Biden and his "shoot 'em in the leg" statements

[Catman51]

Having heard Biden make this statement several times, I was wondering if others found it as stupid as I do.

Comments?

 

[Oddball]

Stupid AF...He might just as well have said "cops should set phasers to stun".

 

[ImAlwaysRight]

Just about every statement Biden makes is stupid!

 

[harmonica]

1. shooting pistols is not easy--even at close range--even at non-threatening targets
2. hitting center mass is not easy
3. police are not known for '''accuracy'''
4. sure, people can train a lot more than the police, and hit the NON-THREATENING targets and do '''trick''' shooting
5. Biden is not the only one ignorant of the subject

John Paul Stevens interrupted the oral arguments in Tennessee v. Garner to ask why the officer involved could not have aimed at a leg or arm or otherwise "shot to wound" the fleeing Garner

https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/208/2016/08/Biological-Limits-to-Police-Combat-Handgun-Shooting-Accuracy.pdf

A Hail of Bullets, a Heap of Uncertainty (Published 2007)

Police often don’t hit their target, but not because of bad aim.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Juicin]

Having heard Biden make this statement several times, I was wondering if others found it as stupid as I do.

Comments?

there is a basic legal problem in that shooting to maim implies they weren't that much of a threat

shoot to kill backs a theoretical self/protection defense much more strongly.

If you just shoot him in the leg it weakens your justification of the shooting. Whether you're a cop or a citizen

 

[AZrailwhale]

A leg is also a very difficult target to hit in the real world. When you miss, the round is likely to hit an innocent bystander instead.

 

[22lcidw]

Joe is most likely trying to be in the middle on this issue. Most issues in politics is all or nothing it seems. Being in the middle may not welcome approval by many on all sides.

 

[harmonica]

A leg is also a very difficult target to hit in the real world. When you miss, the round is likely to hit an innocent bystander instead.

..they miss while aiming center mass

 

[LordBrownTrout]

What idiot would aim for the leg? This has to be the dementia talking.

 

[Catman51]

What idiot would aim for the leg? This has to be the dementia talking.

Some how, I doubt that Biden has ever fired a gun in a stressful situation, or fired a gun at all.

 

[night_son]

1. shooting pistols is not easy--even at close range--even at non-threatening targets
2. hitting center mass is not easy
3. police are not known for '''accuracy'''
4. sure, people can train a lot more than the police, and hit the NON-THREATENING targets and do '''trick''' shooting
5. Biden is not the only one ignorant of the subject

John Paul Stevens interrupted the oral arguments in Tennessee v. Garner to ask why the officer involved could not have aimed at a leg or arm or otherwise "shot to wound" the fleeing Garner

https://s3.wp.wsu.edu/uploads/sites/208/2016/08/Biological-Limits-to-Police-Combat-Handgun-Shooting-Accuracy.pdf

A Hail of Bullets, a Heap of Uncertainty (Published 2007)

Police often don’t hit their target, but not because of bad aim.

www.nytimes.com

This^^^

I have run many military range sessions over the years for soldier skill levels ranging from recruit to seasoned infantrymen and combat engineers—to army rangers and special forces. Even the most talented shooters among all of these men and women can and do have "off" days, weeks—even months. I am a walking, talking treasure trove of range and kill house horror stories, involving friendly and self-inflicted fire incidents.

Both the military and law enforcement agencies, for the sweeping most part, train their people to shoot center mass, not for the best kill shot or even to wound an enemy combatant and force two of his buddies to care for him, and carry him off the field. They train center mass because center mass aiming provides the highest percent chance for a "hit" of any kind on the human body. Certain specialized military and federal police units train for "peeking" headshots, but can you imagine the woke crowd's response to police aiming for a suspect's head?

Leg, arm and other extremity aimed shots are quite possible. But not in the heat of conflict, even at range. Chances are the operator would miss or his munition would achieve over penetration and cause collateral damage. Such trick shots are great for Hollywood action heroes, but not for real life trigger time.

 

[Shawnee_b]

Biden gives stupid a bad name.

 

[Billy_Bob]

The whole point of using deadly force is to stop forward progression/aggression. Center mass is the best way to do this...

