Previous post
“Shoot ’em in the leg!” THAT is Joe Biden’s solution for cops to work to de-escalate volatile situations involving dangerous criminals.
.@JoeBiden says police should try shooting dangerous criminals “in the leg" pic.twitter.com/u3phk3MHSq
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) October 16, 2020
I know. I should’ve issued a keyboard alert. Well, while you are scrambling around to find your eyeballs that rolled out of your head, let’s unpack Joe’s “plan.”
Ban chokeholds. Well, as we know and the media/politicians refuse to admit, George Floyd was higher than 10,000 kites on fentanyl. How would JOE de-escalate that situation when Floyd continued to struggle even after being restrained? TALK to him? Or, how about Jacob Blake? He was violating a restraining order, refused to back down, resisted arrest, and was about to drive off with kids not his own. Joe evidently believes that a social worker could’ve talked Jacob down.
Further on, Joe proffered the idea that a psychologist would’ve been the perfect person to de-escalate that situation where a guy came after a police officer with a knife.
“The caller related that her brother was reportedly becoming aggressive with his mother and was attempting to break into her house. Several officers from the Lancaster City Bureau of Police responded to the call and the first officer arrived at 4:24 pm. The first officer on the scene walked to the front of the residence and made contact with a woman, who was identified as a family member. A male subject then exited the front door of the residence and began chasing the officer. Preliminary information and body worn camera footage indicates that the male subject had a knife in his right hand as he was chasing the officer.”
Tell me Joe, in that instance, what would you have a social worker or psychologist do? Stand their ground and say ‘hey buddy! I see you are a little upset about some stuff, how about we sit down and have a chat?’ Do you REALLY think that that person is going to magically stop coming at you with a knife?? NO.
Joe’s campaign platform on law enforcement definitely leans towards the left’s idea of defunding the police, even as the left isn’t happy that Biden won’t advocate for that.
“In his 2020 platform, Biden supports boosting funding for “community-oriented policing” and hiring police forces that reflect the racial makeup of the communities they serve. He also proposes pairing police with social workers and experts on mental health, substance abuse and disability to respond to calls for service.
Biden’s platform would reverse the Trump administration’s position on consent decrees and expand the Justice Department’s oversight powers of troubled local departments to include “systemic misconduct by prosecutors’ offices.”
“Black mothers and fathers should feel confident that their children are safe walking the streets of America,” Biden’s website says of its criminal justice platform, which also gives a nod to police safety. “And, when a police officer pins on that shield and walks out the door, the officer’s family should know they’ll come home at the end of the day.””
Ahhh…there it is. Officer safety. Well Joe, your idea for officers to “shoot ’em in the leg” puts officers IN DANGER! In regards to the Lancaster incident with the knife-wielding man, please tell me exactly how shooting him in the leg would’ve helped? In fact, please point me to someone, ANYONE, who would’ve managed to shoot that person in the leg while A. running backwards, and B. having said person hopping and running after you? Guess what Joe, that only happens in the movies. Oh wait! Forget the leg, let’s shoot the weapon out of their hand, that’s the ticket. Sorry Joe, that only works in the old Western TV shows.
Joe’s “shoot ’em in the leg” solution is laughable and dangerous. The suspect could, if officer is successful in hitting the leg, be hit in the femoral artery. Then there’d be a dead suspect. In reality, it is far FAR more likely the officer will miss. Which then ESCALATES the situation even further, places other people in danger depending upon who and what is behind the suspect at the time, and places the officer in increasing danger.
“”An average suspect can move his hand and forearm across his body to a 90-degree angle in 12/100 of a second,” wrote Bill Lewinksi in a paper for the Force Science Institute. “He can move his hand from his hip to shoulder height in 18/100 of a second. The average officer pulling the trigger as fast as he can on a Glock, one of the fastest- cycling semi-autos, requires 1/4 second to discharge each round.””
Yep. Furthermore, I just cannot see ANY department around the country considering this kind of training.
WTF? Shooting someone in the leg IS NOT DE-ESCALATION. NO ONE TEACHES THIS. LITERALLY NO ONE. https://t.co/7Avmkmu88f
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) October 16, 2020
Exactly, they don’t train for it now, for the reasons explained above along with a whole host of other lessons learned reasons.
But that’s ok. Joe has a plan! One that has evolved since his “buy a shotgun” days.
Hmmm. . .
— Lawyerforlaws (@lawyer4laws) October 16, 2020
Last time Joe Biden said this . . pic.twitter.com/0y5UgcdFmt
Joe doesn’t know cops, he doesn’t know the realities of what today’s law enforcement faces on a regular basis. His advocation for psychologists, social workers and training police to shoot dangerous criminals in the leg are stupidly dangerous ideas. Ideas that would put the American public AND law enforcement at greater risk, not less.
Feature Photo Credit: Western TV actor John Russell, by skeeze via Pixabay, cropped and modified
A. Human says: Before shooting them in the leg, they should be trained to say “Stop please, I’ll be your best friend!” I’ve heard that is very persuasive.
Wesley says: Well, remember, if an unidentified person comes to your door, Joe has offered in the last election that it was ok, to just take your shotgun and fire throught the door!
GWB says: when Floyd continued to struggle even after being restrained?
There was plenty of time he was being knelt on when he was no longer struggling effectively. And kneeling on someone’s neck is NOT a safe choke “hold”. (It’s not a “hold” at all.)
