[WBenson]

Sherminator333 Sherminator333:

Or at least just shoot them in the legs.

In some places, that's worse than shooting to kill. Shooting to maim proves that they weren't enough of a danger for you to need to completely incapacitate them and can thus inculpate you.

[Tricks]

Shooting in the legs is hollywood BS. No one actually does that.

[Ex-Expat]

tritium tritium:

I would have to assume so. More than once when I lived in Arlington, TX I witnessed crimes where I didn't just call the police, but became active in detaining the criminal.

Ha! Good for you. You acted to help make your neighbourhood a better place. I'd be glad to have you as a neighbour. I'm of the strong belief that part of being a good citizen is watching out for your neighbourhood and doing everything you can to put a stop to the low-lifes that drag society down with their nonsense. I've seen how badly an area can get sucked down into slumhood when people don't get involved with police and/or take action against it.

tritium tritium:

Another time I walked around the corner and a guy busted a window in a vehicle, he was trying to rip off the stereo. I told him to stop, he tried to rush me. I carry, and he ended up in the hospital.

Brav-o!!!
Another idiot who deserved what he got. Attack an innocent person, risk getting injured.

tritium tritium:

I faced no criminal prosecution for that incident.

The fella who was also a resident of the apt. complex was charged by the police and evicted by the apartment manager.

Exactly as it should be. And if it went down this way every time, there'd be a lot less crime for everyone to contend with.

To me, the debate is less about whether John Horn had the right to do what he did when it wasn't self defence, and more about whether law-abiding citizens should be expected to keep taking this crap lying down.

Every action you ever take has inherent risks, which you have accepted if you make that choice. I think the minute you set out to go commit a crime and victimize somebody, you have chosen to accept the risk that police or a citizen could catch you at it and do whatever it takes to stop you if you won't stop.

[Brenda]

$1:

Shooting in the legs is hollywood BS. No one actually does that.

In North America maybe. In Europe police is trained to shout to wound, not to kill.

[WBenson]

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

Shooting in the legs is hollywood BS. No one actually does that.

In North America maybe. In Europe police is trained to shout to wound, not to kill.

Unless they can immediately shoot a gun out of someone's hand, then they're being counterproductive.

If someone is enough of a threat to you that you must use deadly force to deal with them, make sure it's aimed to kill, because if it doesn't they're still a threat.

[Tricks]

Brenda Brenda:

$1:

Shooting in the legs is hollywood BS. No one actually does that.

In North America maybe. In Europe police is trained to shout to wound, not to kill.

That's Dangerous.

[SprCForr]

You might be able to wound someone at a range of 10' or less, but past that all bets are off. Pistols just don't have that sort of accuracy in a situation such as that unless you're a "J"/SAS/Delta level shooter.

[Brenda]

If Dutch police kills somebody who should only have been stopped, they have a huge problem.

yep, justice system sucks.

[WBenson]

Brenda Brenda:

If Dutch police kills somebody who should only have been stopped, they have a huge problem.

yep, justice system sucks.

Well, someone who should only have been stopped shouldn't have deadly force used on them, so that would be a problem.

[Brenda]

WBenson WBenson:

Brenda Brenda:

If Dutch police kills somebody who should only have been stopped, they have a huge problem.

yep, justice system sucks.

Well, someone who should only have been stopped shouldn't have deadly force used on them, so that would be a problem.

That is the only way they are allowed to shoot. To stop. Most of the time, that means to wound too...

I guess I used the wrong words before...

[sasquatch2]

Sorta funny i have been acquainted with Dutch, French and German police. They were all crack shots, and very no-nonsence. On the street with only a pistol, if they shoot they shoot to kill. With some of the lovelies they deal with, wounding is an invitation to becoming a statistic.

The Dutch and German Police do not carry P38's/P1's to keep their balance. If they fire and only wound....they missed.

[Brenda]

Well, most of the times, they just don't shoot. They negociate. If they shoot, and kill, they will be investigated, and likely procecuted for murder.

[Ex-Expat]

I stand corrected, as I initially misread the post regarding the 2 people being shot in the back and citing the Pasadena article. My apologies for rejecting that piece of information the first time around.

WBenson WBenson:

Well, someone who should only have been stopped shouldn't have deadly force used on them, so that would be a problem.

Yes, better to let known criminals have a chance to get away and terrorize more people because we're too afraid the bullet might miss their legs and kill them instead. Because after all, it would be such a tragedy to have one less career criminal running the streets victimizing the innocent, even if it is by accident.

I think that if somebody is spotted committing a crime, they should be apprehended by any means necessary. Note the key word, necessary. John Horn yelled for them to stop. If they had stopped, no further action necessary. Wait for police to arrive and take them away. But they did not, and their long criminal records show that had they gotten away, they would have gone on to victimize others. Their decision not to stop put Mr. Horn in the position of allowing them to get away or doing what he could to stop them.

Now, let me at this point remind you that he had a *shotgun*. All this talk of shooting them in the leg, hand, etc. as some people here have suggested is preposterous.

[WBenson]

Ex-Expat Ex-Expat:

WBenson WBenson:

Well, someone who should only have been stopped shouldn't have deadly force used on them, so that would be a problem.

Yes, better to let known criminals have a chance to get away and terrorize more people because we're too afraid the bullet might miss their legs and kill them instead. Because after all, it would be such a tragedy to have one less career criminal running the streets victimizing the innocent, even if it is by accident.

I think you misunderstood me. I meant that if a situation calls for deadly force, then it should be deadly, not "maimy."

[WBenson]

Brenda Brenda:

Well, most of the times, they just don't shoot. They negociate. If they shoot, and kill, they will be investigated, and likely procecuted for murder.

So if someone aims a gun at a police officer, that officer can't protect himself? (Shooting to maim wouldn't actually protect him)