Why aim for center mass

Recently we got a Facebook message from an avid reader who wanted to know our reasoning behind the idea of always aiming for center mass. The rationale is understandable — the potential concealed carrier is looking to not take life and simply incapacitate his target. The core pieces — the heart , lungs , spine , liver , and kidneys are all placed directly to the left or right of that midline. In a defensive situation, if you can aim for the middle of the target, you have the greatest chance of the bullet landing somewhere in vicinity of these systems.

Any direct hit to the heart, lungs, liver, or spine will likely result in the target being seriously incapacitated or killed. That supports the idea that self-defense may involve the use of deadly force. The surface area of that target is larger than the exposed surface area of an arm, leg, or even head. Firing for center mass allows for inaccuracy. And even this can be some measurable amount greater than 0 seconds. Studies by the Force Science Research Center reveal some of the practical problems with these positions.

Lewinski explains some of the basics of human dynamics and anatomy and the relative risks of misses and hits:. Plus, the officer himself may be moving as he shoots. However, areas of the lower trunk and upper thigh are rich with vascularity. On average, from the time an officer perceives a change in stimulus to the time he is able to process that and actually stop firing, 2 to 3 additional rounds will be expended.

They would hold officers to super-human performance and punish them criminally for being unable to achieve it. Connor, the benchmark U. By legal definition, the possible consequences of deadly force include both death and great bodily harm. He draws the analogy of a house being on fire. What about the liability there?

How does his true intent get judged? A trial will become the rule rather than the exception. Those ideas may have some humanitarian appeal, but once you go beyond the Disneyish attraction and face the reality, support for this thinking has to evaporate. Shooting instead for a smaller, faster-moving arm or a leg with the intent to wound rather than to incapacitate invites a myriad of tactical dilemmas.

Even when officers are trying to shoot center mass, they often miss. Lewinski recalls a case he was involved in where an officer firing under high stress just 5 feet from an offender failed to hit him at all with the first 5 rounds and connected with the next four only because the suspect moved into his line of fire. Expecting that level of performance by police officers on an agency-wide basis is ludicrous.

Tasers are not foolproof. The probes that generate the electric shock can miss, get caught in clothing or may simply not affect the suspect. Klinger called it "unreasonable" for police to gamble with their lives or the life of a third party by using a taser when deadly force is necessary.

Also, an lone officer would never use a taser. In cases where there are two officers, one officer will usually administer the taser, while the other provides "lethal coverage" in the event that the taser doesn't work, Klinger said.

We'll notify you here with news about. Turn on desktop notifications for breaking stories about interest? Comments 0. Top Stories. In fact, the latter was still sitting upright and talking as if nothing happened. The rounds did not even penetrate his skull. This single understanding offers great comfort, especially for the civilized person not intent on taking a life.

The civilized person hesitates to take the life of any human being. My friend in the police academy, who had formerly served in an Emergency Medical Services EMS capacity on board an ambulance—saving lives—was a decent, honorable, moral and civil man. He realized what I was telling him about hospitals and gun shot wounds, but I think he needed to hear it from another perspective, perhaps.

He was now in the business of, perhaps, taking a life to save a life, if things came to that. I hoped my words helped him.

That perspective and ethos was the right one to have and I revered him for it. However, it seemed to me Hollywood had given him some false perceptions of reality.

Actually, Hollywood too often shows the hero being wounded in the upper arm or shoulder. Do you agree? So you see, shooting someone in the arm or leg would clearly not stop the threat. Shooting center mass offers a big target. The upper torso also contains the lungs, heart, spine—things that if mutilated, severed or destroyed would help stop someone intent on killing you.

In fact, there might not be any blood at all. You might not even know if you hit him. In my youth I had met a few Hollywood stuntmen and performed a few stunts for fun, like diving head first off of tall buildings, so I knew about Hollywood tricks. That would defy the law of physics. That is simply impossible. Get that out of your mind. Shoot at the largest target, the chest, center mass.

Shoot to stop the threat—and keep shooting until the threat stops. He was out of the police academy for four years when he was shot and killed. Ambushed from the side, he was shot in the upper torso, under the arm.