Why is that always the question?

[Amadeus]

For some reason people have this weird detach about violence. In a conversation today about Police and their occasional use of deadly force one of my co-workers spit out the old question --- "Why can't they just shoot 'em in the leg or something?"

"Because", I answered through clenched teeth, "Lethal force means lethal force. 1) If I aim for your leg and miss I might endanger an innocent person. And 2) If you put me in a position where I must shoot you to keep you from maiming or killing me then I am going to aim for the largest, most stable, target on your body; a place that, if hit, is most likely to cut off the blood-flow to your brain thus shutting you down as quickly as possible and ending your ability to carry out your attack upon me! That point of aim is probably going to be your center mass."

[rant on]

People don't seem to get it! In a self-defense situation guns are a last resort the use of which may likely result in someone being killed. No one ever pulled a gun for the purpose of TICKLING someone. That's not what they are for. When a cop or a civilian shoots someone in self-defense don't ask why they didn't aim for a leg. He shot someone because frequently (at that moment) the officer or civilian who shoots in self-defense perceives a very good and very immediate reason to do so.

So PLEASE take your damn, cushy, weepy-eyed, liberal, let's-all-hold-hands-and-make-it-better philosophy and SHOVE IT!

[rant off]

Thanks for letting me vent.

 

[Jim K]

Another loony remark is, "Why can't cops just shoot the gun out of the crook's hand?" This used to be a common question from bleeding hearts who had seen a few Western movies.

Jim

 

[Fly320s]

So PLEASE take your damn, cushy, weepy-eyed, liberal, let's-all-hold-hands-and-make-it-better philosophy and SHOVE IT!

Amadeus, you're among friends here. Don't hold-in your feelings.

 

[Amadeus]

Thanks Fly320s. I uh -- I guess I got a little worked up.

"Why can't cops just shoot the gun out of the crook's hand?" This used to be a common question from bleeding hearts who had seen a few Western movies

This misconception was further fortified by a police video circulating around a few years ago of an armed man, seated in a chair in the middle of the street who enaged police in a stand-off until a sniper plucked the pistol out of the perps hand with well-placed shot.

 

[Wayne D]

This is the one I hate: "Why did he have to shoot him, he just had a knife!"
Of course everyone that belongs to this forum knows the answer to that one, but so many people are used to seeing the unarmed TV hero disarming the knife wielding TV punk, that they think knives are not dangerous.

 

[Amadeus]

Yes. That one came up in the conversation too. Knife -- 20 feet away -- why shoot?

I let them in on the little concept of an attacker with a knife running 20 feet in somewhere near one second.

 

[Mauserlady]

This misconception was further fortified by a police video circulating around a few years ago of an armed man, seated in a chair in the middle of the street who enaged police in a stand-off until a sniper plucked the pistol out of the perps hand with well-placed shot.

I remember that and was quite impressed myself...


Amadeus - Am curious about something... Would you be quite so angry had the same question came from someone like me? I of course am assuming that the person that asked was a bliss-ninny and I can attest to the fact that I am not one of those...

The reason I ask is not to cause an argument but honestly it would have been a legit question I had... I say had because you guys have made me think a scenario through and I can understand why you wouldn't "shoot to wound"

 

[Amadeus]

Mauserlady I doubt that my ire would have been raised so quickly were it someone in this community that asked the question. There is a big difference between someone asking out of a genuine want for information and a "bliss-ninny" who is merely making the statement based on what he or she thinks the world should be.

Good point though.

 

[greyhound]

IMHO:

People see too much unrealistic gunplay in movies/TV, and as less and less of us have any real first hand knowledge of firearms, take it as gospel.

Frustrating, yes.

 

[Frohickey]

Amadeus

Yes. That one came up in the conversation too. Knife -- 20 feet away -- why shoot?

I let them in on the little concept of an attacker with a knife running 20 feet in somewhere near one second.

I think that you need to keep an Avery Marks-A-Lot Chisel-tip Jumbo Permanent Marker. Its only $3.40 list price. And its handy if you ever need to do any large labelling on boxes and anti-MMM protest signs.

Next time the same topic comes up, just dig into your bag, grab your marker without letting the person that said "All he had was a knife, why did they have to shoot him?" see you.

Then, walk 15 to 20 feet away, while he/she is still talking, uncap the marker and charge after the person and do your damnest to paint them with the marker.



Oh, make sure you get the red one, it drives home the point so much better than the black one.

 

[Amadeus]

Oooh. Good idea.

I did ask my co-worker to stand up so I could demonstrate something regarding why one does not aim for limbs. But she was very reluctant. I believe her words were a nervous, "I don't wanna be shown nothin'."

I wonder if she thought I was packing.

 

[pax]

"Why couldn't he just shoot him in the leg?"

