Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Homeland Security now "shoot to kill"?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by shield20, Aug 4, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. shield20

    shield20 Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2005
    Messages:
    789
    Location:
    New York
    Heard this on the radio this morning - that Dept of Homeland Security now has "shoot to kill"...'permission' for suspected terrorists. Mentioned how 'new policy changes lethal force doctrine from "shoot to stop"', 'properly placed head shot keeps the suicide bomber from triggering bomb'...

    Anybody have more info on this?
     
  2. TMM

    TMM Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,049
    ...and if he has a dead man switch?

    ~TMM
     
  3. scbair

    scbair Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    Messages:
    611
    Location:
    South Carolina
    TMM, if he has a dead man's switch, and is set to become a martyr, it really won't much matter what you do; he's gonna go BOOM. The only consolation would be to drop him before he gets where he wants to detonate it!
     
  4. WT

    WT Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,985
    They are referring to the new guidelines issued by the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
     
  5. johnmcl

    johnmcl Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,460
    Location:
    Northern VA
    US Capitol Police Only

    Hi guys,

    US Capitol PD, and not DHS at large, is the LEO with these new guidelines as of today. I'm sure more will switch.

    John
     
  6. obiwan1

    obiwan1 Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2003
    Messages:
    495
    Location:
    Miami, Fl.
    Are you kidding :what: Homeland Security is too "Customer Service" oriented. They punnish immigration and customs inspectors if they're not nice to those trying to get in illegally or smuggle dope. They would disarm all Officers if they thought that they could get away with it. :mad:
     
  7. CGofMP

    CGofMP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    573
    Location:
    CCCPalifornia
    Uhm,

    "Shoot to Stop" vs "Shoot to kill" in a Law Enforcement situation seems to me to be two sides of the same coin. Shoot to stop has always meant center of mass and if that does not work try for a headshot right? Center of mass is kinda full of vital organs. In most cases it is unfortunate but shooting to stop IS shooting to kill even if that isnt the 'legal intention' or at least so they told us in the academy.

    To me this is all just semantics. Any time you pull a firearm out of your holster you are getting ready to emply deadly force. Yes the INTENT may be to 'stop' someone but the best way to do that is going to likely result in placing shots into vital areas. With a 'shoot to kill' order you are likely to place the shots in those very same areas.

    Legal semantics. This change of verbage will mean everything to the lawyers and nothing to the LEOs. The LEOs are still gonna line their sights up on the same places and they are still gonna shoot the same people. Articulating thier intent as being 'to kill' or 'to stop' will likely only come to mind when they write their report at the end of the day.

    In general cops are not taught to shoot guns out of people's hands or make leg shots. Thats Hollywood.
     
  8. Augustwest

    Augustwest Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Messages:
    566
    Location:
    Southern New England
    Sure would like to know what the precise definition of "suspected terrorist" is in these guidelines... :confused:
     
  9. OF

    OF Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,988
    The people writing these 'guidelines' don't understand the basic concept in the first place. 'Shoot to stop' is still the appropriate action.

    Now 'stop' requires a more immediate stop to the action, but it's still 'shooting to stop'.

    If we wanted to "shoot to kill" we should poison the bullets....:rolleyes:
     
  10. GEM

    GEM Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,419
    Location:
    TX
    Sigh - the issue is how to stop any voluntary motor responses quickly, esp. of the hands and arms. We know that body or COM shots don't do that.

    Only disrupting the brain stem mechanisms are instantly going to turn you off. Thus, the emphasis on head shots to stop motor responses.

    Most comments here seemed to have missed this. Perhaps the phrasing is incorrect by the agencies but that is the purpose.
     
  11. shield20

    shield20 Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2005
    Messages:
    789
    Location:
    New York
    They were talking about a policy of making headshots instead of COM, and I imagine how to try to explain it to the...public is an issue. They are NOT shooting to stop, they are shooting to kill - instantly. The LE will definelty know what that means, AND will target heads of the BG, and be taught accordingly.

    I thought the "suspected terrorist" comment was interesting too - I have to find a whol;e article to read to see how they are handling all this.
     
  12. Smurfslayer

    Smurfslayer Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,296
    Location:
    Northern Virginia, USA
  13. Rockstar

    Rockstar member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,353
    "lethal force/shoot to stop" is oxymoronic.
     
  14. pcf

    pcf Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    Messages:
    862
    Location:
    Arlington, TX
    Hmm, from people who haven't used public mass transit, ever. Who doesn't fit their profile as a suicide bomber?
     