Biden is an IDIOT!

 

[Zorro!]

Having heard Biden make this statement several times, I was wondering if others found it as stupid as I do.

Comments?

Yes. Biden Family Crime Boss, Joe Biden is a first rate moron.


BIDEN’S SHOOT IN LEG PROPOSAL: Proof He Doesn’t Understand Or Appreciate Police Work.

Biden is suggesting that instead of aiming for a big stationary target like the criminal’s chest, go for a tiny moving target like the leg. In other words, make it more likely that even a sharpshooting officer misses the target.

He clearly has no sense of what a heart rate tacking toward 200 bpm does to fine motor skills.

Joe, it’s real-life, not a crime drama. A cop doesn’t use the lethal force of shooting a criminal unless it’s needed and justified. The gun is not used as a scare tactic; it’s used as a last resort to save lives. Most police officers go through their whole careers of 20, 30, or more years and never discharge their weapons. But there is always a chance of being confronted by a bad guy with a gun.

Small wonder not a SINGLE police group supports this corrupt clown.

 

[Natural Citizen]

You should never, ever, ever draw your weapon unless your life is threatened. Based on that one fundamental rule, in every instance you draw your weapon, you shoot to kill.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Of course, so many police have a sort of entitlement mentality these days. Thank all of the hero worship for that mindset. So, they're often very arbitrary in determining whether their life is actually being threatened.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

I agree with the spirit of what Biden is saying. I think it would be reasonable moving forward to have a greater emphasis on non-lethal methods when applicable.

 

[AZrailwhale]

I agree with the spirit of what Biden is saying. I think it would be reasonable moving forward to have a greater emphasis on non-lethal methods when applicable.

I don’t think anyone would disagree with you. Some kind of science fiction stunner would be a godsend to police and security work. But nothing like that exists. Even a tazer can be lethal to some people.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

I agree with the spirit of what Biden is saying. I think it would be reasonable moving forward to have a greater emphasis on non-lethal methods when applicable.

I don’t think anyone would disagree with you. Some kind of science fiction stunner would be a godsend to police and security work. But nothing like that exists. Even a tazer can be lethal to some people.

Police officers have very difficult and dangerous jobs, I fully realize that, and I know that they don't have the luxury of hindsight when they are out doing their jobs, however, I do think it's reasonable to consider making more sincere attempts to lessen the chance of a deadly encounter. "Shoot them in the leg" probably comes across as either ignorant or insulting or both to many cops out there, but the concept is reasonable and necessary in my opinion. De-escalation practices and non-lethal force does not need to be considered wishful thinking for modern day policing in my personal opinion.

 

[PatriotJohn888]

I agree with the spirit of what Biden is saying. I think it would be reasonable moving forward to have a greater emphasis on non-lethal methods when applicable.

I don’t think anyone would disagree with you. Some kind of science fiction stunner would be a godsend to police and security work. But nothing like that exists. Even a tazer can be lethal to some people.

Police officers have very difficult and dangerous jobs, I fully realize that, and I know that they don't have the luxury of hindsight when they are out doing their jobs, however, I do think it's reasonable to consider making more sincere attempts to lessen the chance of a deadly encounter. "Shoot them in the leg" probably comes across as either ignorant or insulting or both to many cops out there, but the concept is reasonable and necessary in my opinion. De-escalation practices and non-lethal force does not need to be considered wishful thinking for modern day policing in my personal opinion.

I do appreciate what you are saying and while that sounds noble, it just isn't the most realistic solution given "modern day" criminals and crime. I'll give you this analogy.

Going to prison is no longer a deterrent to many criminals. That is obvious when you look at the number of incarcerated people in this country. While I am not for torture and enslavement, prison needs to be a feared consequence once again. Basic human instinct is to avoid activities that lead to terrible consequences.

I view policing the same way in a lot of ways. If you raise a gun to a cop, you should expect to die. If you punch a cop, you should expect a trip to the hospital.

Those who want to have prisoners do easy time and those who want cops to be soft on criminals are taking away the deterrent and in my opinion contributing to the escalation of crime and criminal behavior. I know people mean well, but it aint working. Its making it worse.