NY: "Shoot to wound" Bill?

[Sefner]

"Further,
the number of times an officer shoots a person should not exceed the
minimal number necessary to stop the person. If one shot accomplishes
the purpose, it is neither necessary or appropriate for an officer to
empty his barrel."

This is the scariness of many policy-makes. People with little to no (or even false) background, training, experience, or credentials on an issue making policy about how it should be done. It would be humorous if it wasn't so serious I agree with several previous posters on how it is simply political posturing.

On the race subject, my area (South-East Michigan) is going through it right now with the 7 year old girl tragically killed in the Detroit police raid. It is a very complex and sensitive issue and it is muddied even further by people ON BOTH SIDES slinging misinformation, emotional arguments, and mud. We have some people here saying that "Well they wouldn't have thrown a flashbang into a white home" and other people saying "*insert racism here*" and other people saying that the DPD are a "testing ground" for future ATF raids and federal take-overs to push the law of police brutality and civil rights (I kid you not, that one was even from someone in the Gun community).

So I really appreciate it when Glenn says to know the literature and background of an issue like racism in law enforcement before entering the conversation. Because not knowing the background leads to statements like the above.

On the other hand, I also appreciate when someone like LanceOregon stands up and says "Look, these policies and actions taken by these people in the name of race is kind of wrong". Like Glenn alluded to, impartiality is what is needed in cases of racism like this. But when people do come out and start attention whoring for whoever will listen to their poisonous drivel, there needs to be some people who say "look, this race thing is ridiculous".

Back to OP's topic, I see this almost as an educational opportunity. If someone thinks the government should be regulating things like this, point out this one and say "how is this even remotely a good idea?". Most people will understand what Lance said:

However, from a PRACTICAL point of view, I think that such a strategy would be extremely flawed. After all, how big a target is the human hip joint?

Handguns are not anywhere near as accurate as rifles. And they don't do anywhere near as much damage. On top of that, big game hunters usually shoot still or near still animals, while a criminal is usually not going to be sitting still waiting to be shot.

and

a shot to the leg or groin can be quite fatal should the femoral artery be severed.

But again, this is all just her posturing.

 

[Nickel Plated]

Even if this passes (which is not happening), I don't see it having any realistic effect on anything.

Judge: Officer, why did you shoot Mr. What'shisname in the chest instead of aiming for the legs?

Cop: I did aim for the legs but he kept moving and I missed and hit his chest.

There would be no real way of telling whether the cop really tried aiming for the extremities. Besides cops usually don't have too much trouble getting out of a unjustified shooting trial with nothing more than a desk assignment for a few weeks. Unless there is just completely overwhelming evidence against them.

I live in NYC and I can tell that if this law were to pass the cops will brew up a s**t-storm so big the entire legislature will drown in it.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Hey, Brooklyn guy - I'm from Brooklyn by birth. Don't try to beat the language filters. We Brooklyn guys have to show some class!

Flatbush is in my blood still!

GEM