To wound or not to wound?

[mundaire]

Many a times one comes across well meaning suggestions by citizens that go something like, "aim for the legs" or "try and wound the assailant", etc. The opinion piece below quite succinctly explains why this isn't practical.

http://www.federalwaymirror.com/opinion ... ms-lawyer/

To wound or not to wound? | Firearms Lawyer
Mark KnappThu Jun 3rd, 2010 11:35pmOpinion



Over the past several years, I have attended several firearms training programs and have begun teaching firearms law classes in Federal Way.

One thing I have learned is that anyone who thinks he or she will get a medal for killing a perpetrator is sorely deluded. If the public often suspects that officers have killed suspects because of racial prejudice or malice, how will the public view armed citizens? The question often arises as to whether shooting to wound would be preferable than shots that are apt to kill. Is it realistic to require anyone to attempt nonlethal shots?

When Vice President Joe Biden was asked about a “minimum force” bill that would require officers to shoot an assailant in the arm or the leg, the VP called the legislation a “John Wayne Bill” because officers cannot reasonably be expected to shoot like they do in Hollywood. See “No-Kill Bill Surfaces in New York.”

In 2009, a Federal Way police officer shot and wounded an assailant armed with a knife. Because of the fact that the belligerent and naked man was charging the officers, the Federal Way officers’ training required them to aim for center of body mass. There are no circumstances where officer training would require shooting at the arms or legs. Even if officers could achieve such unrealistic training standards, the unreasonable risk to the officer – and the risk of wounding an innocent bystander – makes “shooting-to-wound” an impractical standard for law enforcement or armed civilians.

Training in use of lethal force almost always involves discussions of cases like the Diallo case in New York City. Mr. Diallo, struck by at least 19 bullets, was apparently reaching for something in his pocket. Officers thought he was reaching for a weapon. New York lawmakers reacted by proposing the legislation requiring that officers deploy the minimum amount of force needed to control a suspect.

Graham v. Connor, the benchmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on police use of force, recognizes that gunfights are “tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving.” When an officer’s life or that of a third party is in jeopardy, the decision as to whether or not to shoot is based on the reasonable man standard. The three targets for a reasonably prudent man or woman confronted with armed force are center of body mass, the pelvis and the head. The center of the chest is preferable under most circumstances because such a target minimizes many risks, including the risk of missing the target. The target is often shooting back!

Even two or three shots to the heart or the brain do not ensure that an opponent will not continue returning fire. Many departments, including Federal Way, are beginning to focus on shooting under low-light situations and use various simulated shooting scenarios to develop officers’ ability to react while assessing situations.

There are no shoot-to-wound laws proposed in Washington state. Nevertheless, Hollywood myths can influence juries and review boards. Lawyers and journalists are also susceptible to the John Wayne syndrome. The solution lies in educating the public so that all the issues are clearly understood.

[Woods]

This is the most serious topic being discussed . Well thought inputs will surely enlighten and also make us harmonize with typical indian scenario . At the outset I must write the points which are well known .
A legitimate gun owner exercises restraint because of the legal aftermath of shooting a gun , hit or miss .Howsoever extreme may be his case , if he decides to fire a round and injure someone it is dead law that a criminal case will be registered against him for the investigation of offences punishable under sections 307 / 302 of IPC . Both of the offence are non-bailable and punishable with life imprisonment . This aside , the primary goal of the police in this case would be to intimidate and extort se much money as possible from the shooter . And, since he owns a legitimate gun it means there IS money to grab .

But , this can happen only if the shooter is traceable .
On the other side and as is worldwide , the predator / assailant / criminal will definitely try to employ an element of surprise so the victim (the legitimate gun owner ) can not resist or harm him .
So basically , an Indian gentleman in possession of a legitimate weapon has to cope with both sides of law .
However , after shooting someone the gentleman will carve out his way one day as he is alive but if he failed to pull the trigger before right time , he's totally at the whim and mercy of the assailant and also on how the situation develops . Maybe no worries in afterlife .
Whether a motor vehicle accident or a shooting scenario , the person having 1. Attitude 2. Orientation 3.situational awareness has better chances of winning .
The self defence situation will never arrive after our permission . It does not come everyday . Till it arises we are not to be lazy or mundane .

Added in 39 minutes 16 seconds:
My personal story . I was posted at a taluk headquarter . I read in newspapers about one untraceable murder in which a person s headless body was found and two days later his head was recovered from a bag lying at the bench of a railway station .
Some days (weeks) later a body was found mutilated and somehow police suspected that the culprit must be same person .
Some weeks later a man was found tied to the back of a coal wagon of a goods train . Someone had tied him live but after the train having run several kilometres , he was dead and lost much of his legs . The train had stopped only at one place after last inspection . That place seemed connected with fore mentioned murders .

In above background, I got newly posted . So I used to be very cautious and ready . Sometimes I felt like hero of some thriller movie .
Then one night , around 11 pm I was returning from District headquarters and two motorcycles each overtook from either side of my car . The people sitting pillion also beat on my bonnet . They were waiving to stop the car . In preparedness and in panic I took aim at one and fired my revoler . Missed the aim but they almost instantly vanished . And in their hurry they almost took pee in pants as was evident from the swinging bikes .
I never encountered the killer . Police too never caught him .

[Woods]

I was such a moron then -some 8 years back . I thought government revolver was of cheap quality that it missed the target . I thought"Ashani" must be like Walther ppk or at least Ortgies 32 ACP in quality and accuracy .

