What does it mean for someone in the leg Shoot

What does it mean for someone in the leg Shoot I heard a lot of deadly force, and a concept is almost universal. I address this idea of the syndrome of the legs shot. The frame, legs syndrome is expressed by the statement? I can kill, but t, I shoot the thief in the leg?. I think I know where this thought. It stems from the fact that they give me all firearms classes include? Good?. All good guys don t murder, theft, rape and people. They believe that everyone has redeeming qualities. N. good? T want to kill people, right? L 'beginning of the meeting and if they have their way, the wicked little leave.Now before I make tons of hate mail, let me say that I understand why people think, and I wish everyone felt that way. If there were bad guys, there would be no crime. Was able to put more energy into my first job of preparing for natural disasters, rather than divert energy to the preparation of criminal disasters. While we understand and admire this idea, let me emphasize that this is not a good way to apply this concept.There many reasons for this philosophy is not the sound in the field of lethal force. Some of these legal reasons, tactics, and some, yes, even moral. I would go to what I hear the most widely used of the reasons why the syndrome of the leg race should not be used, legal.A weapon is a deadly weapon. Unlike a baseball bat, a butcher knife, or a policeman? S pole, it is also possible to use lethal weapons against any other human being. The law does not distinguish the difference between shooting someone in the head, and the resumption of a person in the chest. If it is not legally justifiable motive and the person dies, it is still murder. A ball can not be recalled once again leaves the barrel. The person who fired the ball can not prejudge what the point of entry of a person. There is a major artery of the leg, which, if broken, can kill a person, not just shooting chest.Tactically in the management of a fire under the force of pressure is very difficult. Relatively few books, and statistics from a large amount of historical data indicate that only about 1 / 3 laps from the impact on target. E? T seems to be that bad, until you look at other statistics show that almost 90% of gun fights in less than 7 meters and less than 3 shots total. How realistic is that when most people can not be lucky enough to hit their attacker, you hit one of the smaller regions, an area that is most likely to move? Tennessee (and everyone else I have found a training program called weapon), said the center of mass shot with the intention to quit. These two concepts. The first is the center of mass, this means that the purpose of your projectile to the wider impact within the area of destination (the chest), since this is the biggest area that we have the greatest ability to actually achieve it. The thorax is the greatest ability to stop the attacker is due to the position of most of the organs of the body. Intention to quit, not to kill, injure, or shooting, or be irrelevant, the right of defense is focused on the attacker to be able to kill, and tries to kill you. If the mere presence of your firearm legally belonging to the attacker to cause the closure, has done its job, so put a tower in the center of mass to convince the criminals to stop? Agreement, but if you take 3? boxes of bullets to end a crazy drug, gang type neo-Nazi terrorists to kill you, eh therefore the intention to stop it.This is half of my moral argument. The other reason stems from the significance level road. I have a year's work in some corrections. These years are divided between the input level adjustments on the recreation yards and crates, to hear the prisoners themselves and their crimes, working as a supervisor in maximum security units and the application of psychological knowledge in order to ensure the smooth operation of the prison . Criminals do what they do, because you work for them. If a rapist or an abuser tries to talk to go with him, you? S, as it has always worked for him before. Believe me, a violent criminal nt has decided to launch a violent criminal just because its territory, a little 'offense starts slowly and works more and more violent. If not criminals who are injured, he will do it to someone else. I'm not saying that justice is I am not vigilant. I am not in favor of lethal force as a sanction for a criminal offense. What I mean is that you are a reasonable person, with an inalienable right to life and liberty, paying attention to their work, to live a quiet life. You have the right to do what you must do to be safe to retu home for your family, this criminal is attacked, he tried to hurt for no reason other than personal, do not want to kill, do not ask him trying to kill you. This is not true. This right is, your family needs you, be sure to do what must be done to be there for them.David is a former U. S. Marine Corps noncommissioned official correctional and instructor supervisory firearms at TN Correction Department. He is currently responsible for operations, such as the Office for Emergency Management Agency Tennessee. He is also certified NRA instructor, instructor and holds the Department of Homeland Security by TN, TN, and the Department of Commerce and Insurance.