It did not take long in the wake of a fatal police shooting of a man in Covington for someone to wonder why the King County Sheriff’s sharpshooter could not have simply shot the armed man to wound him.
The man in this case was aiming a hunting rifle at a hovering sheriff’s department helicopter, Guardian One. A deputy took the shot, reportedly hitting the man in the chest.
In a rather inane post on the Seattle Post-Intelligencer’s public feedback section, someone identifying himself (or herself) as “Trainer56” argued in somewhat disjointed English: “They should have the building evacuated and if he had to shoot the chopper shoot to wound not kill.”
Nonsense; blaming a sheriff’s marksman for the unpleasant outcome of the Covington incident is not simply unfair, it demonstrates a pathetic lack of knowledge about the use of lethal force and the training provided to sharpshooters.
Let’s get this up front: I am no fan of the continuing militarization of civilian law enforcement. The other day, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino – taking what may be the only smart step he ever made in relation to a firearms issue – turned thumbs down on allowing patrol officers to arm up with military M-16 rifles that the U.S. military reportedly provided free of charge to the cops. That’s your tax money at work, one supposes, but the money could be better spent elsewhere.
That said, when an armed individual poses what can reasonably be concluded to be an imminent lethal threat, you take him out. This principle applies to legally-armed private citizens as well who have one of the best self-defense statutes in the nation right here in Washington State.
Indeed, when it comes to justifiable homicide in the Evergreen State, the Legislature long ago established a dual standard, allowing private citizens a broader standard in the use of lethal force than allowed for on-duty police officers acting in their official capacity. This does not mean private citizens enjoy an “open season” on criminals. That’s all spelled out in my newly-updated book Washington State Gun Rights and Responsibilities.
The legislature recognizes that RCW 9A.16.040 establishes a dual standard with respect to the use of deadly force by peace officers and private citizens, and further recognizes that private citizens' permissible use of deadly force under the authority of RCW 9.01.200, 9A.16.020, or 9A.16.050 is not restricted and remains broader than the limitations imposed on peace officers."
Defensive firearms training courses universally pound this principle into their students: You do not shoot to kill, you do not shoot to wound, you “shoot to stop.” Whatever else you are trying to accomplish with that bullet, the primary intent is to stop the threat. If it takes more than one round to neutralize the threat, keep shooting.
Shooting to merely wound someone is a misuse of lethal force.
In a self-defense confrontation, when your life or the life of another person, a family member perhaps, is at stake, you want that threat stopped cold. If the perpetrator ends up dead, guess whose fault that is.
This “shoot to wound” mentality appears to be the product of too much television, starting perhaps with Hopalong Cassidy and The Lone Ranger, and continuing in countless cop and detective shows where the hero is able to blast a gun out of someone’s hand or “just wing him” in the shoulder. People who write that stuff, to say nothing of the fools who believe what they see on the tube and translate that into real life, have no understanding of bullet trauma, or about the enhanced threat that a wounded criminal poses.
This does not mean we should execute a suspect on the spot – as is alleged in the Oklahoma City pharmacy shooting recently – because that can get you slapped with a murder charge.
What must be kept in perspective, though, is that when an individual calls the play and sets in motion a chain of events that unfold rapidly and end in a fatality, that person alone is responsible for the way things conclude.
For more info: America Fights Back: Armed Self-Defense in a Violent Age.
Visit with other Gun Rights Examiners:
Comments
Thanks for dealing with this much mangled subject. I'm a certified instructor for handguns and self defense and I spend considerable time in my classes trying to untangle this in the minds of people who previously hadn't thought about it or have "TV" instruction to overcome.
If we are shooting to save our lives (or that of another), we shoot to stop the threat as quickly as possible. That means center body mass, as accurately as possible - for as many shots as it takes to stop that threat.
If we actually have time and opportunity for a "wounding shot" OR a "warning shot," then we probably should not be shooting at all.
Or we will have misjudged the situation so badly that we will be killed or injured ourselves.
When I first took a "Use of Deadly Force" class, one given to the Adams Co. Ill. sheriff's officers back in 1982, the instructor stressed that if you thought a less than lethal option would suffice then you were not justified in using deadly force. Shooting, whether center of mass, at just a limb, or a warning shot in front of the assailant is use of deadly force.
Twenty-five years later and as a newly-certified Missouri CCW instructor, one of my first students declared she would "only shoot for an arm or leg." From that day, I included a piece of truck tire swinging between two bungee cords. I start it swinging and tell the students that on the whistle they have 1.5 secs. to hit it as many times as possible from a full mag. at 7yds. Very, very few manage even one hit. Those who miss are then told they're dead. Those who hit it are also told that they're probably dead because hitting the leg did nothing to stop the assailant from shooting them. Hopefully they get the point.
