Replies

“The reason cops shoot to kill assailants who refuse to stand down is because wounded assailants can still pose a deadly threat.”

Again, there is no such thing as shoot to wound.......Your sentence implies that the police CHOOSE not to shoot to wound.......

Geez, strain at an imagined gnat of implication and swallow a camel of false distinctions.

If someone chooses to shoot to kill, then he is choosing not to shoot to wound, just as if I choose to drink the entire cup of coffee, I am choosing not to drink only half of it or if someone chooses to get totally bombed, he is choosing not to get just a little tipsy.

Now, earlier, you seemed to say that the primary reason police shoot to kill is because most lack the skill to "shoot to wound." Let's look at that sentence to make sure I'm remembering accurately:

Besides most couldn’t “shoot to wound” in the first place because most, almost 100%, do not have the necessary marksmanship skills even without the added stress of a confrontation. [emphasis added]

But I didn't say, "the reason cops choose not to shoot to wound assailants is because..." I deliberately said the reason they "shoot to kill" is because an assailant who is only wounded can still pose a deadly threat. My sentence actually implies that the reason police CHOOSE to do this is for purposes of safety, not merely because they lack the skill to do otherwise.

The elimination or reduction of risk (and, by that, the enhancement of safety) is the most important consideration in how they choose their target. Aiming, as much as is possible under the circumstances, at the center of mass is the most likely way to achieve that for two reasons: 1. it increases the likelihood of hitting something (thereby reducing the risk) and, by that, 2. it increases the likelihood of killing (thereby eliminating the risk).