeks to amend the state penal codes' "justification" clause that allows an officer the right to kill a thug if he feels his life or someone else's is in imminent danger.

The bill -- drafted in the wake of Sean Bell's controversial police shooting death -- would force officers to use their weapons "with the intent to stop, rather than kill" a suspect. They would be mandated to "shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg."

Under present NYPD training, cops are taught to shoot at the center of their target and fire their weapon until the threat has been stopped.

"These are split-second, spontaneous events -- and officers have to make a full assessment in a fraction of a second," said an angry Michael Paladino, president of the Detectives Endowment Association. "It is not realistic, and it exists only in cartoons.

[sui generis]

1. sounds like somebody doesn't want to have to think at work

I guess when you have a hammer everyone looks like a nail. I'd like to read the legislative proposal in its entirety though instead of having it breathlessly recounted and interpreted for me on behalf of the illiterate.

Seems like minimum force would most aptly be used against NON-gun wielding perceived threats. Oh well, Dallas has a long and illustrious history of shooting grandma's through their glass front doors and then dragging the body out on the porch. Nothing says split second spontaneous judgment like shooting an eighty year old woman answering the door and then trying to blame HER for it.

My august opinion: I'm guessing there are reasons for both forms of response, and that using a single blanket rule for every situation is just being lazy. Or too slow to be allowed to carry.

[rrneck]

2. Link? nt

[Katya Mullethov]

7. Lanks ?

I reckon I aint got none'a them .

THE PROPOSAL

Section of Assembly Bill A02952

“A police officer or peace officer . . . uses such force with the intent to stop, rather than kill . . . and uses only the minimal amount of force necessary to effect such stop.”

THE CURRENT LAW

Section of state Penal Law S 35.15(2)(a)(ii)

“A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person . . . unless: he or she is . . . a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter’s direction.”


////////////////////

If they are really proposing REPLACING the quoted section of the current law with the proposed amendment, that would be a great change, as it would remove the seemingly unconstitutional prohibition on the use of deadly physical force for everyone except police officer and peace officers and those assisting them at their direction. The minimal force amendment is something of a red herring, as it would seem hard to prove that an officer wasn't using minimum force and intending only to stop but missed and killed the bad guy. Somehow, I suspect they are not actually intending to remove the quoted portion of "current law." Even if they don't remove it, maybe the post-Heller courts will push this particular fishook on out hte other side as the powers that be back East are wont to do .

[rrneck]

9. That'll do it. Thanks. nt

[X_Digger]

3. Gah. They already 'shoot to stop'

The most effective (and safest for bystanders) methodology to stop a suspect is to shoot for center mass.

Got a link to the full article? I need more lulz.

[GreenStormCloud]

4. Here is the link:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/cops_furious_at_don_kill_bill_SkSRn51FKIeHqY85ZHJSYI

From the article:


"These are split-second, spontaneous events -- and officers have to make a full assessment in a fraction of a second," said an angry Michael Paladino, president of the Detectives Endowment Association. "It is not realistic, and it exists only in cartoons.

"It's moronic and would create two sets of rules in the streets if there is a gunfight. This legislation would require officers to literally shoot the gun out of someone's hand or shoot to wound them in the leg or arm. I don't know of any criminal who doesn't shoot to kill. They are not bound by any restrictions."

"The legislators have their heads buried in the sand, and we would not be able to fully protect the public or ourselves."

In fact, NYPD officers and detectives hit their targets only 17 percent of the time because of the incredibly stressful circumstances surrounding a shooting.

[safeinOhio]

5. rubber bullets?

[Remmah2]

8. and rubber guns! nt

nt

[Statistical]

6. Utterly stupid, reckless and dangerous.

Shoot to stop. Aim center mass shoot until target is no longer a threat.

Sounds like whoever passed the bill "experience" with firearms is from movies where a jumping running goodguy can easily shoot a jumping, ducking, dodging badguy in a small target like arm and never miss, overpentrate, or hit a bystander instead.

+1 for THE STUPIDZ

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Just shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand. Geeze. Problem solved.

Lazy people, I swear.


By the way, shooting in the arm or leg can kill pretty quick. Especially the leg. Fun little bit called an 'artery'. Like Ragu, it's 'in there'.

[benEzra]

11. Apparently, some legislators get their firearms knowledge from watching TV action shows,

B-movies, and Lone Ranger re-runs. Remember that on TV and in the movies, the "hits" are faked, dubbed in during the editing process,

Generally speaking, if you're not justified in shooting center-mass, you're not justified in shooting at all. You can't just shoot somebody "a little bit", regardless of what some idiot TV producer (or idiot legislator) may think.

If you want "less lethal", you are talking about using Tasers and pepper spray.

[Ready4Change]

19. That's my thought too. n/t

[proteus_lives]

12. That is insane and dangerous.

In the arm?

