Saturday, November 29, 2014

Why Professionals Don’t “Shoot To Wound”

 
CSM Robert Prosser, Mosul, Iraq, and an Iraq Insurgent that he shot four times, and who still fought him in hand-to-hand combat. The insurgent survived.

After a self-defense shooting where the aggressor dies, we often hear the same questions asked time and again.

“He didn’t have a weapon. Why was he shot in the chest/head?”

“He only had a bat/knife/fist. Why wasn’t he shot in the shoulder/arm?”

“Why didn’t they just shooting him in the arm/leg?”

When specifically discussing a shooting involving a uniformed law enforcement officer with his duty belt full of tools, we often hear, “Why didn’t they use pepper spray/nightstick/taser instead of a gun?”

One person in a unique position to answer that question is Michael Yon.

12 comments:

  1. No such thing as a fair fight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You certainly don't want one these days unless dueling was brought back, but then that would only work for honorable men who few and far between these days.

      Delete
  2. Here the way I figgure it,...if someone makes you point a gun at them and pull the trigger, then you do it to end the fight. If death occurs as a result, then maybe the bad guy shouldnt have made you shoot him. We choose not to be victims and if somebody wants to victimize us getting shot and killed is the consequence the bad guys face.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When I was shot in my upper leg by a thug I had no Idea Id been shot. I fought for my life and although I got beat up pretty bad I survived and the 40 cal bullet in my leg didnt stop me from fighting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the story. I hope the thug didn't get away.

      Delete
  4. No he didnt. But he only served a few months in jail. Fortunately for the human race he tried to rob the wrong guy a few years latter. Hes a good thug now.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Your assumption is correct.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Didnt break my heart any. What does break my heart is in this whole Ferguson issue, the protesters seem to forget brown was an active criminal. I dont believe its an issue of blacks killed by law enforcement but an issue of criminals being shot by the law and home defenders and cc holders. So its more of an issue of restraint of trade. Also a conviction of Wilson would have added creedence to a lawsuit for browns family members aka the "ghetto lottery". And the press just panders to the protesters, stiring the pot. And if you have heard nancy grace on this subject you would vommit. To hell with her and the press.

    ReplyDelete