Defensive Carry banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,012 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Contrary mis-informed public opinion, LE does not "shoot to kill", we shoot to stop the threat. In practice, this usually means shooting a suspect until they are down on the ground and not actively resisting or posing an immediate threat.

Video from Istanbul clearly shows some on-the-ball cop or soldier responded quickly and shot one of the terrorists who went down hard, his AK sliding across the floor. But the terrorist still had 10-15 seconds left in which he detonated his suicide vest. Had there been follow-up head shots, the vest MAY not have detonated.

There has always been a pretty clear cut distinction here in the USA between soldiers in combat and Cops who are only a part of the justice system and guard all citizens (even criminals) their due process. Has recent terror tactics made the distinction less desirable or realistic?

How do we, in a fluid and highly charged situation, distinguish between some criminal that may have to be shot, but not intentionally terminated, versus a terrorist that must absolutely be killed immediately?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
82 Posts
I don't think we can't tell what's between a terrorist and a criminal. Well that's what my Iranian uncle claims.
Although, one thing that may concern me is that the criminals "fund "the terrorist/enemies.
I think the best thing (since we're in war) is to assume they're rigged to explosives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,607 Posts
This seems really similar to the thread that is already running...
Not so much. The OP is talking about what is called an 'anchor shot'. This would be done to prevent explosives detonation or to make sure the attacker was not playing possum or able to recover and shoot you in the back while you were dealing with additional threats.

When it is clear that we're dealing with a terrorist attack, I believe it should be allowable by responding officers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,012 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
This seems really similar to the thread that is already running...
It may seem similar, but there are significant differences. Peace Officers are sworn. We are to protect. We also have to not just follow the laws but uphold them, which means GUARDING the rights of DUE PROCESS for all. We are NOT the Judge, jury or Executioner. But yet, with the significant rise in terror tactics, can we (LE) afford to ignore those new realities?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dangerranger

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,342 Posts
I can remember when it was fire a shot, and evaluate? Ever since Hi Cap pistols became the common pistol carried, not so much.

It then became shoot till they went down! I feel (due to recent events) it is a burst to bring them down, head shot, leave, take cover, whatever. Can do that with a 16 capacity Glock 19.

The Police arrive? At age 80, me, I want hospital attendance, right now. Then I want my Wife.

Speaking to Police? What.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,293 Posts
It seems "shoot until the threat is gone" still applies - clearly, if the BG has explosives, the threat isn't gone as long as he has any ability to take conscious action, and perhaps not even when he doesn't.

I imagine LEA's will be examining this problem and coming up with policies, but it seems to be a judgment call. In the wake of Paris and Istanbul especially, if one has reason to believe he's dealing with an Islamist terrorist, he has reason to believe there's a bomb, and is justified in finishing off the BG. That's how I would view it if I were on a jury, anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
455 Posts
Contrary mis-informed public opinion, LE does not "shoot to kill", we shoot to stop the threat. <snip>

How do we, in a fluid and highly charged situation, distinguish between some criminal that may have to be shot, but not intentionally terminated, versus a terrorist that must absolutely be killed immediately?
If we are shooting to stop the threat, then it seems reasonable to ask how soon we want the threat to stop. If the answer is "very soon", then we must shoot into a body part that will quickly end the ability of the shoot-ee to continue doing whatever it was that gave us reason to shoot him (or her) in the first place. Consider a shot with a 12 ga slug, hitting between the nipples and the thorax, which takes out the heart, lungs and spinal cord. This drops the shoot-ee to the ground, where he will die within seconds. But he still has seconds in which to pull a trigger or trip a vest. A shot to the gut with a .22 LR may cause him to die of peritonitis in three weeks, but doesn't stop the threat right now. A brain stem shot, while more difficult to make, has the best chance of preventing the use of all muscles below the neck.

Its not a question of shooting to terminate or not, but a question of stopping the threat right now.

