> Ok, let's give the benefit of the doubt to the cops (I
> dont want to do that but let's do it for the sake of
> pursuing another line of argument) and say that the
> cop had a right to protect himself and use his gun.
> Why
> did he have to shoot her in the chest? Why not shoot
> her in the arm or some other non-lethal area of the
> body in order to disable her? It is disputed by
> witneses, but the cop says that he warned the woman a
> few times before shooting. Wouldn't that give him
> time enough to think about a non-lethal way of
> subduing her?
Despite Hollywood's portrayal, msot cops are not that good of shots. Hitting a limb, possibly moving, is *difficult*. Add to it that the cop was probably nervous, it is surprising that he hit her at all with just one shot.
The real question is why didn't he use a billy club to knock her down (assuming his threat assessment was accurate), or use pepper spray, or some other non-lethal weapon.
Around here the cops practice at the range each here with a few hundred rounds of ammo. Each *YEAR*. If they want to pay their own way and do more, sure they can, but that is all that is required. Most citizen target shooters will shoot that much in a couple of hours during an afternoon. Your average cop is a far, far worse shot than the average gun nut. A few years ago our city cops tried to take down a gang-banger and shot at him about 200 times and wounded two innocents, never hitting the bad guy. Eventually a Sheriff's Deputy or Bailiff came out of the courthouse and caught the guy.
The fact that most cops are so poorly prepared to use their gun, yet never held personally acocuntable, is quite disturbing. No average citizen can shoot a small, cooking intrument wielding woman and get away with it on silly self-defense grounds, so why should a cop?
Matt
-- PGP RSA Key ID: 0x1F6A4471 aim: beyondzero123 PGP DH/DSS Key ID: 0xAFF35DF2 icq: 120941588 http://blogdayafternoon.com yahoo msg: beyondzero123
This is a good game, it's called, The Truth.
-Dimitri Moisevitch