Shoot-to-Kill Orders

So, I'm home at lunch - gotta feed the dogs and let them bark their fool heads off in the back yard, plus, Mrs. Wiggy came home to take Zone V to the vet (she just got 'fixed' and declawed and she has a small infection in one foot). I turned on the TV for some mindless blah, blah, blah, while I ate my bologna-and-cheese sammich (with ketchup, yum).

I saw that the space shuttle got home safely - that's good, glad to hear it.

Then I look up and some talking head (MSNBC or maybe CNN, I can't remember which) is pontificating on the UK "Shoot to Kill" policy regarding terrorist suspects and whether or not it should be applied here in the USA. She's stirring up some crap with a couple of talking heads.

I really should not let myself get sucked into these things. I know better.

But, dammit, they're idiots. And they're talking pure crap and it is gonna cause problems. So I gotta step in, as usual.

OK, listen. "Shoot-to-Kill" (S2K) is supposed to mean two things: a) shoot suspects in the head, so they die really fast and b) do not try the usual "Stop or I'll shoot" warning.

But S2K is nonsense. Cops don't S2K - nobody who shoots people does.

Cops and the military and others who are trained to take lives when the situation calls for it are trained and told to shoot for 'center mass'. That's the biggest part of the body, where you stand the highest percentage chance of hitting. That would be the chest area, basically between the nipples.

Aiming for a person's head is dumb. It is dumb because it is hard to hit - heads are smaller than chests, and they're armored. Hit at an oblique angle and you stand a good chance of bouncing a bullet off their dome. Miss entirely, and you may hit someone you don't want to hit. Cops and the military want to hit something that will absorb the bullet and make the person fall down or stop doing what they were doing, whatever that might have been.

For years, cops in court who actually had to shoot a suspect have been asked by defense attorneys, "Why didn't you shoot to wound?" Zipperheads, the lot of 'em. There is no "Shoot to wound," any more than there is a "Shoot to kill." You shoot to STOP. STOP. STOP. That's all. No more, no less. If it wounds them, if it kills them, the cop could not possibly care less. Their job is to STOP the person from doing whatever it is that they're doing that rates the application of what might be "Deadly Force."

Anybody who says "Shoot to wound" or "Why not shoot the gun (detonator, etc) out of their hand" should be tapped upside their brain pan with a Louisville Slugger baseball bat for being so freaking stupid.

All there is, is 'shoot to stop'. Whatever form that takes. And to do that, you aim for the biggest part and pull the trigger. That's the chest.

The only people who aim for heads are snipers. Snipers are trained to aim for heads because they are armed with high-powered rifles equipped with telescopic sights and they are really, really, good at hitting exactly what they aim at with one shot. Also, police snipers are trained to know what is behind the suspect, so overpenetration that might result in the death of an innocent party is made less likely. Snipers lay in wait, they do not pursue. They are not police or even soldiers in the traditional sense - they are employed when battle has been joined, targets identified, and the situation is known. Police snipers never operate on their own - their authority to fire always comes from another. Military snipers operate on their own and make their own shoot / don't shoot decisions, but they have a list of acceptable targets and a set of standing orders, they are not free to select targets not already sanctioned in most cases (counter-sniper activity and pre-approved targets of opportunity being an exception).

None of these parameters apply to the police when chasing a criminal suspect, even one suspected of terrorist activities.

But what about the fellow with a finger on a detonator? If you shoot him in the chest, he may have a brief moment of life, during which he can explode his device and cause immense destruction and death? Should those folks, and people reasonably suspected of it, not be shot in the head immediately?

No. Those morons on TV, they angry up my blood. They don't know what they're talking about. Like crazy drug dealers, they consume too much of their own product and believe their own movies about terrorists and bombers and such.

First - again with the argument about shooting in the head - one slight slip or turn of the head, and bullet either misses or bounces off. Much good that did.

Second - Head shots can be instantly fatal - but they don't have to be. Singer Marc Cohn just got shot in the temple, for God's sake, last week. He's out of the hospital and doing fine.

Third - Any terrorist woth his salt will be using a 'deadman's switch'. The freaking thing goes off WHEN THEY LET GO, not when they press a button. So, it doesn't matter when, where, or how you shoot them. They let go of the pickle, and it's kaboom time.

Duh.

Now, stop talking about it. S2K is stupid. End of story.

Aw, man, now I'm all worked up.

Walla Walla,

Wiggy