Hop 1

Police should never be trained ‘shoot to wound’

In light of the recent Black Lives Matter protests, many have suggested that police should

shoot to only wound in all situations. Their argument is that countless lives would be saved and

criminals would be stopped by the wound and could then be detained. Currently, police are

trained to shoot in order to eliminate the threat. After stopping to think and looking at facts, one

would realise that it should stay this way. Police should never be trained to ‘shoot to wound’.

On June 13, 2019 at 11:30 AM, US Marshals shot and killed a man in a Tennessee

neighborhood just north of Memphis. The incident sparked a violent protest that caused twenty

four police officers to be injured, as well as two journalists. At the original incident, the man

‘reportedly rammed his vehicle into the officers’ vehicles multiple times before exiting with a

weapon.” The officers fired at the man in order to eliminate the threat, and the suspect was

killed. No officers were injured. This incident is a concrete example of when police shot to

‘eliminate the threat’ and protests were made because of it (Jacobo, Julia).

Why is shooting to wound a bad idea? There are multiple reasons why shooting to wound

should never be taught. First, in order for a bullet wound to not be deadly, it must be on the

lower half of a limb, a target that is nearly impossible to hit. In the upper arms and thighs, there

is a high chance of hitting vital arteries, meaning a high probability of fatality from blood loss.

Even when aiming for the lower limbs, the chance of hitting the center mass is great. The lower

limbs are fast moving and near impossible to hit. An average suspect can move their hand from

hip to shoulder height in just 18/100 of a second. An officer pulling the trigger as fast as they can

requires at least ¼ of a second to discharge each round. Adding to these numbers the fact that the

suspect will be moving, officers are not skilled marksmen and would never be able to hit such a

target. If officers miss the suspect, witnesses nearby have the potential to be hit instead (Lord,
 Hop 2

Debbie).

In addition to the difficulty of actually shooting merely to wound, a second problem is

that a wound will not stop a suspect. When an officer’s life is being threatened, their survival

instinct will take over. Ron Avery, a firearms trainer, says “I don’t care how good a shot you are,

if your life is threatened you’re going to go for the surer thing first and worry about your

assailant’s life being saved second. If a guy is running at me with a blade, the last thing I’m

going to be thinking is ‘I’m going to shoot him in the arm.’” (Lexipol) A suspect with true

criminal intent will not be deterred by a mere wound. Even when they have a fatal wound, they

continue fighting until death. ​David Klinger, professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at

the University of Missouri-St. Louis, shared a story from his days with the LAPD. He had shot a

suspect who was armed with a knife and the bullet pierced his left lung, aorta and right lung, the

suspect still continued to fight for at least another 30 seconds, Klinger said. It took a total of six

officers to subdue him and get him to drop the knife (​Queens Gazette​).

Some would argue that police should use tasers instead. This argument has multiple

issues. Tasers can be faulty. The probes that conduct the electricity can miss, get caught in

clothing, or simply not affect the suspect. Additionally, a lone officer will never use a taser.

When there are two officers, one administers the taser while the other offers lethal coverage in

case the taser fails. It’s unreasonable to expect police officers to gamble their lives or the lives of

others by using merely a taser to subdue a dangerous suspect (Jacobo, Julia).

Police officers should continue to operate under the policy that they currently do. Under

immediate threat of serious physical harm from a suspect, police officers should use deadly

force. Shooting to wound is nearly impossible to achieve. Shooting that small and fast of a target

would require an expert marksman. Additionally, suspects will not stop when merely wounded.
 Hop 3

Even when they are shot with a deadly shot, they continue fighting for up to 30 seconds. Tasers

are a poor solution because they are extraordinarily unreliable. It’s unreasonable to expect police

officers to gamble their lives or the lives of others by shooting to wound.

 Hop 4

Works Cited

Jacobo, Julia. “Experts on Why Police Aren't Trained to Shoot to Wound​”, ABC News,​ ABC

News Network, 7 July 2016,

abcnews.go.com/US/police-trained-shoot-wound-experts/story?id=40402933.

This source contains very valuable information and great arguments for why police

should not be trained to ‘shoot to wound’. It covers the counter argument of using tasers

nicely. It is from ABC News, not a source that would be educated on the subject.

However, the author did proper research from credible sources in addition to talking

directly to police officers and others in the field. Because this source is ABC News, the

author is just a journalist with no expertise in the area. The information is fairly recent; the

article was published only four years ago.

Lord, Debbie. “Here's Why Police Don't Shoot to Wound in the Case of Deadly Force.” ​Ajc,​ The

Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 13 June 2019,

www.ajc.com/news/national/here-why-police-don-shoot-wound-the-case-deadly-force/IV4

ohtIm6r8FaEMj78u1bO/.

This article comes from the Atlanta Journal, another news source. Again, the

author is a journalist with no experience in the area of study. She reported a new incident

and then used an article from 2016 as her source for arguments. The article she used had

great sources and multiple science and criminology experts that gave their opinion on the

issue. The information is recent and beneficial.

“'Shoot-To-Wound' Bill Puts Cops In Peril” ​Queens Gazette,​ 9 June 2010,

www.qgazette.com/articles/shoot-to-wound-bill-puts-cops-in-peril/.

Yet another newspaper, the Queens Gazette, offers a unique perspective on the
 Hop 5

argument. The author is unknown and no sources are given. The article is very blunt with

the truth, even to the point of being over dramatic. The article focuses more on the legal

side of bills that have been proposed. The information is a bit outdated, being ten years

old.

“Why Shooting to Wound Doesn't Make Sense Scientifically, Legally, or Tactically.” ​Police1,​

Lexipol, 26 May 2010,

www.police1.com/patrol-issues/articles/why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scient

ifically-legally-or-tactically-6bOdYvNUEECtIWRI/.

This article is from a website published by Lexipol, a private company that

specializes in law enforcement. The article is fairly old, published in 2010, but had many

credible sources. The article contains lots of information and if very well researched. It

explains the argument from a practical, legal, and tactical viewpoint.