Quote:
Originally Posted by dr2005
You assume incorrectly, I'm afraid - I have used firearms before (briefly, admittedly) and I know enough to be able to say it's as easy to hit someone in the shoulder as the chest if you're at point-blank range as Zimmerman was, provided you have half a clue what you're doing. Zimmerman was licensed to carry the firearm in a personal capacity (note - not as part of his patrolman duties) and so I would assume he possessed sufficient control to differentiate between the two. Aiming for the centre of mass, as per "shoot to stop" (which, with respect, is something of a play on words - shooting anywhere in the vicinity of the heart or lungs is likely to kill), is only really of relevance when shooting over a distance rather than point-blank because then you are giving yourself the best target area. If your attacker is sufficiently close to punch you, the target area is as large as it's going to get frankly. Admittedly "non-lethal shot" is poor terminology on my part, for which I apologise, but the wider point still stands insomuch as there is arguable grounds for intent. Your comment about not pointing a gun at something you don't intend to kill would appear to support that as well, incidentally.
And for the record, I know police officers can't shoot a gun out of someone's hand - you can probably thank Westerns for that cliche...
|
Pointing up brings you directly to centre mass when someone is ontop of you, however. The last thing you think about is your targets well being when you're trying to arguably prevent your own death. Real life isn't a movie where you "disable" your target. A firearm is for killing, you draw it in a situation when it's your life or theirs. I just don't think Zimmerman's ability to simply "wound" Trayvon is relevant because he shouldn't have, whether it was a justifiable homicide or not.