Interesting theory -- certainly a valid idea, but I would imagine that lawsuit happy California might be more concerned with officers lacking formal training in assault rifles might cause a nasty increase in lawsuits.

California has one of the largest police budgets, which explains the degree of hardware and tech that can be issued to its officers -- certainly larger than, say, Atlanta.

-Siege

I'm guessing this is Japan?

Isn't the number one murder weapon in Japan kitchen knives?

-Siege

Ahh, got it. Really, I'm awake.

-Siege

We shoot to stop, not to kill or wound. Unfortunately the only reliable way to stop someone once the situation has degenerated to using lethal force is to score a lethal hit (or multiple lethal hits). Therefore, we aim for lethal hits (center mass). Our goal is to stop the person, not to kill them- but toward that goal we aim for lethal hits.

Shooting someone in the leg is nice in the fantasy world that reporters and activists live in. In the real world, shooting for limbs is the surest way to miss and hit something else (remember, those bullets have to go somewhere). Even if you do hit the leg or arm, such a hit is not reliable in stopping the threat- if lethal force is justified, the threat is immediate and must be stopped without delay.

Handgun accuracy is a very different beast than sniper accuracy. Regardless of the fantasies of the reporters, activists, and hollywood, no handgun marksman in the world is good enough to try shooting the gun out of a badguy's hand in a lethal force situation.

Police will only try the stupid "shoot the gun out of his hand" shit if we have a really good sniper and conditions are absolutely perfect. Otherwise, those tactics create more danger than they resolve.

We also know that one bullet often is not enough to stop someone, so we are trained to keep firing until the threat goes away. That's why we shoot people so many times- if we shoot them and they don't drop the gun or fall down, we shoot them again.

If some dumbass decides to try to shoot it out with like 10 of us (which happens from time to time) he's gonna take about fifty bullets because each of the 10 of us are going to shoot him until he falls down or drops the gun. It's not cruel or brutal. It is reasonable and necessary (and being something of a Darwinist, I find it entirely suiting that someone that blatently stupid is removed from the gene pool).

We do not fire warning shots. Warning shots have to come down somewhere. Also if lethal force is justified, a warning shot takes too much time. While we were firing the warning shot, the badguy would be able to take out a few of us or a few innocent bystanders- sorry, but that's just not an option.

We are required by police department policy (but not by law) to attempt to de-escalate the situation if possible, before using lethal force. That means that if the guy is holding the gun down to his side, we tell him to drop it. If he doesn't, then we shoot him. If he jumps out from behind something and the gun is up, we just shoot the bastard.

We are not required (by either policy or law) to attempt lower levels of force before resorting to lethal force. If lethal force is justified, there is no time for playing around with pepper spray or a baton (hmm, bringing a stick to a gunfight, I'll give you three guesses for how that's going to work out...).

Anyway, that's how it works in the USA in real life. From what I remember reading, things have not changes for police in UCAS SR. Of course on corporate extraterritorial ground all bets are off and the rules are whatever the corporation wants them to be.

EDIT: a note on tasers. I carry a taser most days. It is a great tool, but it has limitations. First of all, it has limited range. If the bad guy is too far away for the wires to reach, the taser won't do you a bit of good. Also, you don't have the option of shooting a second time if you miss. Tasers also do not work effectively on certain body types (in spite of what the advertisements say). Tasers are great if:
- you have one
- the bad guy is in range
- you have ample cover officers standing by with lethal force in case the taser misses or is ineffective.

The taser is much more useful for avoiding having to hit someone with your baton than to avoid having to shoot someone.

Now lots of people get worked up if some dirtbag was trying to kill the police and the police didn't try to resolve the situation without using lethal force. They think that while he's trying to kill us we should talk to him or try something really stupid like wrestling the knife or gun out of his hands. Folks, my job is not to commit suicide. If someone is trying to kill me, I'm going to stop them and I'm going to use tactics I know will work and will work fast. If you're simpathy is to the dirtbag trying to kill me, do me a favor and go jump off a bridge.

