Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 113

Thread: Shoot to Incapacitate

  1. #1

    Shoot to Incapacitate

    I thought this was a Babylon Bee article at first.

    The training is part of a new program launched by the West Georgia agency meant to address some of these questions. The program, called "Shoot to Incapacitate," is challenging decades of police orthodoxy around use of deadly force. Instead of teaching officers to always aim for available center mass of the body — usually the chest, upper torso and head — the training is giving them another option if they must fire their weapons in the line of duty.

    The course is the first of its kind in Georgia and could well be a first in the nation. It is teaching officers that in some instances where they are authorized to use deadly force, they have the option to aim for the pelvic region, abdomen, legs and arms of a person posing a threat. The idea is that a gunshot to these areas, while still potentially deadly, could stop the threat while increasing the chance that the wounds will not be fatal.

    It is a break from generations of American law enforcement training taught in academies and in annual recertification training. The reason officers have been instructed to aim for the upper torso and head area is that it generally provides the largest target and the fastest way to stop the threat.

    This method, while effective, has contributed to the roughly 1,000 fatal police shootings each year and helped plunge law enforcement agencies, and the communities they serve, into crisis after crisis. About a quarter of the fatal shootings each year occur in situations involving the mentally ill, sometimes at the height of a breakdown or episode.

    "It's a responsibility, in my opinion, of any police leader to look at options for their police officers so that a deadly force encounter doesn't necessarily end in a deadly result," said LaGrange Police Chief Lou Dekmar.

    https://www.police1.com/police-train...JIpU2MUoRvuqV/

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    The Gunshine State
    Quote Originally Posted by TC215 View Post
    I thought this was a Babylon Bee article at first.




    https://www.police1.com/police-train...JIpU2MUoRvuqV/
    I'd be lying if I said I took the time to read the entire article...but assuming standard "stoplight colors" apply to this new woke target, I'm guessing red=bad, yellow=better, and green=best. If that's the case, is my takeaway supposed to be that a shot to the femoral artery is considered ideal but a shot to the heart or head is forbidden?
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  3. #3
    Just have the current worst shooters train everybody else.

  4. #4
    Member TGS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Back in northern Virginia
    Quote Originally Posted by RJflyer View Post
    I'd be lying if I said I took the time to read the entire article...but assuming standard "stoplight colors" apply to this new woke target, I'm guessing red=bad, yellow=better, and green=best. If that's the case, is my takeaway supposed to be that a shot to the femoral artery is considered ideal but a shot to the heart or head is forbidden?
    That looks like the target we use to train 40mm less lethal munitions.
    "Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer

  5. #5
    The thought process behind this is seemingly good....for stationary targets.

    And when you delve down into it, having the precision to hit the green areas is beyond the capability of most officers under non-stressful range conditions, which is one reason we have the abomination known as the 'Q' target.

    Hey, the odds of an officer actually being shot is low, probably even less if the felon were to know the officer couldn't shoot them, so why not send them out unarmed. You go first, Mr. Mayor, and Training Officer Good Idea.

    I've not testified before every Grand Jury, or Coroners Inquest, in fact, very few, but the ones I have been in front of seemed to understand that it is difficult to hit a precise spot, on a moving target under stress. This is one reason why I feel that failure drills should be just that - drills - and not part of qualification courses.

    Kind of hard to answer the question 'why didn't the officer shoot him in the shoulder?' when the mandated qual course has designated noggin shots - assuming a more than room temperature defense attorney.

    Actually, when you think about it, the ranking of target areas of the body would make it more important that officers be gunfighters rather than public servants. It seems to me this will also encourage officers to choose to shoot rather than use other levels of force quicker in order to have the time to carefully aim at the selected area.

    Great Idea, two thumbs up.

    Continuing the rant, has the police profession completely forgot the various studies done in large metropolitan departments that showed officer use lethal force in an astoundingly low percentage of cases where lethal force would be justified by policy and/or law?

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by TGS View Post
    That looks like the target we use to train 40mm less lethal munitions.
    Yep, also pretty derivative of the Monadnok or Asp striking zones.

  7. #7
    Glock Collective Assimile Suvorov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Escapee from the SF Bay Area now living on the Front Range of Colorado.
    Seems to work in the movies.

    In fact - I think the presidential and vice presidential security details should have been the first to adopt it. What’s the worse that can happen 😏

  8. #8
    banana republican blues's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mtns
    Quote Originally Posted by Suvorov View Post
    Seems to work in the movies.

    In fact - I think the presidential and vice presidential security details should have been the first to adopt it. What’s the worse that can happen 😏
    Pelosi.
    There's nothing civil about this war.

    Read: Harrison Bergeron

  9. #9
    Glock Collective Assimile Suvorov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Escapee from the SF Bay Area now living on the Front Range of Colorado.
    Quote Originally Posted by blues View Post
    Pelosi.
    Touché!

  10. #10
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Maryland
    Apart from the danger to the officer and anyone down range from this policy, I see some legal issues, especially in the "woke" era of demanding police only use deadly force when the threat is imminent, immediate, or actual rather than the objectively reasonable standard.

    If the threat is not immenient and you have time, distance, and/or cover to not shoot, why would you--ethically, legally, and practically--not do something else? If the bad guy isn't all that dangerous, why not negotiate or deploy less lethal weapons?

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •