|
The article is interesting on a theoretical level.
Practically, I will shoot till the threat is no longer a threat. Since he initiated the action by presenting a situation requiring lethal force, unless I am hit and put down, I will determine when he is no longer a threat.
If I were on a jury in a shooting case, I would be pretty lenient in my interpretation of how long the officer applied deadly force, as long as he was justified in initiating it.
Essentially, if you give me a reason to kill you, why would it matter if I shot you twice or five times (as long as I was hitting the threat)?
One other thing that I did not see in the study is the inclination for people to start shooting when their fellow soldiers or officers do, and continue till everyone else stops.
TR
__________________
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910
De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
|