I've rarely heard something so ridiculous.

[spin]

13. So you try to shoot them in the arm ...

you miss and your bullet hits an innocent bystander.

[slackmaster]

14. I think there will be a rash of cases where a cop tries to shoot for the arm, misses,

And hits the center of mass.

;-)

[spin]

15. True, most cops are not al that accurate with their handguns ...

I know several exceptions, but unlike the average cop they loved shooting.

[katzenjammers]

16. One way being a bad shot can save your life.

:eyes: ;-)

[east texas lib]

17. Just shoot off a couple of toes, maybe an ear and let it go at that.

See? Everybody's happy.

[votingupstart]

18. i would love to see the qualification standards on this n/t

[spin]

20. I remember an incident at a range ...

that I used to shoot at.

A fellow shooter who was a good target shooter was shooting at a bulls eye target at 25 yards. A police officer was watching with interest and walked up to my friend when he pulled the target back.

The officer said, "That's a nice group who have there. I guess you consider yourself a good shot."

My friend not being a braggart replied, "I do OK, I guess."

"I'll give you a challenge. Stable a silhouette target on your backer and run the target out to 21 feet. Place your handgun on the table and when I say now, grab your weapon and fire two shots as fast as you can at center body mass."

My friend tried. Both shots missed the silhouette target. He told me, "That police officer taught me a valuable lesson."

The concept of going for an arm shot in a real life gun fight is foolish. Center body mass is difficult enough with the effects of fear and adrenaline.

[PavePusher]

21. Not to mention elevated pulse rate, and being winded after chasing a suspect for a few blocks. n/t

[spin]

22. It's impossible to duplicate the stress of an actual gun fight...

in a pistol range.

[PavePusher]

23. It's too bad there aren't more active shoot-houses available...

for Citizen training.

Passive ranges just aren't the same.

Biathalon comes close. Or high-intensity aircraft mx. (It's not called red-ball mx for nothing...) Or emergency rescue work.

[Ready4Change]

24. mx?

I'm not familiar with the terms 'aircraft mx' or 'red-ball mx?' What are those?

[PavePusher]

25. Oops, sorry, slipped into career tech-speak there...

mx = maintenance

red-ball mx = emergency mx, often immediately prior to engine start/take-off (fast-paced, urgent fixes, often involving heavy tools/parts, close proximity to lots of high-speed, high-temperature equipment, and small, fiddly hardware <screws, nuts, bolts, wires> after hauling said tools/parts several hundred yards at a dead run)

[spin]

27. I considered buying one of those Biathalon rifles ...

they look sweet.

Maybe if I move out to the country and have a range on my property.

[PavePusher]

28. If you want to start out on the "inexpensive" side...

check out the target .22's on the CMP website.

[spin]

29. Thanks. Will do. (n/t)

[burrfoot]

26. Spin-

love the story. I shoot with a couple of buddies at a range here in Sarasota, and we've tried a similar thing. We didn't even start from the table, though- just with handgun lowered from shooting-stance height. While we aren't "marksmen" by any means, we can both put the rounds where we want them pretty reliably; but with just that little change we were happy to get both shots on the paper.

It's a slightly embarrassing thing to admit; but it does point out the difference between static range shooting anything even approaching a real life situation, and also the difference between competent but casual shooters like us and the folks who really work at it. A difference that is well worth keeping mind for all of us who carry.

[spin]

30. A more realistic approach would have been to draw the weapon...

and engage the target. The indoor range wouldn't permit civilian shooters to do this for good reason. Police could and those who participated in the weekly Practical Shooting event were allowed to. I never did participate in the Practical Shooting event due to my work schedule.

I did learn one embarrassing lesson on the range. I had shot a Colt .45 auto for a number of years and practiced picking it up from the table and shooting at a target at 21 feet. The firearm was cocked and locked and I would grab it, thumb the safety off and shoot. I always ended a range session with this little drill. I would vary the distance from 10 to 21 feet on different days and usually rapid fire a magazine or cylinder of rounds from the pistol or revolver I was using that day using first both hands, then right hand only and finally left hand only. (If you are used to shooting right handed, shooting left handed rapidly is a bitch.

One time my daughter was visiting and we went shooting. I set the target at 21 feet and told her to push the lever to bring the target forward toward the firing line. I picked up the .45 as the target moved forward and completely forgot to thumb the safety off. By the time I figured out the problem, the target had reached the bench. I stood there in disbelief, shaking my head and wondered why all the practice of thumbing off the safety had left my mind for that one instance.

My daughter just smiled and said, "Dad, that's why you should always use a revolver for self defense."

So now I do. If I carry a pistol it's double action only (DAO) with no safety.

I carry a firearm for self defense but I realize how important it is to only use it when absolutely necessary. Shooting a handgun is a challenging sport but the difficulty level skyrockets when the target is real rather than paper and intends to hurt or kill you or someone else.