John W in SC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
929 Posts
The OP is talking about what is called an 'anchor shot'.
Ok, I think I know already; but, just in case: what exactly is an anchor shot?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,222 Posts
If we are shooting to stop the threat, then it seems reasonable to ask how soon we want the threat to stop. If the answer is "very soon", then we must shoot into a body part that will quickly end the ability of the shoot-ee to continue doing whatever it was that gave us reason to shoot him (or her) in the first place. Consider a shot with a 12 ga slug, hitting between the nipples and the thorax, which takes out the heart, lungs and spinal cord. This drops the shoot-ee to the ground, where he will die within seconds. But he still has seconds in which to pull a trigger or trip a vest. A shot to the gut with a .22 LR may cause him to die of peritonitis in three weeks, but doesn't stop the threat right now. A brain stem shot, while more difficult to make, has the best chance of preventing the use of all muscles below the neck.

Its not a question of shooting to terminate or not, but a question of stopping the threat right now.

John W in SC
I understand this but are you going to be able to convince a jury of your peers that you feared that he would detonate a bomb if you did not finish him off. I think Coup de gras is the word for a finishing shot. He is down, and you put one more through his forehead to make sure. The problem will come when it is caught on video, and is found not to be carrying a bomb!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
455 Posts
I understand this but are you going to be able to convince a jury of your peers that you feared that he would detonate a bomb if you did not finish him off. I think Coup de gras is the word for a finishing shot. He is down, and you put one more through his forehead to make sure. The problem will come when it is caught on video, and is found not to be carrying a bomb!
Agreed.

We often talk about the importance of shot placement. I was thinking more of stopping the threat early on, rather than continuing to shoot after he's down.

John W in SC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,222 Posts
Unless an active shooter is wearing nothing but speedos, you have to assume he has a bomb vest and act accordingly.

This is war, on our soil. They are attacking civilians and showing no mercy. They get no quarter.
That's great, And You and I agree on it . But just like the 6 Baltimore cops on trial, You, I, or any Cop, would be standing trial if you shot the guy to the ground and then finished him off only to find that he didn't have a bomb. DR
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,031 Posts
Is that the reason you get the big bucks?? lol I think they may have to rethink procedure. If there is a chance of terror it almost has to be treated that way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10thmtn

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,933 Posts
That's great, And You and I agree on it . But just like the 6 Baltimore cops on trial, You, I, or any Cop, would be standing trial if you shot the guy to the ground and then finished him off only to find that he didn't have a bomb. DR
The legal standard is...would a "reasonable man," knowing the facts as you understood them at the time, have made a similar decision? Since we know that terrorists employ gunmen, armed also with suicide bomb vests, it is reasonable to assume that an active shooter has a bomb vest. Thus, it is reasonable to shoot them in the brain in an attempt to prevent them from detonating. If it turns out they didn't have a bomb, all that will matter is if your belief that they might have one was reasonable. Given world events, I think it is. And a Grand Jury would likely as well.

We cannot wait to hear "Allahu Akbar" before acting. We cannot take the time to see if the clothing is "bulky enough" for a bomb vest. Heck, they are even exploring ways to put explosives inside their bodies! Or, the explosives might be hidden somewhere nearby, and detonated by remote. We cannot try to distinguish between a nutjob (who might also have a bomb) versus a terrorist.

Yes, the paradigm has shifted. Assume a bomb, and act accordingly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,342 Posts
In renting a range to the El Al security group, in Toronto for some 16 years, it was clear why they would sooner rent from me, and pay, than use a Police Range for free.

One exercise they did (I can talk about this now, I left Toronto in 2003) no idea were they train now.

Exercise, at 15m fire 3 rounds, from the draw, concealed, target, cardboard, hung on wire, stretched across the range, S hooks used. Then fast run down range, shoot a 4" balloon taped to concrete surface, below target.

They used a funny, rapid floor slap to stop, one hand fire. They did that for a long time, from Browning Hi Powers, empty chamber, to Glock 17s, one in the Pipe!

All applications of full sized targets three round bursts. Not two. Great guys to work with (they brought the Coffee and Donuts!)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,224 Posts
There are only two ways to end a lethal force encounter.

Cause the person enough physical pain to where they do not want to play anymore or mechanically break them to where they cannot play anymore. Whether this takes 2 rounds or 32 rounds you shoot them until they stop doing what they were doing that caused them to shoot them in the first place, whether they are standing, on the ground or on a walker shoot them until they quit.

You must be able to articulate why you did something to satisfy the "reasonable man" question however do not get stuck on it. Deadly force is deadly force whether it is a gun or a bat, either it is authorized or not. If you have to shoot them to the ground to end the threat then so be it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike1956
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top