Why didn't they just shoot him in the leg or something?!

In any kind of defensive handgun training class, whether it be police or private citizen training, you are always taught to shoot to "stop the threat". You are never taught to "shoot to kill". You keep shooting until the threat is stopped, which may mean death for the bad guy.

Too many times after a police or civilian shooting that ended in death you will see comments along the lines of  "They didn't have to kill him! They could have just shot him in the leg!" Here we even have a ridiculous attempt at legislation in New York that would require police to shoot a suspect in the arm or leg instead of center mass. The article outlines why this is a ludicrous notion. There are several reasons why shooting someone in an appendage is not the best plan.

First, you are responsible for every bullet that comes out of your gun. One of the four basic rules of handling a firearm is to know your target and backstop. Trying to shoot a moving arm or leg is simply nearly impossible and will guarantee a miss, possibly hitting something or someone else behind your target. Guns only get shot out of the hands of bad guys in the movies. To try and shoot someone in an arm or leg would simply be irresponsible and dangerous.

Hitting someone in the arm or leg most likely will not stop the threat. The bad guy with a gun or knife could easily keep shooting or coming at you even after being shot in the arm or leg. The 21 foot rule states that it takes less than 2 seconds for an attacker to reach you at 21 feet. If you've shot a knife wielding criminal in the arm or leg that is 21 feet away and already headed toward you you have not stopped the threat and will more than likely end up maimed or dead.

Also shooting someone in the leg doesn't always guarantee their survival. A bad guy can die after being shot in the knee. Or, as I posted in one of my previous blog posts, die from being shot in the hip. 

Update: Hmm....Maybe the police CAN shoot someone in an apendage??