Alexander: Shooting to Incapacitate Should Not Be Controversial
Police Officers assemble outside of The University of Utah in Salt Lake on October 7th, 2020. (Photo by Jake Stranzl | The Daily Utah Chronicle)
November 12, 2021
A new reformative policy is circulating police conversations — “shoot-to-incapacitate.”
Shooting to incapacitate means to aim for the arms, legs or pelvic area to wound a person and incapacitate them, avoiding unnecessary death. Shooting to incapacitate isn’t new practice and is utilized by other countries.
But for police departments in the United States, the concept faces skepticism from individual police officers. For the police who are striving for reform and building trust in their communities, the concept of shooting to incapacitate deserves attention and support.
Police Chief Louis Dekmar of the LaGrange Police Department in Georgia championed the reformative effort among other unorthodox practices, garnering the respect of his town and community, as well as myself. However, his advocacy for shooting to incapacitate policies is still widely opposed by police unions and officers.
In all situations regarding a deadly assailant, the current police attitude and practice is to shoot to kill, not shoot to incapacitate. The idea of shooting to incapacitate frustrates police, with many believing that the practice will be hard to implement.
Critics claim that it’s easier for officers to shoot in the center mass, the largest part of the body — which often results in death. Such precision shots are hard to teach, and police departments don’t have the budget to institute firearm training on such a level.
Others say shooting in the arms or legs will not stop an assailant from still attacking and accidentally missing the assailant could put others at risk with stray projectiles.
However, all I hear are the excuses of incompetent police departments unwilling to change their ways to accommodate for shifting community attitudes.
Shoot-to-incapacitate is a solution to reduce the chance of death and save more lives. It could also offer communities a reason to be more confident in their police departments, as communities are less trustworthy of the police than they have been for decades.
Shooting to incapacitate can reduce the number of unnecessary deaths caused by police. Police should be shooting to incapacitate in the event of an assailant wielding a less-than-lethal weapon, such as a knife or screwdriver. After all, the job of a police officer is to save lives. Ideally, officers should only be firing their weapons when the threat is imminent, however, we know that is not to be the case for Utah police.
Utah police tend to fire at minorities more often than whites, whether they are armed or unarmed. Because the majority of people shot at by police are minorities, minorities are more likely to die at the hands of police. The rate of violence against minorities by police is incredibly disproportionate, in our state and nation alike. This has been a fact for a long time.
Besides reducing unnecessary deaths by police, shoot-to-incapacitate policies provide other benefits. The practice will help police departments build back trust in their communities.
After the deaths of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, confidence in police dropped to its lowest point in 27 years. And along racial lines, there are dramatically different views of policing in our country. With minorities already at a disadvantage because of systemic racism, confidence in policing is much lower compared to whites.
Shoot-to-incapacitate also allows officers the chance to stop a threat without taking a life. Many officers do not set out to kill, nor do they wish to take the life of others. But if put in a threatening situation, their orders are shoot to kill. If shoot-to-incapacitate policies are applied, officers have the choice to fatally wound a person or save their life. It’s a choice I’m sure many officers would appreciate, as it demonstrates their willpower for saving the community.
With the implementation of shoot-to-incapacitate policies, police may be able to bridge the gap between communities and themselves, at least to some degree. The policy could change the future of policing and police training for the better. By showing their progress in reformative measures like shoot-to-incapacitate, police departments will demonstrate transparency and their willingness to build trust between themselves and the communities they are serving.
The job of police officers is to serve and protect. Police officers and departments should consider utilizing shoot-to-incapacitate policies. It’s a concept that warrants further discussion and is worth looking at.
Shoot-to-incapacitate policies matter because of the difference they play in police interactions, and whether another person of color will die at the hands of police. Police departments can change their practices and work towards restoring trust in their communities. If our police departments don’t even try to change their practices or try to save more lives, they are demonstrating their true objective. They are not willing to serve and protect.
Clinton Bell • Nov 16, 2021 at 9:25 am
CJ,
I believe you have admirable intentions with what you wrote, but you seem to misunderstand the use of deadly force by police. You make several assertions that are misleading or just plain incorrect.
