They should not shoot shooter's dead when they can stop them by shooting their body parts. They need to be alive to get info from them, agree?

Question

Why can't they shoot him in the hand carrying the gun? In the arms, legs to stop them? What good are they to us if they are dead and we can't get any information from them or find out if there are people who paid him to attempt to assassinate president Trump or any other shooters that shoot school children, stores, etc.
Shouldn't they just disable them and not kill them? We need them to talk to get information from them. What good are they dead?

Keyboardkat · Accepted Answer

The main thing here is to stop him immediately. At that moment, we don't know if there are others around ready to start shooting also. At least he's not something to worry further about!

exitseven · Accepted Answer

Itois not like you see on TV when the cop shoots the gun out of the bad guy's hand. The Secret Service takes no chances. It is hard to shoot the gun out of somebody's hand.

MysticDevice · Answer

Its hard enough to hit a target thats not moving right in front of you.

The secret service sniper who made the shot probably spent years honing his skill.

Its way harder to shoot a rifle than you'd think.

Distance, wind, bullet drop, humidity, barrel flex, breathing, heartbeat, sweat, grip, finger position on the trigger, bullet weight, powder charge, etc. There are so many factors at play when firing a rifle that can affect your shot.

As far as aiming for the legs, there's so many blood vessels there the perp could bleed out before anyone got to him.

Shooting to incapacitate and keep them alive just isn't feasable.

Daniela1982 · Answer

Because they are not on a shooting range where they can have steady hands and gun sights so that they can get a good shot. In a situation like a shooter, where other people may be killed if they are just wounded, they have to end the threat fast, and killing them is the best way to do that.

Nirmroth · Answer

The priority is preventing the shooter to cause any further damage to human life. This is done the quickest by shooting at vital parts that will kill him.

If you shoot him in the leg he will be in shock but can continue shooting. The hands are just to small of a target which leaves only the torso as biggest target. If a high calibre sniper shot goes trough your chest, you ain't standing up afterwards.

TonyMetal___86 · Answer

Agreed miss sage!

He got what he deserved, but sometimes you sit and think about why someone does such terribles things, he wasted his life and killed others, for what?

At least these innocent people who were shot are going to heaven but he will rot in hell, so no life here and in the after life, it's all suffering, that's if he will ever have an afterlife!

Kori1236 · Answer

If there’s a threat you take the kill shot. It’s much easier to aim for a head or rather the upper body since there’s more surface area to cover. But a threat like that, that could cause more casualties is something you don’t risk.

purplepoppy · Answer

A hunter will often withhold shooting if he cannot guarantee a clean kill, often letting his quarry escape. However with shooters they don't have the luxury of time nor should they have the burden of an investigation should their non lethal shot actually kill.

I think these people already have a difficult job without us putting another layer onto it. But I do think if they survive, treatment should be withheld until they give up information.

meepmeeperton · Answer

It depends on the situation really. A lot of the time shooting and killing active shooter is the fastest way to stop them, and the biggest concern at that time is simply stopping them from killing more people. Info about motives can be collected later when searching their house from journals and stuff like that.

RetroReviews · Answer

If possible they should but in the heat of the moment when bullets are zinging at you your survival instinct kicks in as in kill or be killed. I go back to Marion Cobretti when he said "as long as we gotta play by these BS rules and the killer doesn't then we're gonna lose'

Berethor · Answer

I think that you been watching too much movies. 🙂

genericname85 · Answer

I think sparing the shooters life is secondary to protecting the life's of the people who are put in danger by the shooter. and honestly I think it would be relatively difficult to take a very quick shot while making sure that you don't hit them fatally. that would take way more time.

Surely · Answer

I am sure that the Secret Service personnel are taught to eliminate the treat. ASAP. Since the possible future president and bystanders were at risk. A thirty caliber bullet or a 338 lapua, in a critical area. Would do just that, as quickly as possible.

TommyMountainFigure · Answer

The problem with that is, there are those who say they deserve a trial. Once they're dead.. look at how much money is saved on lawyers fees and prison etc.

dustybiker2 · Answer

How would they have pulled that off say at the Nevada concert shooting? It doesn't matter what a shooter has to say. Neutralize a significant threat asap. Even England would.

Anonymous · Answer

When there's a threat the rule is always shoot to kill. They are aiming at the largest part of the body to make sure they don't miss. If they had missed one shot it's possible he could have killed another person before they were able to shoot him again, so they do everything the can to make sure they hit him.

FunkyMonkee · Answer

Well, maybe they missed their target the same way he did.

AviatorTom · Answer

The goal is to disable the shooter. A head shot is tye best way to do that. Police are trained to shoot to kill, not wound, since that's the best way to disable the shooter in any situation.

NathanDavis · Answer

torture and propaganda do not mix that very well...

worldscolide · Answer

Do you have any idea how much harder it is to shoot limbs VS center mass? Life is not a movie where that can be done consistantly.

LiamJHayden · Answer

In an ideal world, yes, but the first priority has to be to end the threat.

Danny_dan92 · Answer

Depending on the caliber used, that won’t matter… honestly. Also you realize how difficult it is to hit a shooter’s hand vs say, their head? Much more difficult

Avicenna · Answer

I'm pretty sure the rules of engagement are to neutralize the threat as rapidly as possible.

LunarEclipse433 · Answer

This is obviously written by some dim wit that has never had to actually shoot to protect their life or the life of another. Until you have, sit on the side line and enjoy your ice cream.

Dongie · Answer

Completely.

They should not shoot shooter's dead when they can stop them by shooting their body parts. They need to be alive to get info from them, agree?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

They should not shoot shooter's dead when they can stop them by shooting their body parts. They need to be alive to get info from them, agree?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

We're glad to see you liked this post.