Posted on 08/20/2014 12:21:07 PM PDT by WhiskeyX
To counter the asserted issue in this case, consider: in fact of action, Wilson DID. Brown was shot FOUR times in the ARM, before moving on to head shots - there’s your “shoot to wound”, it didn’t work as proponents expect, and Brown didn’t stop his assault until shot TWICE in the head. Wilson may or may not have intended it that way, but that’s what actually happened.
Because when your life is on the line and you only have a couple seconds to stop the threat, you shoot at the part of the target you are most likely to hit (from the belt to the shoulders).
“Why can’t they shoot a warning shot?”
The gun was fired at least once before directed at Brown. He heard the warning.
That question was answered a long time ago. Wounding leaves the perp capable of attacking the cop.
Only in the movies.
Those two “supposed to”s overlap - a lot. Do one, you’re likely to get the other.
From the autopsy sketch, seems Wilson did aim center of mass. He also mispositioned his finger (fine motor skills are nonexistent in combat), placing the tip thereof on trigger such that it pushed the muzzle a bit left, as the horizontal grouping was quite tight but off-center, hitting the arm 4 times and drifting right as perp approached causing scale of error to decrease.
Cause may be debatable, but actual impact points are exactly where the “wound” proponents want them - proving their theory unviable.
Fair question.
First, warning shots have to go somewhere. So they have to be very deliberate, or someone else could get killed. They also waste a round. But there are at least theoretical times when a warning shot might be helpful. That said, it would never apply when you are being actively attacked.
Shooting to injure is not easy, nor is it de facto nonlethal. Putting a round through someone's thigh might kill them, or it might not even slow them down. Anywhere in the torso or head could be lethal, and hitting the arms of a moving person would be a very iffy proposition. Also, every miss is a round that can go down range to strike an innocent.
If the police show up to deal with the crazy uncle running around with a yard rake, I hope they pull out tazers and bean bags, and if those aren't available, that they do not shoot to kill. There is no pressing justification for it.
Problem is if you keep shooting after the threat has ceased. Self-defense becomes murder at that point. Don’t go there.
That would create another “unfriendly witness” in the court proceedings.
1. You might miss and not stop whoever’s attacking you. In which case, you’re probably in a heap of trouble, short-term.
2. You might miss and hit someone else. In which case, you’re definitely in a big heap of trouble, longer-term.
A real life situation is not a movie where the bad guy is shot in the arm to stop him (or her, but not seen that instant) ... the media and the Left always throw up their hands in horror asking why the perp couldn’t have been shot in the arm/leg/knee/where ever than kill them.
Wounding is not Gun Control, it’s a waste of ammo and time.
Agreed on all points.
Don’t point a gun at someone unless you intend to shoot him. Don’t shoot someone unless you intend to kill him.
Two fairly basic rules for using guns.
I can’t bear to read anything by someone using “Esq.” regardless of content.
My second comment was a general statement. Didn’t make that clear.
+1.
Because you do not draw your gun and aim it at a person UNLESS YOU INTEND TO KILL THAT PERSON, BECAUSE THAT IS THE PURPOSE AND FUNCTION OF A GUN!
Stupid ass libs.
Someone is watching way tooo many Cop shows and movies
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.