effect of shots to arms and legs

[BJJ]

Tom Jones - your wife is a badass and an inspiration to me as I recover from shoulder surgery.

Luger - very interesting to hear about how things work on the other side of the pond. Thanks for the information. I have a friend who used to be military police stationed in Germany and he likes to tell stories about the Polizei.

[LittleLebowski]

I'm aware that a shot striking the arm or leg of an attacker is not going to cause rapid incapacitation (except maybe for psychological reasons). But anyway: What is the effect of a shot like this?

As far as I understand, a handgun bullet will just punch a hole in soft tissue. The size of the permanent cavity will be about the diametre of the bullet. So I guess, a handgun bullet hitting a big muscle will not stop an attacker from using an arm or leg?

But what is with a handgun bullet striking a big bone like the femur? Will the attacker still be able to stand, walk or even run? Or is he likely to fall to the ground?

And what happens with a bullet fired from a rifle or a shotgun slug?

PS: English is not my native language. I'm sorry for my grammatics.

In my experience (.45 ACP 230gr HP to the elbow at nearly point blank range), I was mobile and able to move (besides my arm, it was basically paralyzed from the shot) for maybe 3-5 minutes. This is for an arm shot so I can't answer the rest of your questions.

[45dotACP]

In my experience (.45 ACP 230gr HP to the elbow at nearly point blank range), I was mobile and able to move (besides my arm, it was basically paralyzed from the shot) for maybe 3-5 minutes. This is for an arm shot so I can't answer the rest of your questions.

I am fascinated by your story...both as a shooter, an amatuer gunsmith (I'd never buy a Kimber because it sounds like the way it went off was hammer bounce) and a soon to be health professional (well...I try to keep it professional). The recovery you made in relation to where you were shot is quite incredible. The bullet did quite a bit of damage to the bone just looking at the X-ray. Sorry about the experience with the poor/rushed treatment at the hospital...that really does suck. FWIW, I read the story long before I started nursing school, and reading stories about how care breaks down helps keep things in perspective.

I find that arm shots and leg shots are silly for a few reasons. To actually stop an attacker with one, you need to hit a very mobile, very small target. We're talking about inches. The cluster of large blood vessels in the upper chest is a much larger target.

The German perspective is interesting. Forgive me for the reductio ad absurdum, but it would appear that firearms are apparently a less lethal option too? I'm shaking mein kopf...

[Luger]

The German perspective is interesting. Forgive me for the reductio ad absurdum, but it would appear that firearms are apparently a less lethal option too? I'm shaking mein kopf...

No. It is known (and accepted) over here that shooting a person allways includes a high probability of death.

I'm sorry, but it seems I did not do a good job in explaining our laws. Partly because explaining them is difficult, even in german. Partly because my english is not as good as I thought it was.

Let me try to explain it again:

The police law is not about being reasonable (it seems I used the wrong term here). It's about proportionality.
The force you use has to be proportional to what you want to achive by using force.

Shots to the head or center of mass (heart, big blood vessels, spinal cord) will certainly kill a suspect.

Intentionally killing of a fleeing suspect, just to enforce the arrest without any danger to the officer or a third party, is not proportional. As is intentionally killing of persons, to stop them from setting an unoccupied building on fire.
But shooting without the intention to kill (arms, legs, even the whole torso as a big target) might be proportional in this situations. Even if the suspect is killed in the end.

Intentionally shooting at the head or center of mass will be only proportinal as a last resort, to save the life of the officer or a third party. (We call this "finaler Rettungsschuss").

Now this is just theorie, and the rules under police law are pretty tight. If you look at the german criminal code there is a term called "Notwehr". The law says, that every person (including a police officer) may do what ever necessary to defend himself from an unlawfull attack.

You don't have to retreat (only in some special cases) and may choose an option, that will end the threat immediately and in the safest way possible for you. And there is no proportionality. Under some circumstances you might even defend your property with a firearm.

[Lomshek]

No. It is known (and accepted) over here that shooting a person allways includes a high probability of death.

