OK, there are some problems here:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
The myths:
#1. “The cops didn’t have to shoot the subject 41 times.” Yes and no. If the body doesn't produce a reflexive neurocirculatory collapse after two rounds to the chest then the subject will still be standing.
|
The problem with this isn't with your science, it's with the situation you're alluding to. The cops in question just dumped their magazines into the guy, and he was hit repeatedly once he was on the ground, incapacitated. It was a gross overreaction by the police. The reason cops shoot for center mass isn't because they're trying to be PC, it's because, as a rule, they're shitty marksmen, so they're taught to shoot for the big bits in the hope that they might actually hit the person. This isn't the fault of the officers, it's the fault of the departments for failure to continue to train their officers due to budget restraints.
Quote:
|
#3 “Why not shoot them (people) in the leg?” I hear this question all the time. Shooting the leg is a lousy idea.
|
Actually, it's at least partially based upon liability issues. Shooting somebody is the use of lethal force, regardless of where you aim. If you can shoot them in the leg, you have time, et cetera, to use non-lethal lesser force, so you shouldn't be shooting them in the first place. And the sad truth of the matter is that if an officer shoots and kills somebody, the officer's employer will face far less monetary damages generally than if they maim the person, so that the person needs huge amounts of very expensive rehabilitation.
You said a bunch of otehr things that I don't agree with, but I'm going to make a snack.