What if, in response to say the N. Hollywood shootout, the dearly departed Mr. Wilson has just drawn a bead on Arroyo's head and fired an intended coup d' grace?
It was reported that from the cover he had, Wilson wasn't noticed by the shooter until he had struck him with his .45 using a "standard," and in the end, ineffective, string of fire consisting of two COM shots and some sort of assessment.
Do you think had he just shot at his head trying to attain a hit in case the shooter was wearing body armor, that:
He could have been successful in eight or nine shots on a moving target?
Assuming success, he would have gotten in legal trouble for the tactic?
I only ask the second question because of the Problem 2 it presents. Without shooting a perp, or being in some sort of contact fight first, you cannot know if he is employing body armor.
If you presume in light of current events, that until proven otherwise your perp is wearing body armor, it could be said that instead of "shooting to stop," you have crossed the threshold into "shooting to kill."
Semantics? Maybe, but what if you make the presumption of body armor and shoot a guy who just turned out to be depressed and waving an Airsoft before you put three into his skull?
It was reported that from the cover he had, Wilson wasn't noticed by the shooter until he had struck him with his .45 using a "standard," and in the end, ineffective, string of fire consisting of two COM shots and some sort of assessment.
Do you think had he just shot at his head trying to attain a hit in case the shooter was wearing body armor, that:
He could have been successful in eight or nine shots on a moving target?
Assuming success, he would have gotten in legal trouble for the tactic?
I only ask the second question because of the Problem 2 it presents. Without shooting a perp, or being in some sort of contact fight first, you cannot know if he is employing body armor.
If you presume in light of current events, that until proven otherwise your perp is wearing body armor, it could be said that instead of "shooting to stop," you have crossed the threshold into "shooting to kill."
Semantics? Maybe, but what if you make the presumption of body armor and shoot a guy who just turned out to be depressed and waving an Airsoft before you put three into his skull?