Yes. , I know in police shootings, people frequently criticized cops and say, why didn’t they shoot someone in the leg to disable them? Rather than taking a shot that killed them. It’s a perennial argument about police allegedly using excessive force.
What these people don’t understand ,is shooting someone in the leg, if the shot is in the right spot, it could cause someone to bleed out and die anyway. From being shot in the leg.
” people don’t understand ,is shooting someone in the leg, if the shot is in the right spot, it could cause someone to bleed out and die anyway.”
That’s why you gotta shoot ‘em in their pinky toe!
But seriously, people don’t usually consider that police officers are trained and supplied by the American taxpayer who has a legitimate right to expect the officers to protect themselves at all times. We paid for their training. We don’t own them but, in a way, they are ours. Aside fromn the fact that we obviously don’t want any to be hurt or killed, taxpayers have a vested interest in supporting the cops as they are a serious investment in safety and the public good.
In my opinion anyway.
Exactly. A shot at the inner thigh cuts the femoral artery. About 4 minutes to bleed out. It's the alternative target when body armor blocks a center of mass shot.