kegtapr Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 What I was trying to say is that the cops usually have a split second to make a decision. Unless you later find that they are just plain nuts, leave the decision on where to shoot to them. A cop should never have to make a decision on where to shoot. It should be a "trained instinct" to go center mass every time. The time it takes for a cop to analyze the threat level and make a determination between leg or center mass is the difference between "hi honey, I'm home" and the spouse receiving an American flag.
DC Tom Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 A cop should never have to make a decision on where to shoot. It should be a "trained instinct" to go center mass every time. The time it takes for a cop to analyze the threat level and make a determination between leg or center mass is the difference between "hi honey, I'm home" and the spouse receiving an American flag. More to the point: if you're drawing a gun, the situation's probably gone well beyond the point of merely controlling the other guy.
Adam Posted May 27, 2010 Posted May 27, 2010 A cop should never have to make a decision on where to shoot. It should be a "trained instinct" to go center mass every time. The time it takes for a cop to analyze the threat level and make a determination between leg or center mass is the difference between "hi honey, I'm home" and the spouse receiving an American flag. Not what I meant- I am saying the cop has to make the decision on shot to kill or shoot to incapacitate the guy. The people who are telling him/her where to shoot aren't in the situation and don't know what they are talking about. They shouldn't be making a bad situation more life threatening for the cop than it already is.
OCinBuffalo Posted May 31, 2010 Posted May 31, 2010 How exactly would you prove the cop's intent? Even if he meant to shoot the perp in the head, how would you prove it? All the cop has to do is say "I missed. It's a pistol. I had to draw and fire quickly and I missed". Now what, idiots? I can just see conner telling us: "But, but, but I know what was in his head, the "science" tells me so." Nah, I'll tell you what: Millions of $$$$ the state doesn't have wasted on criminal trials, and of course, civil lawsuits, that either go nowhere or are settled using even more $$$ the state doesn't have. I wonder if this has anything to do with trial lawyers looking for yet another way to be a drain on society? We already have plenty of wrongful death/police brutality law if the cops screw up/have a screw loose. I have no problem with holding cops accountable to them. But, there is no way in hell you can ask anyone to be perfect all the time in life/death situations that are measured in halves of seconds, especially with a friggin handgun of all things. Also, what about SWAT team snipers? If their only shot is a headshot, are they supposed to not take it? Even if it means that innocent people die? What about the guy that gives the order? Essentially the sniper does what he is told, period, by the guy in charge. So, are both breaking this idiot law? Is it a "conspiracy"? Or, is this one more example of liberals attempting to pass laws before they have been thought through?
KD in CA Posted May 31, 2010 Author Posted May 31, 2010 How exactly would you prove the cop's intent? Even if he meant to shoot the perp in the head, how would you prove it? All the cop has to do is say "I missed. It's a pistol. I had to draw and fire quickly and I missed". Now what, idiots? Are you kidding? They already put cops on trial for MURDER when they shoot some scumbag. Under this law, a cop missing an arm and hitting the chest would probably result in an automatic indictment and lawsuit. I went out with a NYC attorney once; she worked on these cases all day -- scumbag shot by cops, idiot trips on sidewalk, drunk bum falls on subway tracks, etc. They almost all get settled. That's where your tax dollars are going while everyone cries about underfunded programs. Thanks libs.
Recommended Posts