Posted on 07/28/2005 7:50:13 PM PDT by Pharmboy
Yeah, right. The old shoot the club out of his hand trick right? If you have to shoot, shoot to kill. The guy was an idiot.
Warning shots only work in the movies. When a crazed and potentially high lunatic starts coming at you and threatening to kill you, you shoot the body. You may not have another chance to put them down.
Yet another suicide by cop. Tragic for all involved.
Never bring a club to a gun fight.
Perhaps he was just high on nature.
The only justification for shooting at anyone is fear for your life or others. It's really hard to be in fear for your life if you have enough time to shoot someone in the leg or fire a warning shot. In fact, a purposeful shot in the leg means you weren't in fear for your life and were shooting for other reasons. It's a good way to get a long sentence in jail and sued for everything you own.
Police are trained to shoot to stop and to only shoot when their or others lives are in danger. The most predictable way to stop someone is two shots to the center of mass (i.e. the chest) and that's what they are trained to do. It's the easiest to hit with the highest possibility of stopping the threat.
They did fire a warning shot, 2 of them to be precise the corpse in question is a warning to the next moron.
Firing 'warning shots' or shots to wound goes against every rule of gun safety and legal precedent known to Americans.
If you're justified in pulling the triger, you're justified in killing.
Period.
End of story.
L
"If you're gonna shoot, shoot -- don't talk."
Tazer.
For your sake, I hope it's never open season on idiots.
RAMONES!!!
All the shoot to kill people on this forum can be counted on to scoff when someone suggests a warning or disabling shot in this type of situation, but that doesn't always apply, IMO. This was a domestic disturbance, and bear jockeys and camper wranglers haven't been trained to deal with this sort of thing. They brought the same prejudice to the situation as they would have if they had encounted armed poachers who would rather shoot it out than be apprehended.
Was the guy out of control? Of course. Did he deserve to get shot (wounded)? No doubt. Deserve to die? Come on. Go on a camping trip, get into a fight with your wife, and die? I don't especially blame the rangers, but I do see it as a tragic overreaction.
One man's opinion. Please respect it as I respect yours, and understand that I do not want to get into a major debate on how people in uniform should be able to meet any threat with deadly force. The way I see it, LEOs shoot too many people they shouldn't, and not nearly enough of the ones they should.
You don't shoot to kill. You shoot to stop the threat. If the threat dies, so be it.
Unfortunately, in some jurisdictions, tazers are being slammed as dangerous or lethal, so law enforcement is limited to clubs or firearms. IMHO, this is stupid considering that firearms are mostly lethal.
Don't carry a gun if you aren't willing to use it.
Don't shoot a gun unless you are willing to kill whatever it is pointed toward. In fact, don't point a gun unless you are willing to kill whatever it is pointed toward.
Rocky Mountain High!!
Far out!!
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.