Sorry, but Floyd is a really bad example to use for almost any pro-cop argument.
a psychologist would’ve been the perfect person to de-escalate that situation where a guy came after a police officer with a knife
Well, it might have been a good idea to send someone trained in counseling, based on the initial phone call. But that counselor should have been armed and responded in exactly the same way the cop did once the guy came out swinging. Otherwise Biden’s concept just gets more people killed (because he would have knifed that person, then the cops would have shot him when they rolled up in response to the knifing).
your idea for officers to “shoot ’em in the leg” puts officers IN DANGER!
It would be nice to have a weapon that would instantly switch from lethal to, let’s say beanbag rounds. Then you could just switch to something that should stop him and give you reaction distance and maybe work it out. And you could switch right back if you really need to punch holes in him.
Of course, those don’t exist (and likely never will, except in sillier sci-fi flicks). And the usual suspects would still gripe and moan that “he killed poor, unarmed, defenseless, turning-his-life-around, gonna-be-a-social-worker-someday Johnny!” Even after the non-lethal round didn’t stop him.
Joe? Joe’s simply not very smart to begin with, and what little he had of a mind is rapidly slipping away of late. But he can get away with things like this because the electorate is also not very bright. We really gotta fix that last bit.
SFC D says: Negative, Joe. You either shoot to kill, or you do not shoot. No human can shoot with the accuracy required to “shoot them in the leg” while confronted with deadly force, backing away from the threat, fearing for their life, and dealing with the adrenaline dump coursing through their veins. Center of mass, repeat until the threat is no longer a threat. If you make the decision to confront a police officer with deadly force, you’ve decided you’re ok with dying.
John C. says: As I told my daughter and son as they were growing up, “If you’re justified to shoot at all, you’re justified to shoot to kill; but if you’re not justified to shoot to kill, you’re not justified to shoot at all.” People have died from .22 hits in the extremities, and have survived 12ga hits to center mass; shooting someone anywhere with anything has the chance of killing them. If you shoot someone, it is use of deadly force, and if they die of it and you specifically did not intend that they die of it, your legal and moral situation really sucks, and deservedly so.
GWB says: Not sure your last statement is legally sound.
Generally speaking, if you shoot in self-defense, but state that you intended to kill (whether you succeeded, or not), most prosecutors will take that as an opportunity to prosecute*. If, OTOH, you state that you intended to stop your assailant and the force required caused him to die, you are on much safer ground.
Andrew Branca and others will advice that you are always shooting to stop the attack. If that requires deadly force, so be it, but that is not your aim. A large aid to that is that you shot center-of-mass – right where you would aim if stressed, under attack, in a time critical situation.**
(* If you state that you intended to kill your assailant/your daughter’s rapist/etc., the prosecution can use any normal situation like a bullet to the back or that some of the shots may have been fired once the perpetrator was on the ground as evidence you didn’t stop with self-defense and continued on after the threat had stopped.)
(** Ironically, if you shot your attacker in the hand or something, a prosecutor will use that as evidence you had lots of time, since that’s an aimed shot, and obviously weren’t under any time crunch to defend yourself. [E.g., it wasn’t “imminent”.] If you take a head shot, you were obviously out to kill him from the beginning or he wasn’t a threat. [E.g., that goober in Denver.] Some of that might or might not be true [Mozambique drill], but that’s how a prosecutor will present it.)
rbj1 says: Muthbusters did an episode on shooting a gun out of someone’s hand. Guess what happens when a soft lead bullet hits a hard steel object. The soft lead bullet fragments, going in multiple directions. In their instance one fragment hit where the femoral artery would be. And the gun stayed in the hand.
Always shoot center mass, it’s less dangerous for innocent bystanders.
[…] also, New AWOL Policy After Macabre Summer Calls Attention To Missing Soldiers Victory Girls: Biden Tells Police “Shoot ‘Em In The Leg!” Volokh Conspiracy: Canceling Dianne Feinstein Weasel Zippers: “Bins Full Of Ballots” […]
Maureen from Regina says: It is not impossible to train officers to shoot people in the leg, BUT it would require that they be at the gun range almost every day practicing. So they would not be on the street doing their job as they would be practicing. So pick a lane and stay in it.
Yeah-Me-Neither says: I go to the range regularly, and have no problem hitting center mass even out to 25 yards. However, at anything 15+ yards away, my shot may be on the left of the Dillinger target, or the right. That’s more than a leg’s width.
Hitting a moving leg? Darn near impossible.
So, here’s my proposal. Every Leftist screaming, “Shoot them in the leg!” has to agree to hold them, so I can hit them in the leg if it comes to that. So, when the time comes [no longer an if], if there is a Leftist holding the legs of the miscreant coming after me, I’ll shoot them [the miscreant, not the Leftist, although it is likely the miscreant is a Leftist] in the leg. If they’re not holding him, I’ll shoot him where I darn-well can hit him.
GWB says: If you’re hitting a little to one side, then, technically, a large enough round would still hit the leg.
Say, grapeshot? Or a 2-pounder?
Or, if you had an automatic, maybe you could sweep and hit the leg (gotta take it slow).
[…] Victory Girls Blog: Biden To Police: “Shoot ‘Em In The Leg!”. […]
Michael Zorn says: Ha! He should know better. The police should shoot the gun out of their hands, just like in the movies.
13 Comments