Quote:
Originally Posted by JeanLucPicard
And secondly, we have to expect the police to be able to use their guns in a manner than don't kill someone. Have better protective equipment, be prepared to physically control a 62 year old weak man with a knife; If you've to use a gun, use it on the legs instead of having no brain and shot directly at the body multiple times.
|
I don't mind most of your post - particularly about waiting for someone with the appropriate training to attend the scene - but this part is just silly. It's not a video game. It's very difficult to shoot someone in the leg. It's even more difficult when the person is moving. It's even more difficult when they're moving toward you and you're backing up. It's more difficult still when you have adrenaline pumping, because human beings under pressure are not designed to make precision movements in those situations. Now you have one, maybe two, chances. Combine all of that with the fact that a leg shot is often just as dangerous as a shot to the chest (you can either hit the femoral artery, or hit the femur, causing bone / bullet fragments to lacerate the artery, either way you're bleeding to death more quickly than you would if you were struck in, say, your gut, or your lung) so the incremental benefit of even a successful attempt at this much more difficult shot is questionable. Then combine that with the fact that if you miss - and for the reasons above, you probably will - that bullet can easily travel through the wall of the apartment into the brain of the 10 year old who lives next door. Center mass minimizes that risk.
Again, the question, "why did they go in at all in these circumstances" is a reasonable thing to ask. But "just shoot him in the leg, he only has a knife" when these stories come up is a response that needs to be retired from the repertoire.