If a man was unarmed why wouldn't police shoot him in the leg instead of the chest?

In utopia land? Yes, yes he is under that impression. That's why nobody takes those people seriously in the real world.

 

Because shooting in the leg or hand another "less lethal" body part - will cause long investigation and cop maybe will be in jail after this.
But shooting to death is pretty easier and without any consequences!

 

reality is not what the OP is searching for... he's searching for agenda

 

Which he will not find here.

 

Because dead men don't sue.

 

They should be aiming for arms and legs which are waving madly...in LibWorld. Nothing is difficult for the person who doesn't have to do it.

If I know the person is unarmed and isn't trying to get to a gun I wouldn't shoot him. If a person is armed or trying to get to a gun I might shoot him or I might not. If I have to shoot, I won't be aiming for his pinky.

There are people I risked my life for but career criminals weren't on the list.

 

I find it fascinating that a host of posters methodically replied with the practical reasons why one shoots at the center of mass rather than at a leg (including a moderator) and yet the anti-gun/anti-police officer faction automatically disdains reality in preference for clinging to a ideological propaganda reply such as "Because dead men don't sue."

Fascinating!

 

Yes, they do, Ronstar. Sleaze bag attorneys, like John Edwards, have taught the police that they don't want a wounded man testifying in a civil trial. That's why John Edwards wouldn't represent children who had died.

Take any case you want and instead of the guy being dead let's assume he was just wounded and recovered. Well, sort of. The attorney will have "experts" to testify that the poor innocent candidate for sainthood who would have cured cancer is permanently disabled. And, it wasn't because he was a robber but it was because he got shot. It wasn't because of anything he'd done. His family would be there to testify that he'd always been a good boy and when they got that restraining order it was just a misunderstanding.

No, Ronstar, the Trial Lawyers Association, in partnership with the Democrat Party, have had a lot to do with what happens at shootings, accident scenes, hostage situations.

 

shoot the knife out of his hand. sniper level shots are the only ones that should be allowed...

 

To quote the citation of the member Galileo from elsewhere.

http://www.politicalforum.com/gun-c...about-their-ability-use-gun-self-defense.html

https://www.vpc.org/studies/uninthree.htm

Real-Life Differences. Experts on the use of handguns for self-defense reel off a number of real-life factors for which range shooting does not prepare the handgun owner:

The Physical Environment. One obvious difference is that shooting ranges optimize lighting and view. The handgun owner, however, has no control over the environmental conditions under which he may perceive the need to use his gun. The experience of police officers in real shootouts shows that "light conditions are often too poor to allow using the sights. Officers normally practice and qualify on well-lit ranges that allow full use of sights. Conditions on the street are rarely as favorable as range conditions."134 Poor lighting and confusing situations in real life increase the risk that the gun owner will make an error in judgment and harm an innocent person, or be harmed himself because he cannot use his handgun effectively. The range of potential environmental differences from a shooting range is enormous, from a dark bedroom to a rainy street corner or a bitter cold evening when the gun owner is wearing bulky gloves.

Physiological Stress. Mortal fear does not accompany shooting at paper targets. But in a life or death situation "your heart thuds in your chest and your breathing accelerates and you have to react rapidly."135 This fear seriously affects one's shooting ability. "The real world of combat means a highly stressful event in which a very small percentage of bullets fired even strike the target."136 Even well-trained police officers who are taught to expect such stress reactions miss their targets many more times than they hit them.

Assailant Movements. A handgun owner may be quite proud of the hits he has scored in the "kill zone" on stationary paper targets. But, as many police officers have learned, assailants don't stand still waiting to be shot. "What a revelation. I was never so terrified in my whole life. They never told me in the academy that the targets were going to jump and move all over the place. There wasn't one 3' by 2' target to shoot at like on the police range."137

Unexpected Assailant Reaction. More often than not, in the movies and on television, people who are "shot" simply fall down and stay down. End of fight. In real life, the opposite is often true, especially if the assailant is on alcohol or drugs. They either don't fall down, or they get back up and keep coming. "We can presume that in half of the police-involved shootings, the felon will not lay down and be cooperative instantly. In fact, many shooting reports included information to suggest that the felon showed no indication that he had been hit....Hitting such a moving target with a handgun, under extreme stress, is not easy."138