I saw it done. Only once, and it was on some Discovery Channel show, and I think they were in London. But I did see it.

I saw it once on the news about 6-7 years ago when I lived in Sacramento, California. I think the only reason they attempted (and succeeded) shooting the .38 revolver out of his hand was he was threatening suicide and not others.

I saw one such shot on "Cops Wildest Videos" or somesuch -- the sniper shot the .38 out of a suspect's hand as he sat on one of those disposable plastic chairs.

The announcer mentioned "patterning" in brief -- essentially the regular patterns in a person's behavior and detecting those patterns so a shooter can predict where a person will be so as to best place a shot.

Extreme emphasis being sniper situation.

-Siege

I'm not justifying it because I'm not about to offer my opinion on the legal issues of police use of force, specifically in that case. It's also not that big of a deal compared to some other local police shootings which I do not (personally) consider justifiable.

I will say, though, that I find the hate-on that exists for "reporters" and "activists" quite amusing.

That's most likely the GIGN. Since they all get sniper training, and apparently have some of the best firearms training in the world, it wouldn't surprise me at all if they got extensive in non-leathal pistol shooting as well. BTW, they are not really France's version of the SFOD-Delta as much as the SFOD-Delta is the American GIGN. Both of which are younger than the GSG9, and which are all extremely new units compared to the SAS.

However, with the incredible amount of training that ALL special forces operators get, in all the world's top SpecOps forces (1st SFOD-Delta&SEAL Devgru, SAS, GIGN, GSG9/KSK, Sayeret Mat'kal, Spetsgruppa Alpha, etc), it's quite likely that they all get some training in non-leathal shooting, too. And once you know where you should shoot with a sniper rifle in order to not kill the target, and you also happen to know how to fire the pistol extremely accurately in extreme situations, it's just a matter of putting 2 and 2 together.

Though in a fast and stressful situation, even with SpecOps operators, that will probably add up to either 0 or 10. Which is why they are almost certainly never going to do it. For example, in Djibouti, February 3rd 1976, the terrorists holding a busload of children hostage were shot in the head simultaneously by the GIGN snipers. Since these are military units, not police (except for GSG9), they aren't required to keep any enemies alive. When they have the luxury to aim for a specific body part, blowing someone's brains out is usually more effective in stopping them than shooting a hole in their arm or leg.

I'm sure one of the many guys with more knowledge in RL police procedures can set us straight on this soon, but meanwhile: I'm almost certain that no policeman, anywhere in the civilized world, would ever shoot someone who's running away from a minor shoplifting crime.

The list Squire quoted (defending someone's life, effecting the arrest of someone who is a threat to people's lives, killing a dangerous or suffering animal) and all the other stuff people have been saying here suggest that if someone is to be stopped by a policeman with a firearm, it is to be completely stopped. A shoplifter wouldn't be shot at all (in the leg or otherwise), a murderer with a pistol threatening to shoot someone would be shot (and if the chance presented itself for a sniper to choose where to shoot the murderer, s/he'd be shot in the head).

I'd think that in most cases where you're aiming at someone's head, you'll be aiming at the exact center of the head (from the fron that'd be in the middle of the eyes), to make sure you hit. If you're certain you will hit within an inch of where you're aiming (which isn't very likely), the best place to aim would indeed be the lower bits which include the medulla oblongata (which controls all the muscles that you cannot cognitively control, like most internal organs, breathing while unconscious and I think the heart as well) and the cerebellum (which processes all your cognitive motor functions, I think).

I suppose that might happen in an urban environment at close ranges, no wind, nothing in between (no windows or anything), target completely still, a good rifle, an exceptional shooter and all the fun toys (SL-2 and whathaveyou). Otherwise, I'm betting they'll aim at the center of the head if they do.

Yeah, well the Detroit police force is just fucked up. I think the federal government assigned an overseer for the department recently because it got so bad.