- 5,584
- 974
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2010
tbh it doesnt.... but i cant speak on a certainty. because i wasnt there but he clearly was not properly trained or just didnt care if he was suppose to be shooting at center mass which i believe by definition is slightly different then military standards.. One we well suppose to account for every shot and give a report as for each shot. The penetrating point, and why was it a need.
Also there is this zone to which i forget exactly how close of the torso and the collar section we are suppose to shoot. but it is a i believe a 30 inch radius... i dont believe this applies to officers of the law.
Also we arent authorize to draw weapons unless the persons has a weapon and the range of motion aka aim is in out direction (many ppl well in the sands land aka afganistan are allowed to carry ak-47's)
But gsr is a bit tricky, the residue depending on a various amount of factors can vary such as trajectory of shot, wind velocity, weather conditions, the type of clothing/garments the individual is wearing, inertia of force of the individual who is shooting and/or the person shot movement.
its all tricky and often times we have to beheld accountable and liable for said factors or face the U.S.M.J.
those same standards should apply to officers. Hey as a person who tried to uphold the perils of right and wrong from a judicial and moral implication i understand and have empathy for police officers. i just dont like a "hey you past with a 75% rate in a 20 hr course in shooting to which most is at a range that makes you qualified" aspect that most state jurisdictions accept as qualified to be a officer.
It takes a GED and a few weeks in 'police academy' to become a cop, they don't know all that