You mean like The Waco Kid?
Posted on 08/18/2014 6:51:44 AM PDT by KeyLargo
CNN Wolf Blitzer: Why Don’t Cops “Shoot to Wound?” By Robert Farago on August 17, 2014
“On Thursday, CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer asked guest [lawyer] Jeffrey Toobin why police weren’t instructed to “shoot to injure,” instead of kill,”
talkingpointsmemo.com reports. “Blitzer’s questions arose during a discussion on the unfurling conflict in Ferguson, Mo. over the fatal police shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown. ‘They often shoot to kill,’ Blitzer said of police. ‘Why do they have to shoot to kill? Why can’t they shoot a warning shot in the air, scare someone off if they think they’re in danger. Why can’t they shoot to, injure, shall we say? Why do they have to shoot to kill?’” [Click here to watch the clip] TTAG reader F reckons Blitzer’s ignorance . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at thetruthaboutguns.com ...
End result will be like many other places.
The police will be put under fed supervision.
They will then pretend to police like they do in Chicago
and many other places. Black on black crime will increase and the body count will continue to rise.
He needs to go back to looking for the missing plane - it’s more beneficial to his mental abilities....
This from the CNN mega-brain who posted a record low total on Jeopardy. NEGATIVE
$4600!
You mean like The Waco Kid?
You fire two to center mass (Rule #2: Double Tap) of the first target so as to "warn" his compatriots to either surrender or seek entertainment elsewhere.
Has the Blitzed Wolf ever actually discharged any type of firearm?
Has the Blitzed Wolf ever even HELD in his hand any type of firearm?
Because it would allow instigators like Blitzer to start riots.
Pray America wakes up
Why shooting to wound doesn’t make sense, Part 2
Part 2 of a 2-part Force Science News series
In Part 1 of this special series, the Force Science Research Center explored legislation proposed, and ultimately recalled, by a NYS Senator that would have required officers to “shoot to wound” and the practical reason why this idea doesn’t make sense.
In Part 2, we share the legal and tactical problems with the “shoot to wound” concept:
LEGAL ISSUES.
A shoot-to-wound mandate would “not be valid legally” because it sets a standard far beyond that established by Graham v. Connor, the benchmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on police use of force, says former prosecutor Jeff Chudwin, now chief of the Olympia Fields (IL) PD and president of the Illinois Tactical Officers Assn.
Recognizing that violent encounters are “tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving,” the Court “does not require officers to use the least intrusive method” of forcefully controlling a threatening suspect, but “only what’s reasonable,” Chudwin explains. When an officer’s life or that of a third party appears in jeopardy, shooting can be justified as reasonable.
Rea all at: http://www.policeone.com/officer-shootings/articles/127238-Why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-Part-2/
For anyone who thinks its their job to tell us what to think, most journalists are surprisingly ignorant.
I think Blitzer KNOWS EXACTLY what he is talking
about- another Lib media person throwing
gasoline on the fire-
What he is inferring: the Police could have done a better
Job WARNING St. Michael- Because there was not a Warning
Shot- they are racist
Dead Men Tell No Tales
Fire a warning shot in the air, Wolf? Really?
What goes up must come down. The bullet will fall back to earth somewhere, perhaps killing an innocent person if the bullet hits at the right spot to do so.
When an assailant charges you and starts pummeling you at close range, how do you get a good shot at the assailant’s arms or legs? Wouldn’t you be using your arms to protect yourself and trying to push the assailant away?
To get a clear shot at arms or legs, wouldn’t you have to shoot while the assailant was some distance from you? And if the assailant was some distance from you, then wouldn’t you have to show restraint because you aren’t in imminent danger?
Good one. Coffee stains obligatory.
Another example of the fantasy world that liberals inhabit and the delusions that comfort them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.