Assertion 1: “The current police attitude and practice is to shoot to kill”
I am not aware of any police department that actively promotes a “shoot to kill” policy. The use of deadly force by police follows the same standard as the use of deadly force for self-defense by any citizen of this country. Legally speaking, the victim (or police officer in this case) must reasonably believe that the assailant has the means to cause imminent, unlawful physical harm or death. If that threshold has been met the officer may use the amount of force necessary to stop the threat. If they can stop the threat using less than deadly force, great! I think you would agree that a police officer should use the minimum amount of force necessary to stop a dangerous situation. If pepper spray will do the job, use that. If an officer has to shoot someone a dozen times until the assailant is no longer a threat, so be it.
Assertion 2: “The idea of shooting to incapacitate frustrates police, with many believing that the practice will be hard to implement… all I hear are the excuse of incompetent police departments…”
I don’t know if you have ever shot a firearm but if you haven’t I would invite you to give it a try. Shooting accurately is a skill that takes a lot of time and practice to master along with continuous practice to maintain a high level of proficiency. Police departments realistically don’t have the time or budget since they have to have officers on duty to enforce the law and ammo isn’t cheap. Let’s pretend we live in a fantasy world where politicians are willing to increase police budgets to that point that they could have officers spend a ton of time training and every police officer is an amazing marksman. We can then toss them in a highly dynamic life-or-death situation with a struggling assailant and see if they can actually hit the flailing arms and legs of the person trying to hurt/kill them or someone else. I’d invite you to do some research on what happens to fine motor skills (such as accurately aiming the sights of a gun) when adrenaline starts pumping through the body. Then compound that with a moving assailant that is actively trying to avoid being shot and tell me if you think it is actually reasonable to expect an officer to shoot the leg in that kind of a situation. Furthermore, shooting someone in the arm or leg is still considered using deadly force (someone can die just as easily from being shot in the femoral or brachial artery as being shot in the torso) so if it’s not justifiable to shoot someone in the torso it won’t be justifiable to shoot them in the arm or leg. Look up the police officer from Ephraim that shot a suspect in the leg a few years ago and see how a court felt about the legality of it. A prosecutor starts asking “If you really felt like you were in danger of death or bodily harm why did you take the time to shoot them in the leg? Did you really think you were in danger then?”
Assertion 3: “Police should be shooting to incapacitate in the event of an assailant wielding a less-than-lethal weapon, such as a knife or screwdriver.”
Knives and screwdrivers are deadly weapons. In fact, more people are killed with knives than AR-15s each year according to FBI statistics. Research conducted by Salt Lake Police department and repeated by many others since show that a knife-wielding suspect within 21 feet can generally close the distance to become an imminent deadly threat before most officers can draw their weapon and get a shot off. Look up the “Tueller Drill” for more info.
Assertion 4: “Shoot-to-incapacitate also allows officers the chance to stop a threat without taking a life.”
This is true but misleading. As noted above, shooting someone at all will be considered using deadly force whether they get shot in the arm or the heart. Police officers already have a continuum of force available to them starting with deescalating a situation, to mace, to Tasers, to beanbag rounds, to hand-to-hand skills, to finally firearms. They also usually only have seconds to respond when a deadly threat happens so they may not be able to use all of the options available.
Assertion 5: “If our police departments don’t even try to change their practices or try to save more live, they are demonstrating their true objective. They are not willing to serve and protect.”
Police departments are constantly changing policies to try to maintain public trust. Police in Utah implemented body cams years before many other states started requiring them, as one example.
John Hedberg • Nov 16, 2021 at 8:50 am
Leaving aside the DOJ statistics regarding police shooting of folks of all persuasions (which you left aside), have you ever heard of something called confirmation bias?
😄
https://babylonbee.com/news/can-you-spot-all-the-signs-of-racism-in-this-ordinary-picture-of-a-highway
All the Best, With Love,
J Hedberg
James • Nov 16, 2021 at 8:12 am
CJ, you are woefully ignorant on this subject. This topic is not controversial, it is settled. Attempting to shoot dangerous subjects in the leg is absolutely ridiculous. Based on your statements you have clearly never held a gun and never watched badge or dash cam footage of police interactions with dangerous subjects.
Here is place you can start your education of what it would be like to shoot someone trying to kill you in the leg:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFKWmbOc7ZA&ab_channel=DonutOperator