Two words: femoral artery. If the femoral artery is nicked high enough or badly enough, the aggressor is going to die of blood loss before help arrives.

Any time you pull out a gun, you are stating that you believe your life is in immediate and deadly danger, and that you are willing to risk killing the aggressor in order to save your own life. It doesn't matter where you aim; if you point your gun at someone, you are using deadly force.

There's no such thing as a "safe" way to shoot someone.

If you shoot at someone's leg, you could kill him anyway -- but shooting him in the middle of his chest is more likely to quickly make him stop what he is doing than is a shot in the leg. If shot in the leg, the aggressor could bleed to death before help arrives, but he can be active and dangerous right up until he dies from blood loss.

Since the goal is to stop him, the center of his chest is therefore a better place to shoot, especially since in the stress of the situation you are less likely to miss his chest than you are to miss his leg. Any shot that misses your intended target goes somewhere else. Where'd it go and if it didn't hit the bad guy, who did it hit?

pax

 

[Frohickey]

Amadeus...

I did ask my co-worker to stand up so I could demonstrate something regarding why one does not aim for limbs. But she was very reluctant. I believe her words were a nervous, "I don't wanna be shown nothin'."

Why even ask? Actually, what you should do is just out of the blue, get your co-workers permission to 'perform a non-harmful benign act to quickly and succinctly illustrate a point of conversation'. Repeat ask for permission until you are given it, and then let it sit for a while. Make sure you have witnesses handy when you are finally given permission...

Then, when you have to do your Magic-Marker-Is-A-Knife Act, you are already immune to repercussions.

 

[magsnubby]

Hay man go ahead and vent. While i'm not an LEO i can understand why you would want to handcuff their dumb buts to the rear bumper of your car and go for a cruise.

I've heard alot of "He just had a knife" crap to. I always ask "Ever hear of the 20 foot rule?" Blank stare. Then i demonstrate. They usually just stand there with a *** look on their face. It's a hell of an education.

 

[Don Gwinn]

I was once asked by a coaching colleague (who was a much better coach than I ever was) what sort of gun would be best for him to keep at home just in case of burglars. In the course of the conversation, it came out that he didn't think he'd ever be willing to take the chance of killing anyone. You guessed it! He figured he'd just shoot 'em in the leg.

I gave him Pax's answer, because it seemed the fastest and simplest way to make him understand that it was a BAD idea. To be clear, there are situations that would call for a shot to the leg (like if that's all you can see of a previously identified target) but to do it to avoid harming someone just doesn't make any sense. He wasn't a bad guy, he was just doing his best to hold onto his old conditioning (hurting someone is always bad, killing someone is always worse) while still accommodating his newer realization that the inability to hurt other people is also the inability to defend yourself and your family.

In the end, he just couldn't wrap his mind around the idea of pulling the trigger knowing that it would probably kill the other person. I told him that didn't mean there was anything wrong with him, but it suggested that he'd be better off with pepper spray or even a baseball bat. Even those, I told him, are not nerf toys and can be lethal. To be honest, I don't think he ever ended up actually doing anything about home defense.

 

[Pilgrim]

I had a similar question asked by a newspaper owner and editor, my wife's boss, who joined us for dinner one night. I had just gotten off work and was still in uniform. He said something like, "I think the police kill too many people. Why can't you just shoot them in the arm or leg."

I began my reply with asking, "Just how many people killed would be an acceptable number to you?"

He sputtered something like "you cops shouldn't have to kill anyone."

I asked him why he thought it acceptable that I die so some crook could go about his trade of victimizing and terrorizing people like him.

He again sputtered that he didn't want me to die, but he thought police could shoot someone who deserved shooting by wounding them in the arm or leg.

I told him that was a nice idea but the amount of training necessary to make every officer capable of performing arm and leg shots was cost prohibitive. Would he support tax increases perhaps two to three times the current amount so that officers could practice at the range two to three times a week?

He backpedaled some and said that wasn't realistic. Surely there was a way to make arm and leg shots not so expensive.

I acquiesced and said perhaps that was so, but was he prepared, through taxation, to pay the price for all these increased numbers of cripples that would require physical therapy, perhaps prosthesis from destroyed nerves and vascular injuries? When these injured folks are in custody the county has to pay for their hospitalization, physical therapy, prosthesis, etc. Or did he think it was acceptable to throw these "winged" criminals in jail with the tourniquets on their injured limbs?

Liberal editor and newspaper shut his mouth and went back to eating his dinner.

Pilgrim

 

[CAPTAIN MIKE]

Why Can't He Just Shoot the Magic Marker Out of His Hand"??

Part of the reason for the logical disconnect is that although Americans love gunplay on TV or in the movies, the real thing seems more scary but less dramatic and less 'heroic'.

