• Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Even if she came out with a bat/knife, they didn’t try to hit anything else? Leg, arm, shoulder, nothing?

    Aiming for center of mass is a pretty universal bit of firearm training. Doesn’t excuse their reaction, but it is what you should be doing if you’re gonna fire on someone. Going for legs or arms or a headshot means you’re more likely to miss.

    • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Even civilian concealed carry training has some hands-on courses to teach why it is trained this way. You’re also taught, “only draw your weapon if you have intent to kill,” which is sobering in and of itself.

      This leads to the bigger question: why does US cop training paint every scenario as “time to pull out the hammer, I see a nail!”? That’s fundamentally wrong at its very core. “Oh, shit, an acorn! blam! blam! blam!

      It seems the very antithesis of the US legal tenet “innocent until proven guilty” as one can’t be innocent nor proven guilty if they’re already dead.

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah, the issue isn’t that the cops didn’t shoot an arm or a leg, but that they shot at all. There’s the whole “Be sure of your target and what’s behind it” that they didn’t seem to learn.