I suspect that I know more about guns and shooting than you.
There are not many situations where it would be proper to shoot someone in the foot. This very well may have been one of those.
If you don’t think I could do it, stop by and visit me. I will get out a pellet pistol, and you can wear a boot. Walk at me slowly as this guy is doing and I will put one right on top of your foot.
I have shot lots of rattlesnakes through the head with a .22 pistol or larger caliber. It is not that hard to do but is way more difficult than shooting a foot moving slowly.
I have to chime in here. I am NOT an expert or even a “fair” shot (compared to people I know who actually do practice or train with firearms often.) But I have shot a little (A LITTLE!!) to familiarize myself with various handguns and pellet pistols. Last go-round was with a brand new handgun whose sight I had not checked: At 20 ft., shooting at used 6 oz. (skinny) repellent cans, 4 shots punctured a can, and one seriously creased a can, all 5 shots averaged low from center (one was only 1/4” low, the worst was not quite 2” low.) It turned out the sight was about 1/2” low, the rest of the error was mine, tending low (unfamiliarity with the weapon?)
Could I hit the knee of someone running at me, even 20 ft. away? Likely not, but I’m darn sure I can hit a leg or hip, especially if I can get 2-3 shots off. Most police handguns / ammo will do a lot of damage upon impact — unless they have switched to .22 shorts?
In any case, this kid was, as you say, not moving fast at all. I did not see anything in any of the videos that I’d judge as a menacing “move”, either. So, I would support your contention on what any half-way good shot could hit or not hit, in THIS circumstance, with the caveat that the shooter would have to remain reasonably calm.
Something else bothers me a lot. Aside from non-lethal methods of dealing with suspects not armed with firearms or other weapons capable of serious injury at a distance, why is there not a “shoot to disable” zone if a suspect does not appear to have a firearm or is not charging an officer? Maybe make it 15 feet and out, with some positive allowance for circumstance.
Another question - I’m not sure I know the answer: Do we want police to be able to always use deadly force in order to assure NO risk to themselves? Or, is SOME risk in these situations “part of the job” in order to respect the life of others?
Most police shoots are justified. Probably over 90% of those that become national stories are justified. But... if I want to claim that I am “pro life”, THIS shooting, like that of Lavoy Finicum, bothers me quite a bit.
I expect I know more about law than you do. Go around shooting folks in the foot, and have a good bankruptcy lawyer on call. Although if you are going to a knife fight with a foot shooting pellet gun, on second thought, have a good surgeon and a better undertaker on call.