View Single Post
Old February 24, 2012, 08:52 AM   #17
Bartholomew Roberts
member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Towe
You have a moral obligation to protect if you have the ability to do so, regardless of whether you have a pistol on your hip.
YOU might have a moral obligation. I don't. Any grown adult who isn't a prohibited person has the same opportunity I do to get a CHL and carry a firearm for self-defense. If they don't value their own lives or that of their family highly enough to do that, then they have absolutely zero right to expect me to pay all of the financial, health, and legal costs of a shooting to protect them. Anything I decide to do is a result of me being generous, not something they have a right to expect or demand.

Quote:
Two grown men (or women) fist fighting is one thing, I'm certainly not going to intervene
I am not understanding you. You say you have a moral obligation to protect if you have the ability to do so; but if the combatants are both of the same gender and only using their fists/feet to kill or seriously injure each other, you no longer have such an obligation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RamItOne
B Roberts, just when your link got me all excited I see in the descriptions on several episodes- Rich Wyatt
There are several different gun-related shows on Spike at that link. You want "Conceal and Carry School" for the Force on Force scenarios I was talking about - it has nothing to do with Rich Wyatt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edavis456
If you have had training why not just shoot the person in the knee or leg with all that time at the range and this is what you get out going to the range to take a life. I would think its to sharpen your skills shot the guy in the leg or arm he still has a chance of bleeding out but atleast you know you didnt shoot'em in one of the kill area's.
A firearm is lethal force - it is likely to kill or seriously injure someone if you use it in self-defense. This is one of the reasons the scenarios in which it can be used are so strictly limited in most states. As a general rule, you can only use a firearm if you believe there is an immediate threat of death or serious injury to yourself or others. In some jurisdictions, you must also retreat if you are able to do so safely and not in your own home.

So in a situation where you or someone else is immediately going to die or be seriously injured if the attacker isn't stopped, you don't shoot people in the arm or leg because it is both a very difficult target to hit and has a low probability of stopping the attack. In addition, the arm or leg has less muscle and bone than the torso - the possibility that a shot exits the target and continues on to injure someone else is increased when the arm or leg is hit.

For these reasons, every single federal, state, and local law enforcement agency teaches to shoot center mass of the torso as the preferred target.

Quote:
Just something to think about dont be another gun happy cop that see's a reason to to kill someone. Officer's are suppose to wound the person not go for a kill shoot thats what their trained to do serve & protect i hope.
Again, the whole point of lethal force in self-defense is to stop an immediate threat of death or serious injury. If that isn't why you are shooting, a firearm is the wrong tool to be using. If that is why you are shooting, you need to stop that attack as quickly as possible to prevent and/or limit the amount of damage caused.

Officers are trained to shoot to stop the attack. Whether the person is wounded or killed is irrelevant, so long as the attack is stopped. However, it is understood that the most effective means of stopping the attack may also kill the attacker - which is why those means are limited by law to very specific scenarios.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.02871 seconds with 8 queries