Gonna be interesting to see how this concept plays into the OK Pharmacist's defense. The video doesn't show what the perp was doing before the final shots. I guess the matter will hinge on which lawyer can put on the best show for the jury.......
Hand that "shoot to wound" proponent the outline of a human body and ask them to sketch in all the organs and major arteries. Then ask them where exactly to place that magic shot that disables and incapacitates without also damaging a critical body part or causing a massive bleed. Hint: this would be a considerable challenge to a medical professional on a good day let alone during a combative confrontation.
But then some people never seem able to switch from the cartoon channel to something with a bit more reality.
I think the attitude of the commentator false under the heading, "Naive, liberal idiot".
The liberal case is to say, "Intentional actions that have the possibility of killing another human being are never justifiable, they are sometimes understandable but never justifiable."
I've never yet met a person who properly takes this conviction to it's limit of, "You can only call them principles if you're willing to let someone else who's innocent die for sake of those principles."
I've no problem with liberals per say, it's just those who won't stand up to their convictions... which is most of them.
When I took the ccdw class the instructor was adament about shooting to STOP the threat, not wound. He also was persistant about only having mere seconds, if that long, to make decisions. Accountability, reprecussions, justifiability were also stressed. Above all, practice. "Try to wear your gun out" were his exact words.
Shoot to stop the threat. Shoot for center mass. Shoot for what you know you can hit.
Very few people have the ability, self control training, or experience to accurately place a bullet into a nonlethal part of the human body. There are those who are able to consistently shoot relatively small multiple steel knockdown plates within seconds, however the targets are located at a known range, aren't shooting back, aren't holding a hostage shield, and usually aren't moving.
As far as excessive force is concerned, Self control, self control, self control. I tell my students that the use of force can be compared to using a hammer to drive a nail. Once the nail head is flush with the wood, stop hammering! Very often, all the sandpaper in the world won't remove your hammer tracks.
Yeah, they could've just shot the gun out of his hand. That's what Roy Rogers and Hopalong Cassidy did. Or if they had to shoot the bad guys, they just shot them in the shoulder. Then the Doc could "fix 'em up". And Lash LaRue didn't even need a gun. He just lashed the guns out of their hands. You could teach all the policemen to do this. It would save on bullets, too.
I think that it's asinine to try to make gun rights into a Liberal or Conservative issue. It's not about politics. Plenty of people who identify themselves as Liberal are gun owners, carry guns, etc. Plenty of those who identify as Conservative are Anti-gun. Conservatives love to think that Liberals are cowards or not patriotic and it's a huge turn off for people who might otherwise support gun rights to try to make it a left/right thing. Personally, I'm an ex-Special Forces soldier, and would consider myself pretty liberal, I even voted for Obama , Kerry, and Clinton . Does that make me any less of a gun owner ?
"..I even voted for Obama , Kerry, and Clinton . Does that make me any less of a gun owner ?"
No. You're just not very bright.
When I went to VietNam, I was told that while on guard duty, if someone entered my zone, I was to call 'halt' three times, then shoot to wound, then shoot to kill. I'm sorry, but if someone actually got that close to the perimeter wire, it would have been their last mistake.
I'm glad it never happened, because I neither had a personal beef with the people over there, nor would I want that on my conscience, but if it ever becomes 'my life or yours', I'll choose mine.
If a fool decides to point a weapon at any target except a designated one, I believe it then comes down to 'natural selection' at work.
I still do not nor will I ever tolerate any kind of weapon - real or toy - pointed at me.
Besides, if you merely shoot the gun out of the perp's hand, you have to concern yourself with the ricochet as well as 'what if you miss that one shot?'
The discharge of a weapon in any direction is 'deadly force', and the perp would most likely discern it as such. As in: if you shoot at me, I'm gonna shoot back, and I'm gonna try to prevent you from doing it again.
Kill the stupid #@$%^(*&.
Commentors:
Each time prior to, and after my two combat tours in Vietnam,
I recieved extensive weapons training from Marine and Navy instructors using a variety of weapons. Certainly, we were trained to kill, but another part of our training was to "shoot to wound" the enemy.
The REASON FOR THIS was, if you severely wound the enemy SOLDIER without killing him, then more of the enemy's resources must be expended to care for his wounded. While this theory may not be applicable in a criminal/victim situation, I must take exception to your comments and emphasize that is VERY POSSIBLE TO SHOOT TO WOUND.
Severly wounding the bad guy might be more well-recieved if you simply think of it due punishment for him being a stupid criminal.
Think about him sitting in prison, paralyzed in his wheelchair, peeing and pooping into a plastic bag for the rest of his life. Think about his mangled intestines and genitailia that were cut away and put into the dish in the operating room.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!