There was a video I came across recently, which unsurprisingly had some controversial opinions in the comments. It's graphic, so I'd rather not post it, but I will summarize the order of events, as best I understand.
While this specific situation was a law enforcement action, and I do believe this type of scrutiny will be much more common for law enforcement, the general concept of "bad guy has gun that is not currently pointed at me" is one that any civilian can have as well.
My opinion, and the opinion of several others on the video, is that the rifle is a threat as long as its in play, no matter where it's pointed. That if the officer had waited for the rifle to be raised, he might miss, or might have ineffective hits, and then the rifle is brought into play, and rifle beats handgun.
I also find this an extension on "just shoot them in the leg" or "just learn to fight, bro." The idea that you have to play chicken, as if you're not in danger unless the gun is pointed directly at you and the trigger is pulled free of slack.
It goes to what I said in another thread. There are those who believe in protecting everyone, and those who believe priority goes to yourself and your loved ones. It's easy to judge others when you're not in the crosshairs.
Maybe I'm in biased company, but does it not make sense to treat a bad guy with a gun as an imminent threat, no matter whether the gun is leveled or not?
- A man had broken into a house, and police were alerted.
- When police arrived, the man ran through the garage into the back yard. He was carrying what appears to be a suppressed SBR.
- (At least) 2 police officers confront the man. Officer A is relatively in the open in the back yard. Officer B is in the next yard, looking over a low wall.
- The man points the rifle at Officer A.
- Officer B fires two shots and misses.
- The suspect cowers from the shots and lowers his rifle (still holding the pistol grip, gun pointed at the ground). He paces back and forth for around 10-20 seconds while the cops are yelling at him to put the gun down.
- Officer B sees the man turn towards him and dumps his magazine, ending the situation. It appears the man was just pacing, and the rifle was still pointed at the ground.
While this specific situation was a law enforcement action, and I do believe this type of scrutiny will be much more common for law enforcement, the general concept of "bad guy has gun that is not currently pointed at me" is one that any civilian can have as well.
My opinion, and the opinion of several others on the video, is that the rifle is a threat as long as its in play, no matter where it's pointed. That if the officer had waited for the rifle to be raised, he might miss, or might have ineffective hits, and then the rifle is brought into play, and rifle beats handgun.
I also find this an extension on "just shoot them in the leg" or "just learn to fight, bro." The idea that you have to play chicken, as if you're not in danger unless the gun is pointed directly at you and the trigger is pulled free of slack.
It goes to what I said in another thread. There are those who believe in protecting everyone, and those who believe priority goes to yourself and your loved ones. It's easy to judge others when you're not in the crosshairs.
Maybe I'm in biased company, but does it not make sense to treat a bad guy with a gun as an imminent threat, no matter whether the gun is leveled or not?