To: Red in Blue PA
The family acknowledges Johnson's actions were wrong, but they question why a warning shot couldn't have been fired first. Because "warning shots" can kill innocent bystanders.
And there is no such thing as "shoot to wound," because arteries are everywhere.
20 posted on
01/30/2012 6:42:14 PM PST by
E. Pluribus Unum
(FOREIGN AID: A transfer of money from poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
And there is no such thing as "shoot to wound," because arteries are everywhere. It is shoot to stop the threat. If it means shoot center mass, then shoot center mass. To fire a warning shot, requires the same conditions, as to fire for affect. Why would anyone fire a warning shot, when the same requirements exist?
126 posted on
01/30/2012 8:57:01 PM PST by
Mark17
(California, where English is a foreign language)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson