|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
Why not shoot them in the leg?
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Amid all the recent police shootings, I’ve heard people ask why officers don’t just shoot to wound? (Actually, I’ve heard this question asked not only of officers but of all self defense shooters over the years.) Why not, these guys posit, shoot the assailant in an extremity, like an arm, a shoulder, a hand, a leg or a foot?
Police are not trained to shoot to kill, nor do any of the cops I know want to kill people. Police are trained to shoot to stop imminent threats. Tactically speaking, this is the best option when applying justifiable deadly force in self defense or defense of a third party and why just about every law enforcement department I’ve come in contact with teaches their officers to shoot center mass. |
| Comment by:
lostone1413
(1/23/2015)
|
| When you feel your life is in danger its like the title of Applegates book "kill or get killed" |
| Comment by:
Eaglesnester
(1/23/2015)
|
| Shoot em in the leg, they disarm you take your weapon and kill you with it. Always shoot center mass and shoot to kill and continue to shoot until the threat is eliminated or dead. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) |
|
|
