Please consider registering
Guest
sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register
Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search
Forum Scope


Match



Forum Options



Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
I read the news today (oh boy) - Current world events
1 September 2020
3.01pm
Avatar
Little Piggy Dragonguy
Nowhere Land
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 3906
Member Since:
5 November 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3361sp_Permalink sp_Print

Starr Shine? said
I don't think a leg shot is a bad idea. For one thing a leg shot if fatal if you get the upper leg. Also once they are leg shot, they can't attack you very well.

They can still attack you if they have a gun. Legs would also be harder to hit. The whole point of shooting somebody should be to remove them as a threat. Not a good idea to try and hit something like an extremity when your life depends on it.

All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit 

1 September 2020
3.05pm
Avatar
QuarryMan
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 3542
Member Since:
26 January 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3362sp_Permalink sp_Print

Little Piggy Dragonguy said

QuarryMan said

It's possible to shoot someone and render them no longer a threat without shooting them seven times in the back. The officer could have shot Blake in the leg, for example. 

I don't have anything to say about this particular situation, but if you really think your life is at risk (which is the only reason you should be shooting somebody), shooting somebody in the leg is a horrible idea. If you have to shoot somebody, you aim to kill. Have you heard of adrenaline? Shooting a person in the leg won't always stop them from shooting you. Not only that, but shooting somebody in an extremity has the potential of hitting an artery, so there's still a real possibility of killing them.

I feel like the argument that 'the officer shot because they thought their life was in danger', while certainly a valid point in some situations, often gets brought up uncritically in cases where it doesn't really apply. In this case there were multiple armed officers surrounding the car that Blake was trying to get into who could have shot him in the case that he emerged from the car with a gun, and as RN has said the officer who chose to shoot could likely have pinned him instead.

On the second point, I completely disagree - if you're in the situation that you have to shoot someone, you should always aim to neutralise them without killing them wherever possible. That might not always be possible, but if it were me I'd rather not have anybody die in these situations unless they absolutely had to to prevent them harming others. I'm not convinced by any arguments about adrenaline, either - as I said, Blake was surrounded by armed officers. If anyone should get the excuse of adrenaline, it should be Blake. 

Lastly, while there is the risk of hitting an artery if you shoot someone in the leg, surely it's statistically much less likely to kill you than a shot to the chest/back/head? 

The following people thank QuarryMan for this post:

The Hole Got Fixed

There is no final victory, as there is no final defeat. There is just the same battle to be fought, over and over again. So toughen up, bloody toughen up.” - Tony Benn
2019 BB awards: Most-respectful-even-through-disagreements-Awesomest-signature.png
UK.jpg demsoc2.jpg bi-flag-1.jpg

Avatar courtesy of Beatlebug and Ms. Björk Guðmundsdóttir

1 September 2020
10.56pm
Avatar
Little Piggy Dragonguy
Nowhere Land
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 3906
Member Since:
5 November 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3363sp_Permalink sp_Print

QuarryMan said

Little Piggy Dragonguy said
I don't have anything to say about this particular situation, but if you really think your life is at risk (which is the only reason you should be shooting somebody), shooting somebody in the leg is a horrible idea. If you have to shoot somebody, you aim to kill. Have you heard of adrenaline? Shooting a person in the leg won't always stop them from shooting you. Not only that, but shooting somebody in an extremity has the potential of hitting an artery, so there's still a real possibility of killing them.

I feel like the argument that 'the officer shot because they thought their life was in danger', while certainly a valid point in some situations, often gets brought up uncritically in cases where it doesn't really apply. 

I wasn't talking about this case. 

On the second point, I completely disagree - if you're in the situation that you have to shoot someone, you should always aim to neutralise them without killing them wherever possible. That might not always be possible, but if it were me I'd rather not have anybody die in these situations unless they absolutely had to to prevent them harming others. I'm not convinced by any arguments about adrenaline, either - as I said, Blake was surrounded by armed officers. If anyone should get the excuse of adrenaline, it should be Blake. Lastly, while there is the risk of hitting an artery if you shoot someone in the leg, surely it's statistically much less likely to kill you than a shot to the chest/back/head?  

When I mentioned adrenaline, I was talking about how shooting somebody may not make them incapacitated. 

If your life is in such imminent danger that you need to shoot somebody, aiming for an extremity is a horrible idea. An extremity is obviously going to be much harder to accurately hit as not only is it smaller than a torso, but also moves much faster. Your options are shoot this person or die/become seriously injured, so why take a gamble and aim for their leg which may not incapacitate them and that you have a far greater chance of missing?

All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit 

2 September 2020
7.27am
Avatar
Starr Shine?
Waiting in the sky
Apple rooftop
Members
Forum Posts: 15940
Member Since:
1 November 2013
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3364sp_Permalink sp_Print

For an avarage person probably but for an officer, they should be better trained for this then to go off by instinct. 

The following people thank Starr Shine? for this post:

Jules

https://youtu.be/52nwiTs7bk8

Brainwashed by RadiantCowbells.

If you can't log in and can't use the forum go here and someone will help you out.

2 September 2020
6.56pm
Avatar
Dark Overlord
Nowhere Land
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 4339
Member Since:
9 March 2017
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3365sp_Permalink sp_Print

BLM recently surrounded senator Rand Paul, the very person who's trying to ban no knock warrants via the Justice Against Breonna Taylor Act, yelling at him and insisting that he says Breonna Taylor's name.paul-mccartney-facepalm_gifpaul-mccartney-facepalm_gifpaul-mccartney-facepalm_gifpaul-mccartney-facepalm_gif

If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.

3 September 2020
10.28am
Avatar
Little Piggy Dragonguy
Nowhere Land
Rishikesh
Members
Forum Posts: 3906
Member Since:
5 November 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
3366sp_Permalink sp_Print

Starr Shine? said
For an avarage person probably but for an officer, they should be better trained for this then to go off by instinct. 

If taking the chance of missing their leg or it not stopping the person is a good idea, then it's probably not a situation where they should be shooting the person. 

All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit 

Forum Timezone: America/Chicago
Most Users Ever Online: 700
Currently Online: vonbontee, kelicopter
Guest(s) 1
Top Posters:
Starr Shine?: 15940
Ron Nasty: 10921
50yearslate: 8623
Necko: 7911
AppleScruffJunior: 7225
parlance: 7111
mr. Sun king coming together: 6403
Mr. Kite: 6147
trcanberra: 6064
sir walter raleigh: 5139
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 87
Members: 2587
Moderators: 6
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 44
Topics: 4912
Posts: 351321
Newest Members:
Tom Pickett, fueradeljuego, sanjoyss, Stephen Lennon, doubleo
Moderators: Joe: 5115, Zig: 9812, meanmistermustard: 23275, Ahhh Girl: 19495, Beatlebug: 17339, The Hole Got Fixed: 7967
Administrators: Joe: 5115