Quote:
Originally Posted by Wallaroo
Leg shots are not considered to be lethal by courts and authorities here in Denmark, since people usually don't die from them - and I believe that most european courts approve both warning and leg shots. In fact, a european court would most likely question why a gun carrier didn't fire a warning and/or a leg shot first if there was time for it, and he/she couldn't run away.
Lets make up a little fantasy scenario where you are in a blind alley with nowhere to run, and 3 guys with knives approach you slowly from 20 meters away. Wouldn't you under those circumstances find it more ethical and morally correct to shoot for their legs first?
|
I seriously doubt that this is the case in any developed country in the world. A firearm is deadly force no matter what. If a person does not have a right to use deadly force in a given situation he or she cannot discharge a firearm. Officers are always trained to shoot for center mass. Even modern handguns are inaccurate in the best of hands, so the likelihood of missing is too great to try to aim for a moving person's legs. I once read that the average accuracy rate of police officers who had fired shots on duty was well under 20%. You simply will not be able to pick off a small moving target like that. It isn't anything like what you see on television. When the adrenaline rush and tunnel vision set in officers cannot afford to dick around by try to wound somebody because it will more than likely result in the officer or somebody else getting hurt or killed. The officer has a whole host of other less than lethal options he can use if deadly force is not necessary.