Ambiguous Situations. There is no doubt about whether to shoot the targets at a shooting range—they are there as surrogate bad guys. But many real-life situations are ambiguous: is the "assailant" really a threat? Is the threat deadly enough to justify the use of lethal force? From his own experience, seasoned New York City police officer and author Jim Cirillo notes: "Many times, situations looked like armed robberies but turned out to be innocent. At such times, a man with no compassion might shoot when he shouldn't, or he might not consider bystanders during his moment of danger."139

Disarmament Moves. Is the civilian gun owner prepared when the assailant attempts to disarm him, or simply shoots anyway? Is he aware that some criminals learn specific procedures to do just that? Probably not. But being suddenly disarmed or outgunned is a threat in the real world. "There are many instances where the suspect has drawn a weapon and killed an officer after the officer pointed his weapon and issued the proper challenge. The suspect just plain beat the officer....The Aryan Brotherhood prison gang, along with the Hell's Angels outlaw motorcycle gang, have developed a technique to disarm an officer from a distance of 21 feet. It works in conjunction with an officer's natural lag time."140

 

Two problems with that, one is that an arm or leg are much harder to hit, the second is that you can kill someone pretty quickly that way just the same if you hit an artery. Most people that have been shot die from bleeding out.

 

Yes, but these cop haters/gun haters have been told all that many time before and so they are simply reinforcing their side's ideologically-based propaganda rather than seeking knowledge. Ironically every time they pose this same question or simply lead off with a statement along the lines of "Any officer who doesn't target the arm or leg of an (possibly) unarmed assailant -- as if anyone can know that an assailant is unarmed since frisking is designed to reveal just that and you don't frisk until after the arrest procedure is begun -- is therefore a murderer" crapola actually end up shooting their own argument set in the foot since then all these experts and knowledgeable amateurs come forth to explain reality to the non-reality based posters ensconced (almost always) Left of Center.

 

Because the only justification for use of deadly force is the belief that your life, or the lives of others, is in immediate danger. Warning shots, leg shots, et al, are an admission that you don't believe there is immediate mortal danger.

 

Which is way different than what you do right? lol

 

Yes; but then one would have to be reality-based to comprehend the difference.

 

One question I have is why the police are shooting unarmed people at all. Police have tasers, and batons, and other police. Now if the person being arrested is trying to take their gun, or may have a gun themselves, I can see their situation, but if the person is clearly unarmed why not simply call for backup and wait?

At one time police in London didn't carry guns. My understanding is they didn't do a bad job either. Maybe it's time we looked into that.

 

Please. You are a devoted partisan hack on every issue. I read your posts. Don't act like you aren't. I love being an independent and watching these partisan hacks from both sides try to act like they think for themselves when it's painfully obvious they don't.

 

Well, at least we can all know by this question that you have zero law enforcement or military experience.

The legs are one of the most difficult shots to make. They are constantly moving, and there's two of them, rather than one larger item (such as the torso) to aim at. There's no law enforcement or military in the world that is dumb enough to aim at the legs, or especially arms.

Not to mention, it's VERY easy to die from a leg wound. It's not like the movies.

 

The answer is simple.

Rule 2.

Never point your firearm at something you don't intend to destroy.

 

Annnnnnnnnnnnd we have here a classic case of the Leftwing kettle pointing a trembling finger of blame rightward and accusing the pot of being sooty. Irony . . . gotta love it.

 

And the flip side of the coin is that a drug fueled nutbag can do a lot of damage in the amount of time it takes him to realize he's been hit with a few rounds of 9mm.

Not to mention that typical stress induced accuracy is 30% at best.

 

[

Actually, they are like that. Three Days in the Valley

[/I][/B]

 

No, I'm simply asking why anyone would deem it normal and acceptable for police to shoot unarmed people to death.

 

Police don't fire to injure someone, they fire to kill someone because they fear they are in danger.

This isn't the movies where the "good" cop shoots someone in the leg just to injure them.

 

What's the problem? Seems it is a solution to what to do about a person threatening someone with imminent serious bodily harm or death.