  15. deanf

    deanf Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    486
    Location:
    N46º 54’ x W122º 34’
    So is there a law enforcement agency called "Department of Homeland Security" or is it just a collection of other agencies with their own names?
     
  16. Pilgrim

    Pilgrim Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,957
    Location:
    Nevada, escaped from the PDRK via Idaho.
    The theory is easy to teach. The mechanics of doing it quickly and accurately at anything other than contact distance is going to be more difficult.

    Pilgrim
     
  17. shield20

    shield20 Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2005
    Messages:
    789
    Location:
    New York
    Agreed!
    ...and just how close would you get to a walking bomb to make that shot?? :eek:

    And thanks John for the correction on the agency involved!
     
  18. c_yeager

    c_yeager Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2003
    Messages:
    5,479
    Location:
    Seattle
    The idea here is that if you suspect that a person has a few pounds of explosives strapped to their chest that you dont want to shoot them center mass (i.e directly into the afore mentioned explosives). The change is that they are planning on taking headshots rather than COM shots in the event that they are shooting at someone that is believed to be a terrorist. This really isnt a change to use of force at all, just a change in where they are aiming.
     
  19. RevDisk

    RevDisk Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,737
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    "Anything we say it is."

    Glad it's just the Capital PD.


    Thing is, if it becomes nation wide policy... What do you do when you think you're gonna get a summary execution, like that poor sod over the UK that got executed for merely looking suspicious. Well, fixing a fire alarm. But that's really suspicious behavior for an electrician! Ditto denim jackets.
     
  20. Coronach

    Coronach Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    11,109
    No, it is not. They are distinct concepts.

    In any event, this is still a "shoot to stop" scenario. The only difference is that in order to effectively stop a bomber, who only has to press a button to detonate his bomb, one needs something that makes it impossible for him to make any motion, and does it right away. The only thing that does that is a head shot. COM doesn't cut it.

    The fact that this also pretty much terminates his godforsaken life is entirely coincidental. If we had a magic ray that would render him instantly and reliably immobile, I'm sure we'd use that. Heck, CIA/FBI/NSA/DHS would rather he was taken alive anyway.


    Mike
     
  21. 316SS

    316SS Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    Messages:
    591
    Ha! Considering the typical news report following a deadly force incident ("Police records show that officers fired 647 shots before alleged perpetrator was killed by a ricochet ...") I'd feel safer if they were trying for a head shot! Good luck with that, guys!

    316
     
  22. OF

    OF Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    2,988
    Listen to Coronach. It's not just a semantic distinction. It's all about what the goal is. The goal is not, necessarily, to kill anyone. It's to stop them from doing whatever they were doing or about to do.

    If they die, that's just tough. But that wasn't the point. The cops (and CCW'ers for that matter) are not executioners. They/we don't get to make decisions about who lives and dies. Lethal force can be used where applicable, but the point of the matter is not to kill the slime, it's to get them to cease.

    This is why it's not legal for you to shoot someone, they fall and drop their weapon and then you walk up and put one in their head. That last shot = murder.

    If the guy had dynamite strapped to his chest, it's another story. Is he still a threat?

    I'm very surprised, actually, that anyone here who has a CCW or so much as owns a gun is not intimately familiar with the 'shoot to stop' concept and how it differs from 'shoot to kill'.

    This is Self-Defense/Use of Lethal Force 101 stuff here, folks.
     
  23. Derek Zeanah

    Derek Zeanah System Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    8,418
    Location:
    Statesboro, GA
    The thing that gets me is that we'll have innocents shot in the head (oops!) while terrorists who plan on dying anyway will instead rig the wires to a clothes pin, arm the bomb, and know that as soon as they release the clothes pin it goes "bang."

    Dead-man switch for $0.02 in wire and a common household item.

    This is yet another step that does nothing to help the problem.
     
  24. dustind

    dustind Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,582
    Location:
    St. Michael, MN
    They could also just use a common NC (normally closed) button switch. Or use those clip on units that you see on jet skis and tread mills in case you fall off.

    They could also have a button that if it was not pressed once every ten seconds or so would trigger the bomb, then hook it up to a pen clicker.
     
  25. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    edit, I'm a retard

    This is a dumb policy though. It will not prevent suicide bombings (dead-man's switches), but it will result in innocent people getting shot.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page