Reply #1: When I was in the Army, you had better have a damn good reason [View All]

[rasputin1952]

for using deadly force; and if you did, you first attempted to disable the individual with a round before going for a kill shot.

The reasoning behind this was remarkably simple: You wanted the perpetrator alive so you could get answers/info. This is not to say deadly force was not justified in some instances, but it takes a degree of intelligence to know when to use it. In this case, from what I have read, there were at least 5 other ways to deal with the situation, before head shots were used. If someone felt that the use of firearms was warranted, a shot to the femur most certainly would have incapacitated this individual. I'm not even sure if a warning shot was fired, in almost every case where an individual is not a severe threat, a warning shot will advise him/her that you are serious, and the next shot will be at them.

I made sure, as an NCO, that my guards knew it was imperative that the regulations were followed to a 'T'. One would think a professional organization, like a police force, would have the same sense.

Such is the power of unrestrained fear...even those who should know better, lose what sense they possess; to add to the horror, there are those who would justify this and other acts, as 'protection'...right up to the point where they become the target...:(