[thesinfulsaint]

From what I've been told "unofficially" by my cop and lawyer friends/shooting buddies is to never draw and never ever shoot to maim. If you have to draw then finish it.

If a person has not been in that situation then it is all academic. I have not so not sure what I'll do. YMMV

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[Woods]

From what I've been told "unofficially" by my cop and lawyer friends/shooting buddies is to never draw and never ever shoot to maim. If you have to draw then finish it.

If a person has not been in that situation then it is all academic. I have not so not sure what I'll do. YMMV

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Definitely . I'm myself sort of a law enforcement officer . In the indian context you must then kill . If you leave him alive you dig your grave . However by social /political pressure + money + certainty of further injury may create condition of a compromise . Remember , it will be shooter then who has to manage compromise . So better to finish it and deal with the situation with no injured as a witness . Better choice between two evils .

[goodboy_mentor]

Cops are not the ideal persons to ask for the fine points of law. They sometimes or rather usually have a very poor understanding of law. If the prosecution is able to prove that death was not caused to the satisfaction of Section 100 or 103 of IPC, then the accused can be in deep legal trouble.

Few months ago, was listening to a video on Youtube of a High Court lawyer, who had got some cop convicted for killing an innocent person. The cop had passed off a cold blooded murder as "encounter death". He was also telling that the senior police officers mostly are very clever and aware the law may catch them sometime in future, if they do illegal act. Therefore they fool or somehow allure the lower ranking officers or policemen to do the dirty job and themselves remain safe.

Right of private defense as defined from Sections 96 to 106 IPC is a serious matter and one must strictly remain within the parameters of law.

[Woods]

There is law and there is a procedure .
In most of the cases going to Indian courts , prosecution solely relies on 'eyewitness account ' .
Nowadays , although someone might get injured due to own fault but since he's injured so people have no impunity in giving sworn testimony that a driver was negligent that's why the accident happened .

That being said - come to relevant scenario . A legitimate gun owner , in his best judgment and discretion chose to pull out the gun and shoot somebody . There is his adversary alive .We can't expect moral standards of his adversaries to speak true of the incident . We Must not expect such competency from police that the police will not only conjure the whole incident but also reconstruct it in the court of law and by admissible legal evidences .
Also when exercising his "right of private defence " Sec100 and Sec103 of the IPC tell us only as to when that right may extend to causing death of the assailant. But the most important is Sec99 which governs entire "right of private defence" -telling us about "Acts against which there is no right of private defence " . After carefully studying this all , a person wonders whether it's possible to exercise the right effectively and not break the law .
So , the Supreme Court deviced the "Theory of weighing in golden scales" - ie - Acts done by a person in exercise of his right of private defence can't be measured in golden scales .
Given all above , in a sudden shooting scenario it will be wise to fire and injure not at all or fire and kill .

[thesinfulsaint]

I understand it is is a very different ballgame in India when it comes to self defence.

Earlier I was referring in context to US and more specific to Texas.

It is indeed sad when the authorities expect a common person to be a sheep in such and many situations.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

[Woods]

One day a Judge acquitted an old man .
The old man blessed the Judge " May the God bless you and make you a cop"
Judge puzzled and embarrassed retorted " Baba what do you say . I'm way a big officer than a cop ".
The wise old man nodded non-chalantly "whatever you may think . You took five years to finish the case . The cop had made me offer to pay five thousand nd get the case nipped in the bud ."

[Vikram]

There are two distinct aspects here.

1. The need to stop the immediate danger to your life and limb. What is the best way to accomplish that? To wound in the hope that it would stop that danger or do what immediately immobilises that threat.

2. What happens after you stop the threat.

You cannot base your actions in stopping the threat on what happens later. If the threat is severe enough to kill you or seriously injure you, or you realistically believe so, and you put that threat down, you live another day to fight it out in the legal system. If you are afraid that you will be arrested and convicted in case you end up killing the person or persons that are trying to seriously hurt you or kill you, and choose to attempt to wound instead of stop them, then you may accomplish your goal of not ending up in a court. But, you may end up in a hospital, maimed for life or worse a graveyard.

Take these issues into consideration. The nature of the threat. Are you convinced that the attack is aimed at severely injuring you or killing you? If that is a yes, you do what is needed. That is STOPPING the attack. The operative word is stopping. Not killing. You stop your defensive actions when the threat ceases to be a threat. If you continue even though the threat has stopped being a threat, then you are guilty of using disproportionate force. That could land you in legal trouble. Not legitimate actions of self-defence.


Best-
Vikram

[Woods]

On 16th may a jewellery shop was robbed in Agra . Here's the CCTV footage . The shop keepers got only seconds to respond and they did . If they carried a firearm not only they would have averted robbery but survived too . There had been no lack of situational awareness on their part .
http://m.hindustantimes.com/india-news/ ... Ll3vM.html

[mundaire]

You are right @ Woods. If anyone of the victims had been armed, the outcome could have been very different!

[Woods]

Some people in this incident got severe injuries just because they happened to be visiting a shop

[Vikram]

There had been no lack of situational awareness on their part .

I have to disagree. Situational awareness also include situational assessment;what one's capabilities/chances are in a situation like that. The shopkeepers did not have firearms or any suitable tools that could aid them in repelling the attack. In times like this,if one is not armed suitably, just give up the gold and money. Save your lives. IMO.