Remy... I don't agree with everything he said but it's always center mass... Shoot to stop.
Cops are trained, military are trained, CCP classes, all center mass
When the time comes to pull a trigger its for lethal force.
They teach center mass for a reason... under stress and adrenaline... You'll miss.
The military now teaches a three shot engagement, two center mass, one head due to PPE.
This case never needed lethal force... but once engaged it is center mass to stop the threat.
He said kill which is wrong... you shoot to stop... but only as an absolute final option.
You are right about law suits... You shoot a guy you're getting sued, live or die.
Best to find any option not too... in my opinion this guy was wrong... maybe not criminal under the law... but no one should have died in this incident.
Again, I understand the concept but I disagree with the application in this instance. The fundamental issue is that you are taking a military tactic and putting it in a civilian context. Center mass makes perfect sense in the context of a battlefield or war zone where you can be reasonably certain the person you are shooting at is a threat to your life because they are on the opposing side of a violent conflict.
In a civilian context where there is a lot of gray, you are basically militarizing people by giving them license to shoot to kill as if they are on a battlefield and things are black and white. And make no mistake, center mass to a civilian is most likely going to lead to death so calling it shoot to stop is just a euphemism for killing. Shoot to stop might make sense in a military context where your enemy may have body armour because they are a soldier but in the civilian context, it's pretty much shooting to kill.
That is the inherent contradiction in this theory when applied to civilians. You are telling me you teach people to shoot center mass because under stress and adrenaline, they might miss but ignore the fact that same stress and adrenaline will lead to people erroneously perceiving threats to their life where there are none and then shooting to kill to end that perceived threat. All you have created then is a self fulfilling prophecy where more people die due to avoidable gun incidents because you have given people the impression that it's ok to make poor decisions under stress and adrenaline. You also allow them to walk around freely with these guns with no requirement to train them on how to use that gun under stress or duress properly.
It's laughable. You spend millions and millions of dollars training soldiers to use their weapons properly when they are fighting foreign enemies but then allow civilians to walk around with a license to kill and absolutely no training on how to properly exercise that right. They have all the power and none of the responsibility so long as they perceived a threat.
So this is simple to me. You have a gun. The responsibility is yours to use only as a last resort. If you end up killing someone and can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the threat was lethal then you go to jail end of story. Otherwise, you will invariably continue to embolden people to acquire the power over life and death by buying a gun with no responsibility to use it wisely.
