Further Proof That Texans Are Some Trigger-Happy Crackers

You do not shoot at someone’s knees or legs. Not only is that stupid from a practicality standpoint (smaller target) it shows that you were not fearful for your life. Never point a weapon at another human being unless you are willing to end their life. No one who is afraid someone is going to kill them aims and shoots for the foot, knee, or leg? Stop suggesting that is what people should do.

If the ranges stated in the article are true you would see almost no pellet dispersion from a 12 gauge shotgun. You’d basically hit the target with a large wad of pellets still likely to be in their plastic case. You can not just shoot in the general direction of the assailant and expect to scatter shot his legs at that close of range. If you actually managed to him in the leg it would still possibly be a fatal wound from such a large wound.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Capo

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this exactly what the police would have done in a situation similar to this one?

No. I've never heard of police officers being taught to shoot at the legs. It is my understanding they are taught to shoot center mass like the rest of us.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

So they are taught to shoot to kill, no matter the situation, indirectly by-passing the justice system. (Not that shooting at a "center mass" would necessary equate to a lethal shot. But you see where I am going.) ESPECIALLY in the case of a home burglary.

That's why tazers, stun guns, and bean bag guns exist. To kill.

What country do you live in, exactly.

Sass you look at that entirely the wrong way. They are taught to shoot center mass because under life threating situations the average accuracy of a police officer is less than 30%. It is the easiest point to aim for and the place you are most likely to actually hit the target. The point of shooting someone is to stop their ability to harm others by means of deadly force. Tazers, stun guns, and bean bag rounds from a shotgun are designed to subdue a person but without deadly force. These methods are not always feasible (ie when the other guy has a gun too) or effective (I've seen people get maced and shocked with no effect). Sometimes a gun is the only reasonable tool to stop someone with.

Originally Posted by Sassafrass

So they are taught to shoot to kill

Anytime anyone shoots at another person it is to kill regardless of their intent. That was my point earlier, you NEVER shoot to wound (ie the legs, knees, arms, etc) that defeats the entire purpose of pulling the trigger.

Originally Posted by Lacerta

*None of this is really relevant to what you dudes are going on about, I'm just stating what would have most likely happened due to having uncles that are part of the police force, both in Houston and Pasadena. Also no, they aren't taught to aim at the "center mass", you aim for the arm carrying the weapon to disable if they are armed while not hitting any vital points. They train them to be precise shooters (even the volunteers! we don't want someone who can't aim to be toting a gun), not run-of-the-mill "hope I get you in the right ballpark" shooters. In the event that they decide to fire back then you may shoot to kill. Then again, most cops around here aren't just carrying some 9mm pistol. Some have to carry semi-automatics since most criminals are better armed than the police force themselves, so usually only the daring try to go against the cops. Again, that doesn't really relate to what is being discussed.

I'm calling Bull Shit. I want to see proof of this because it is completely opposite to everything I have ever been taught or known to be taught to the police (both civilian and military police).

There are other tools at the officers disposal if deadly force is not warranted or necessary.

Quote:

Some have to carry semi-automatics since most criminals are better armed than the police force themselves, so usually only the daring try to go against the cops.

Semi-automatic what? Semi-automatic just means that it reloads another round after you pull the trigger... most police pistols are semi-automatic.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by crabman

Ok, my beef with the guy is he shot two men THREE times. I'm pretty sure there are only three reasons why someone would do that.

1. He shot a warning shot, given that he shot 3 rounds in rapid succession I'm pretty sure this isn't it. If it was a warning shot it would have been "Bang, Move you're dead", not Boom, click, boom, click, boom.

You don't know where they were shot. One could have taken a shot to the face and the other took two in the gut/leg/arm/choose random body part. We don't know.

Originally Posted by crabman

2. He missed. Yeah.... Standing 10-12 feet away from a target with a very big gun. Don't think so.

As I stated before at that range there would be little to no dispersion of the buckshot. That means you have better be aiming correctly to hit the target. There is also no information on how he fired the shotgun (hip or shoulder) or whether he had to back up while making the second and third shot.

Originally Posted by crabman

3. He shot to kill. Probably it. Shot a guy once, he fell on the ground and didn't move anymore. Shot the second guy, he yells many obscenities (I would supposed). By now, I would accept that he shot the two men based on self defense. I mean he probably accidently killed the first guy. But he fired that third shot and killed the third guy who's obviously not a threat seeing as how he just got shot with a shotgun.

He's a trigger happy murderer.

There is a lot of missing information regarding what happened those final few seconds. I think you are jumping the gun on labeling this man as a murder.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Arainach

Deliberation AND Premeditation were both present here, as he went outside to confront them. It wasn't in self-defense as he provoked them. Strikes me as meeting the definition of murder.

You've already condemned the man before he has even set foot in a court room. What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Obviously my point earlier was missed upon you. He has neither been charged with nor convicted of any crime yet but quite a few of you are so eager to label this man a murder when you have incomplete information on the situation.

I was speaking idiomatically.