I understand that the perpetrator was a significant threat and that rising his arms did little to de-escalate. However, he seemed unarmed. Would it not have been more appropriate to shoot him several times in the legs? Had not a couple of shots in his lower legs rendered him immobile? Of course, he would probably still be agressive, but - at least - our hero had hopefully less legal worries.
I understand that the perpetrator was a significant threat and that rising his arms did little to de-escalate. However, he seemed unarmed. Would it not have been more appropriate to shoot him several times in the legs? Had not a couple of shots in his lower legs rendered him immobile? Of course, he would probably still be agressive, but - at least - our hero had hopefully less legal worries.
I have had cases where an unarmed person killed someone. Also, shooting someone in the legs only works in the movies. There’s a great video of a person shooting another in a leg to stop them during an assault similar to this. That same person died after the bullet hit his femoral artery and he bled out quickly.
I understand that the perpetrator was a significant threat and that rising his arms did little to de-escalate. However, he seemed unarmed. Would it not have been more appropriate to shoot him several times in the legs? Had not a couple of shots in his lower legs rendered him immobile? Of course, he would probably still be agressive, but - at least - our hero had hopefully less legal worries.
I have had cases where an unarmed person killed someone. Also, shooting someone in the legs only works in the movies. There’s a great video of a person shooting another in a leg to stop them during an assault similar to this. That same person died after the bullet hit his femoral artery and he bled out quickly.