Man Shot Dead After Allegedly Seen Trying To Drown Babies In Tub

a reply to: DAVID64

Actually, the first two shots should be to wound, with a final to kill.

This might not be the case for everywhere, but at my school they trained the ROTC's to fire 3 times, every target, every time.

If you hit a shoulderblade, they're going to have severely damaged nervous system and will also survive.

The same instructors at that program would probably recommend shooting this person in the head though. I just do not agree you NEVER EVER EVER shoot to wound. 2 good shots can take anyone down without killing and 80% of gunshot patients survive medical treatment afterwards.

a reply to: iTruthSeeker
If this had happened in Europe, those poor babies, and the mother would be dead. Thank God we have the second amendment and the right to defend ourselves and others around us.

This man had a history of psychotic violence it seems.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

"Good shoot" is a little over the top. I imagine the neighbor will be charged for murder or manslaughter. Regardless of the circumstance, I'm not sure you can just shoot and kill someone without consequence.

I'd like to see the jury that would convict a man for saving two babies from a psychopath.

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
a reply to: DAVID64

Actually, the first two shots should be to wound, with a final to kill.

This might not be the case for everywhere, but at my school they trained the ROTC's to fire 3 times, every target, every time.

If you hit a shoulderblade, they're going to have severely damaged nervous system and will also survive.

The same instructors at that program would probably recommend shooting this person in the head though. I just do not agree you NEVER EVER EVER shoot to wound. 2 good shots can take anyone down without killing and 80% of gunshot patients survive medical treatment afterwards.

There have been many instances of people taking 10+ shots to VITAL organs and still continuing to fight. Shots to the arms or legs don't do a thing unless it is a very lucky hit, which is very hard to do under stress. The reason why they teach to shoot center of mass is because it gives you the greatest chance of even hitting the person, along with in vital areas to make them stop.

Some stops are psychological stops, which means the suspect stopped because he gave up. Some people will stop with a leg shot or any shot yes, but people who are determined will not stop by those same hits. Shooting to guarantee a stop means hitting spots that shut him down due to blood loss/loss of consciousness, or instantly (not all the time) with head shots. Shots to the legs and arms is Hollywood in most cases.

originally posted by: paraphi
Note that there is the word "allegedly".

If it is found that he was not trying to drown babies is it justified that he was shot, and killed?

"Allegedly" is put there only to protect the people making or writing the report.

originally posted by: Lagomorphe
I would have shot him a couple of times in the legs so that he got a chance to check out the hospitality of prison and what the inmates would do to him for the rest of his days whilst he tries to struggle and flee in his wheelchair...

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

That would just be a waste of taxpayer money. Hell, the two shots he fired was worth more than this scumbag. One in the back of the head would have sufficed.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
"Allegedly" is put there only to protect the people making or writing the report.

"Allegedly" is a word used when the facts are not proven. In this case the facts will (I assume) be exposed at the Inquest.