Moreover, the common thread of "I don't like guns" or "guns are dangerous" seems to be a recurring theme in conversations with these types.

I used to get really P.O.'d at these folks until I realized they can be educated --- gently -- and reminded of the real world -- by using their loved ones as examples in the 'What If...' conversation.

The other thing that seems to have helped on a few occasions was my being very rational about my responsiblity as a Dad and husband, Scout leader, instructor, colleague, etc. and how I want others to be safer and better because I'm there and because I'm not willing to passively stand by in the face of danger.

I'm no superhero. But I was raised and trained in everything from Scouting to the military to "Be Prepared" and be pro-active in taking action while others stand around wondering what to do.

I encourage you to be patient with these kinds of folks and be part of the reason why they come over to our way of thinking.

Very Respectfully,

 

[JohnKSa]

If you make it clear you aimed to wound and the attacker dies anyway, that's negligent homicide. You clearly didn't mean to kill him and yet he's dead as a result of your actions.

But deadly force would have been justified in the situation, you argue.

Probably not. In most places, deadly force statutes include a statement to the effect that the wielder of deadly force must believe it is the only reasonable option. By admitting you didn't intend to apply deadly force, it's very likely that you eliminated your justification to use it.

 

[joe sixpack]

Hollywood movies and tv equals education. People with unrealistic ideas
usually just don't know better. Take a few minutes and illustrate something
with reality and you'll move someone towards our side.

cheers, ab

 

[David W. Gay]

" 'Cause I shot him in the leg!"

The above, and what follows, is my best recollection of a scene from the original Lethal Weapon:
----------
Murtagh shoots a suspect across a pool and hits him in the leg.

Murtagh: "... You know why he's not dead? 'Cause I shot him in the leg! Now I'm happy. You take care of him, and I'm gonna' stand over here being happy."

While Riggs is leaning down to cuff the wounded suspect, the suspect reveals a gun he had hidden under his jacket (or somewhere) and attempts to shoot. Well, I don't think either good guy got shot, but the bad guy had to be shot again...

Scene continues as all three fall in the pool, which was covered with a sheet of plastic for some reason. Bad guy dies. Now Murtagh is not happy anymore...
----------

I wonder if the film's producers have any idea of the valuable lesson presented in that scene.


Unfortunatly, and in contrast to the above, I belive there are far more scenes of the type found in the short lived "Karen Sisco" series. In a "dramatic" moment, she has to shoot her boyfriend to prevent him from escaping in a boat. No, she doesn't shoot him in the leg. Instead, she shoots him in the shoulder. What a wonderful, tear-jerking moment...

Oh, the reason she had to shoot her boyfriend is because he turned out to be some bad guy wanted by the US Marshalls.

Oh well,

Carry On!

 

[entropy]

"Next time the same topic comes up, just dig into your bag, grab your marker without letting the person that said "All he had was a knife, why did they have to shoot him?" see you.

Then, walk 15 to 20 feet away, while he/she is still talking, uncap the marker and charge after the person and do your damnest to paint them with the marker.



Oh, make sure you get the red one, it drives home the point so much better than the black one."

I used to do this to people who fell asleep/ zoned out in their foxhole out in the field. I would then point out to them that because they fell asleep in the foxhole, our whole unit could have just died. They never did get the point, or they'd say we're just a REMF Med. unit, that would never happen in a war. Then I'd ask them if they'd ever heard of the Spetsnaz.

 

[Treylis]

This is the one I hate: "Why did he have to shoot him, he just had a knife!"
Of course everyone that belongs to this forum knows the answer to that one, but so many people are used to seeing the unarmed TV hero disarming the knife wielding TV punk, that they think knives are not dangerous.

I have a great response to that one: "Have you ever actually been in a knife fight?"

Unvariably: "Uh, no."

Me: "I have. Want to see the scars?" *proceed to explain just how exciting it was*

I had somebody try to tell me the other day that if I was attacked by six guys with knives again, I wouldn't be justified in shooting because somehow the multiple knives and folks wielding them somehow didn't constitute any usage of "deadly weapons" or a "threat to my life".

*eye-roll*

There were several articles last year haranguing the local police for shooting people with knives. Now, normally, I'm not usually on that particular side, but on this issue I am 100% pro-LEO. I have personal experience with just how nasty those things can be, and all my sympathies are extended to officers who shoot in defense of themselves against people with knives.

 

[mfree]

Let's see..... 9mm FMJ makes a ~1/2" hole pretty deeply. A switchblade will make a 1/2" slit pretty deeply, more if swept, and can be done repeatedly very quickly. Then there are "big bore" knives and such.

Guns can make you leak quickly. Knives can make you leak quickly.

The only reason the gun has an advantage is that it can be used from a distance.