The future George Zimmerman Acquittal Trial Megathread!

[OttoVonBismarck]

Is it American cops who are unable to shoot people in the legs, unlike the cops of other countries?

Generally it would be against procedure and could get you in trouble legally. Police in America are only supposed to fire their weapon at someone if they believe their lives are in danger, the lives of another are in danger, or they or another are in danger of suffering serious harm. Procedurally, a question would arise if you believe any of those things, why are you shooting for the legs where you are both more likely to miss entirely than center mass and where even a hit is not at all guaranteed to remove the threat? If you aren't in fear for your life/safety or the life/safety of another, why are you firing your gun in the first place?

About the only exception to all of this are "fleeing felons." Generally you can't shoot a fleeing criminal, but certain types of fleeing felons can be shot if you believe their presence loose in society puts society in imminent harm. Say you see a crazed guy cut someone's head off on the street then he runs away when the police arrive. They could shoot to kill him even in the back, because there is a strong argument he was intrinsically dangerous in society. Same deal if someone like Ted Bundy is being pursued by police, where he is known to have killed many people.

But not all law enforcement are disallowed from shooting legs, just most peace officers. U.S. Marshals actually are allowed to shoot to wound to stop a fleeing prisoner given the right set of parameters. I believe prison guards (who are sometimes sworn) can also use warning shots to stop an escape in some places.

[OttoVonBismarck]

To be fair, according to American cops, warning shots are more dangerous that shots to kill.

In most situations a warning shot is incompatible with good police procedure, as it's dangerous and serves no valid law enforcement purpose. I don't think anyone is saying they are more dangerous than a shot fired at someone's center mass. Instead, it's said that they serve no purpose and put people in harm's way while a shot to kill is hopefully being done for a legally valid reason.

[CountDeMoney]

Generally it would be against procedure and could get you in trouble legally. Police in America are only supposed to fire their weapon at someone if they believe their lives are in danger, the lives of another are in danger, or they or another are in danger of suffering serious harm. Procedurally, a question would arise if you believe any of those things, why are you shooting for the legs where you are both more likely to miss entirely than center mass and where even a hit is not at all guaranteed to remove the threat? If you aren't in fear for your life/safety or the life/safety of another, why are you firing your gun in the first place?

We were always taught two rules:
1) No skipping applicable continuum of force with indiscriminate display or use
2) Immediate danger to ourselves or others
3) Center mass, center mass, center mass

#1 usually gets thrown out the window by fucking morons, though.   Dumbasses putting their Glock barrels on people's fucking eyeballs when they won't roll over to get face down on the ground.  Hated that shit.

About the only exception to all of this are "fleeing felons." Generally you can't shoot a fleeing criminal, but certain types of fleeing felons can be shot if you believe their presence loose in society puts society in imminent harm. Say you see a crazed guy cut someone's head off on the street then he runs away when the police arrive. They could shoot to kill him even in the back, because there is a strong argument he was intrinsically dangerous in society. Same deal if someone like Ted Bundy is being pursued by police, where he is known to have killed many people.

But not all law enforcement are disallowed from shooting legs, just most peace officers. U.S. Marshals actually are allowed to shoot to wound to stop a fleeing prisoner given the right set of parameters. I believe prison guards (who are sometimes sworn) can also use warning shots to stop an escape in some places.

Convicted felons are a wholly different category than point of arrest/crime in progress suspects.  Corrections officers and deputies have broader authority to pop somebody immediately in the event of an escape attempt, depending on the circumstances. 
US Marshals probably have the widest latitude since they're dealing with convicted felons either in custody or as fugitives.  Hell, even as bail bondsmen we had Weapons Free on sentenced defendants out on appeal bond when the Feds issued the retake warrants.

[derspiess]

I always love when "shoot to wound" topics come up.  I had to school my wife on that the other day. 

[Malthus]

I always love when "shoot to wound" topics come up.  I had to school my wife on that the other day.

Who did she shoot?

[Berkut]

Not really. Using a gun to threaten someone is not self defense.

Maybe legally it isn't, but it's all kinds of fucked up.  In what world does it make sense that you can't threaten someone to get them to break off a threatening behavior on their part?  Why does any self-defense has to immediately go to 11?

You don't have to fire a gun to threaten someone with it.

[Razgovory]

I try to avoid politics, particularly anything with racial undertones, at work.  But someone brought it up yesterday when 4 of us (two black, two white) were in a secured room we call "the vault" working on some tedious but sensitive stuff.  I kept quiet until they asked me my opinion-- I just reminded them of the concepts of burden of proof, reasonable doubt, etc. while acknowledging that the shooting was a shitty thing that happened and they didn't seem to object to that. 

Having worked with most people here for 7 years, I don't feel totally uncomfortable talking about stuff like that, but I still generally keep my cards close to my chest.

Smart man.  No reason to possibly piss people off at work if you don't have to.

[derspiess]

I always love when "shoot to wound" topics come up.  I had to school my wife on that the other day.

Who did she shoot?

An intruder.  Poor thing crawled off into the woods and I had to find him & finish him off.

[CountDeMoney]

An intruder.  Poor thing crawled off into the woods and I had to find him & finish him off.

The groundhog must've been wearing a hoodie.

[derspiess]

An intruder.  Poor thing crawled off into the woods and I had to find him & finish him off.

The groundhog must've been wearing a hoodie.

Funny you should mention that.  I just posted in the OT thread that I have a mole infestation in my front yard, tearing it all up.

[Ed Anger]

I always love when "shoot to wound" topics come up.  I had to school my wife on that the other day.

Did you... Spank her?

[derspiess]

Yes.

[Ed Anger]

I'll Be back in 10 minutes.

[CountDeMoney]

I'm already back.

[MadImmortalMan]

Not really. Using a gun to threaten someone is not self defense.

Maybe legally it isn't, but it's all kinds of fucked up.  In what world does it make sense that you can't threaten someone to get them to break off a threatening behavior on their part?  Why does any self-defense has to immediately go to 11?

Of course you can threaten someone to cease their behaviour.

Not with a gun, you can't. See there's this thing called brandishing. If you don't shoot to kill, you can't draw at all. That's how it works.