I'm sorry, but it seems I did not do a good job in explaining our laws. Partly because explaining them is difficult, even in german. Partly because my english is not as good as I thought it was.

Let me try to explain it again:

The police law is not about being reasonable (it seems I used the wrong term here). It's about proportionality.
The force you use has to be proportional to what you want to achive by using force.

Shots to the head or center of mass (heart, big blood vessels, spinal cord) will certainly kill a suspect.

Intentionally killing of a fleeing suspect, just to enforce the arrest without any danger to the officer or a third party, is not proportional. As is intentionally killing of persons, to stop them from setting an unoccupied building on fire.
But shooting without the intention to kill (arms, legs, even the whole torso as a big target) might be proportional in this situations. Even if the suspect is killed in the end.

Intentionally shooting at the head or center of mass will be only proportinal as a last resort, to save the life of the officer or a third party. (We call this "finaler Rettungsschuss").

Now this is just theorie, and the rules under police law are pretty tight. If you look at the german criminal code there is a term called "Notwehr". The law says, that every person (including a police officer) may do what ever necessary to defend himself from an unlawfull attack.

You don't have to retreat (only in some special cases) and may choose an option, that will end the threat immediately and in the safest way possible for you. And there is no proportionality. Under some circumstances you might even defend your property with a firearm.

So it sounds like how the officer explains his actions will determine if he was justified. A poor choice of words can be harmful similar to here. The idea of shooting a person "a little" does not exist here.

The difference is here (for police and non-police like me) that any use of a gun is considered deadly force. There is no legal exception that allows me to "shoot for his legs" as a not lethal option. If I show my gun I am threatening deadly force and if I use it I am applying deadly force no matter what so my reasoning had better be legal.

[ToddG]

Luger -- Your English is a lot better than my German. Actually, it's a lot better than my English.

As I read your last post, it sounds perhaps like your rules are actually less prohibitive than they are in the US. If I am reading you correctly, you can use a firearm to stop a felon even if he does not pose a violent threat to anyone. So if an unarmed man was running from a police officer after stealing a valuable watch from a store, are you allowed to shoot at his legs to stop him from escaping?

[Luger]

So if an unarmed man was running from a police officer after stealing a valuable watch from a store, are you allowed to shoot at his legs to stop him from escaping?

No. But the shop owner might do so, if this was the last resort to save his property. (Notwehr under criminal code.)

The police officer might shoot a fleeing suspects legs, if the suspect commited a serious crime (arson, rape, robbery, murder...) and shooting is the last resort to arrest the suspect. (Police law.)

PS: Thank you for the compliments on my english.

[ToddG]

No. But the shop owner might do so, if this was the last resort to save his property. (Notwehr under criminal code.)

There are very few circumstances in the US where that would be legal. I like the German version better.

The police officer might shoot a fleeing suspects legs, if the suspect commited a serious crime (arson, rape, robbery, murder...) and shooting is the last resort to arrest the suspect. (Police law.)

Understood. So from that standpoint, it sounds like law enforcement officers are not allowed to take purposeful torso/head shots as freely as US officers are.

PS: Thank you for the compliments on my english.

Bitte.

[Chuck Haggard]

I recall the Polizei that did foot patrol in the neighborhood near the kaserne in Gelnhausen getting no crap, partially due to the folks living there being very law abiding, and also due no doubt to one partner walking a K9 and the other carrying an MP5

Amongst the GIs at that time the Polizei use of the Gummiknüppel was legendary, and I was always under the impression (right or wrong on may part, not sure) that their use of batons on boneheads having bar fights was far more liberal than we allow here in the US.

Anyway, back on topic...........

[Luger]

Understood. So from that standpoint, it sounds like law enforcement officers are not allowed to take purposeful torso/head shots as freely as US officers are.

At least not in theorie and under police law. In reality most of our prosecutors don't mind the police laws, but decide it was a case of Notwehr if an officer shoots a suspect in self defense.
I think most of the US police shootings I hear about would be ruled to be justified over here, too.