2 ms·

Would you clarify what you understand as alternatives to "aiming to kill" and how they would be effectively different from "aiming to kill"? Edit: clarified qu

by grzm 10y ago

Would you clarify what you understand as alternatives to "aiming to kill" and how they would be effectively different from "aiming to kill"? Edit: clarified question.

bonzini 10y ago
They aren't different at all from "aiming to stop", but the difference from "aiming to kill" is enormous. For example, aiming at the leg can be just as effective as aiming at the heart.
- grzm 10y ago
  Sorry, I can see how my question was unclear. I mean how "aiming to kill" is effectively different from "aiming to stop". I've edited it for clarity. There are a couple of issues with the idea of, say, aiming at the leg. * A leg wound may not stop the person. * A leg wound can be lethal: you can bleed out very quickly if the femoral artery is hit. * The trajectory of a bullet (and its fragments) once it impacts the body can be very unpredictable: a bullet entering the leg may strike bone and enter the chest cavity. And all of these assume precise aim under stress. You mention aiming for the heart: police won't generally be aiming for something as small as the heart. Police (and all people using firearms) should receive the best training they can (and likely more and better firearms training than is often available today), but precise aim under stress is no easy task. They may be aiming for the torso (which of course includes the heart), because shots to the torso are generally more effective at stopping a person and it's a relatively large target: shots are more likely to hit and therefore less likely to miss (and hit something else: all bullets land somewhere). Firearms are deadly force. Police have less-lethal alternatives available as well, and should be trained to use them effectively when it's appropriate to do so. If a police officer resorts to deadly force, the goal should be to stop the person as effectively and quickly as possible.

by grzm 10y ago

Would you clarify what you understand as alternatives to "aiming to kill" and how they would be effectively different from "aiming to kill"? Edit: clarified question.

bonzini 10y ago

They aren't different at all from "aiming to stop", but the difference from "aiming to kill" is enormous. For example, aiming at the leg can be just as effective as aiming at the heart.

grzm 10y ago
Sorry, I can see how my question was unclear. I mean how "aiming to kill" is effectively different from "aiming to stop". I've edited it for clarity. There are a couple of issues with the idea of, say, aiming at the leg. * A leg wound may not stop the person. * A leg wound can be lethal: you can bleed out very quickly if the femoral artery is hit. * The trajectory of a bullet (and its fragments) once it impacts the body can be very unpredictable: a bullet entering the leg may strike bone and enter the chest cavity. And all of these assume precise aim under stress. You mention aiming for the heart: police won't generally be aiming for something as small as the heart. Police (and all people using firearms) should receive the best training they can (and likely more and better firearms training than is often available today), but precise aim under stress is no easy task. They may be aiming for the torso (which of course includes the heart), because shots to the torso are generally more effective at stopping a person and it's a relatively large target: shots are more likely to hit and therefore less likely to miss (and hit something else: all bullets land somewhere). Firearms are deadly force. Police have less-lethal alternatives available as well, and should be trained to use them effectively when it's appropriate to do so. If a police officer resorts to deadly force, the goal should be to stop the person as effectively and quickly as possible.