re: Armed robber shot by security guard **NSFW**

Companies that clean crime scenes make bank. And many times they are able to buy the crime properties for pennies on the dollar.

quote:

---

There isn't a firearm instructor in the US who would tell you to aim for an arm in a life or death situation.

---

That's not when people say to shoot in the leg. Typically, it's when a suspect is fleeing, and the cop just shoots him in the back.

quote:

---

That's not when people say to shoot in the leg.

---

People still say this all of the time in life/death situations. They may not be made by very intelligent people, but there are always comments about that on every story like this

quote:

---

Drains the heart.

---

Was the perpetrator attempting to get beamed up before he went dry?

quote:

---

Damn. He got shot in the neck, and kept moving as normal for a good 15 seconds, that is until he wasnt strong enough to push the door open. Even still, that was pretty scary.

---

Yep. frick that guy. Kept shooting to kill as his life spewed out of him. He was a threat all the way to the end. This is reality and people who think you can just be real nice to the bad guys and theyll give up are just not living in reality. frick that piece of shite. He deserves zero sympathy.

Hey man, nice shot

Thats why you should not open carry. If someone wants to do bad things I dont want to the their first victim.

And I'm glad I dont have to clean that up.

Good one. Good song.

Top comment on Twitter lol

“Dude drew an uzi on his way out. Talent.”

quote:

---

You want police to fire at the the legs of a sprinting adult male?

Jesus Christ

---

Nope, not what I said and that would be silly. I am asking police to not fire at a sprinting adult male at all...unless justified. In the example I used of Walter Scott, he was fleeing the scene of a traffic stop and was gunned down without ever brandishing any kind of weapon. The officers gun should have never come into play as a means of stopping a suspect from running away, unless that suspect has already fired on them or someone else. Under no circumstance should any person be given a death sentence for a stupid decision, unless that decision includes intentional harm to others. My point is, y'all seem to have difficulty understanding nuance. Not every situation is the same and criticism of one does not automatically apply to the similar because of the many variables at play. Man threatens you with a weapon or fires on you...kill him before he kills you and aim for the most vital parts. However, if an unarmed person is fleeing, verbally threatening, being uncooperative or even physically combative, lethal force is simply not justified. OP's example presented for his argument that "aiming for the arm or leg" makes no sense is spot on for his example. Problem is, that is not the same situation were people are saying to do that. The police have laws to follow too and asking to use non-lethal force for non-lethal situations is perfectly reasonable whether you like it or not.

Cornell Law School

quote:

---

§ 1047.7 Use of deadly force.
(a) Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists:

(1) Self-Defense. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to protect a protective force officer who reasonably believes himself or herself to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

(2) Serious offenses against persons. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offense against a person(s) in circumstances presenting an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm (e.g. sabotage of an occupied facility by explosives).

(3) Nuclear weapons or nuclear explosive devices. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of a nuclear weapon or nuclear explosive device.

(4) Special nuclear material. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to prevent the theft, sabotage, or unauthorized control of special nuclear material from an area of a fixed site or from a shipment where Category II or greater quantities are known or reasonably believed to be present.

(5) Apprehension. When deadly force reasonably appears to be necessary to apprehend or prevent the escape of a person reasonably believed to: (i) have committed an offense of the nature specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) 1 of this section; or (ii) be escaping by use of a weapon or explosive or who otherwise indicates that he or she poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the protective force officer or others unless apprehended without delay.

---