- Garland
- |
- Fabled Legendary Member
Posted by: Heart of Stone
Posted by: Garland
Posted by: Infinate Virtues
Why did he not shoot him in the leg?
I'm sure he'll be asking himself the same thing."Shoot to wound" is BS. If you're shooting someone, you're accepting that you could kill them. If it so happens that you end their ability to threaten others without killing them, then great, but it's not something you can aim to do (no pun intended).
I don't see the logic in this. It's a bullet that goes in an almost perfect straight path. You can easily shoot someone without killing them.LOL'd.
Trying to hit a moving target, in a high-adrenaline situation, without taking the time to aim perfectly (time is of the essence, here, or else mom is going to die). Not to mention that no matter how good a shot you are, any gunshot carries the risk of death. Hitting vital organs, hitting arteries, etc. As Recon will surely point out, shooting to wound indicates that you could use less-than-lethal force, at which point using a gun (a lethal weapon) is unnecessary force and thus illegal. If the situation is bad enough to warrant a gun, then it's shoot to kill. If the person survives, great, but it's not a primary objective. The objective is to end the threat.