Ayoob 'Shoot to kill vs Shoot to stop'

[gerhard1]

Ayoob gives a very good presentation here.

 

[Catt57]

I don't always agree with everything he says, but he does make valid arguements and makes you think. And more often than not he's probably right.

 

[TopWater]

Ayoob gives a very good presentation here.

Good video, he has several good videos out. I remember that incident, I didn’t know she claimed to shoot to kill. In my opinion he’s (Ayoob) is absolutely correct with shoot to stop over shoot to kill. This case was never a self defense case, Guyger was clearly in error being in the wrong apartment and the victim wasn’t armed. A trained police officer in uniform in the wrong apartment with an unarmed citizen lawfully living life, she obviously over reacted and made a huge mistake.
Remember the lady cop in Minnesota that shot the criminal by mistake, thinking she was deploying her taser. Another huge mistake, I’m guessing she’s out of prison by now.
The Kyle Rittenhouse shooting was a true self defense case, Rittenhouse was cool and calm under questioning from the prosecution and clearly stated his intent was to stop the threat. He should have never been there though. I hope he’s ok now.
Remember Zimmerman in Florida prosecuted by Pam Bondi (why did Trump choose her for AG?) again clearly self defense portrayed by the media as white until they found out he was Hispanic and then portrayed as a white Hispanic. Obama was president at the time, think that played any role. Always in my opinion, believe you or someone else is going to die or suffer great bodily harm before you pull that weapon and then be very careful what you say to the police and lawyer up.

 

[gerhard1]

Good video, he has several good videos out. I remember that incident, I didn’t know she claimed to shoot to kill. In my opinion he’s (Ayoob) is absolutely correct with shoot to stop over shoot to kill. This case was never a self defense case, Guyger was clearly in error being in the wrong apartment and the victim wasn’t armed. A trained police officer in uniform in the wrong apartment with an unarmed citizen lawfully living life, she obviously over reacted and made a huge mistake.
Remember the lady cop in Minnesota that shot the criminal by mistake, thinking she was deploying her taser. Another huge mistake, I’m guessing she’s out of prison by now.
The Kyle Rittenhouse shooting was a true self defense case, Rittenhouse was cool and calm under questioning from the prosecution and clearly stated his intent was to stop the threat. He should have never been there though. I hope he’s ok now.
Remember Zimmerman in Florida prosecuted by Pam Bondi (why did Trump choose her for AG?) again clearly self defense portrayed by the media as white until they found out he was Hispanic and then portrayed as a white Hispanic. Obama was president at the time, think that played any role. Always in my opinion, believe you or someone else is going to die or suffer great bodily harm before you pull that weapon and then be very careful what you say to the police and lawyer up.

In general, I agree with you. There is a quibble, however. That is that Pam Bondi was the prosecutor in Zimmerman.
According to Wikipedia, the governor appointed Angela Corey to prosecute the case as a special counsel.
I don't believe that Bondi was involved in the case at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_George_Zimmerman

As for the primary issue here, (Shoot to stop vs shoot to kill) I agree whole-heartedly with Ayoob and such agencies as NYPD, who train their officers to shoot to stop rather than kill. I first heard this idea over thirty years ago and it is so basic that I am amazed that there is any disputing it. Like Ayoob said, words have meaning, and saying the wrong thing could get you hung out to dry in court. Yet, I see very often on the web people saying that they won't be politically correct, and accusing those who say 'shoot to stop' of being less than masculine or something.

Let me finish by saying this: never shoot unless you are justified in killing even if your intent is only to stop your foe. Recognize that any hit that produces a one-shot, instant stop is also very probably going to be lethal. Even a solid hit to the torso will likely not produce an instant incapacitating stop. A person shot in the heart can still function for as long as a quarter to half a minute and that is plenty of time to do a lot of damage. Hits in the brainstem, medulla, or the upper spine will almost always be instant stops, but the flip side is that these are very small, hard targets to hit.

In the words of the old sergeant on Hill Street Blues would say "Let's be careful out there."

 

[TopWater]

In general, I agree with you. There is a quibble, however. That is that Pam Bondi was the prosecutor in Zimmerman.
According to Wikipedia, the governor appointed Angela Corey to prosecute the case as a special counsel.
I don't believe that Bondi was involved in the case at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_George_Zimmerman

As for the primary issue here, (Shoot to stop vs shoot to kill) I agree whole-heartedly with Ayoob and such agencies as NYPD, who train their officers to shoot to stop rather than kill. I first heard this idea over thirty years ago and it is so basic that I am amazed that there is any disputing it. Like Ayoob said, words have meaning, and saying the wrong thing could get you hung out to dry in court. Yet, I see very often on the web people saying that they won't be politically correct, and accusing those who say 'shoot to stop' of being less than masculine or something.

Let me finish by saying this: never shoot unless you are justified in killing even if your intent is only to stop your foe. Recognize that any hit that produces a one-shot, instant stop is also very probably going to be lethal. Even a solid hit to the torso will likely not produce an instant incapacitating stop. A person shot in the heart can still function for as long as a quarter to half a minute and that is plenty of time to do a lot of damage. Hits in the brainstem, medulla, or the upper spine will almost always be instant stops, but the flip side is that these are very small, hard targets to hit.

In the words of the old sergeant on Hill Street Blues would say "Let's be careful out there."

In general, I agree with you. There is a quibble, however. That is that Pam Bondi was the prosecutor in Zimmerman.
According to Wikipedia, the governor appointed Angela Corey to prosecute the case as a special counsel.
I don't believe that Bondi was involved in the case at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_George_Zimmerman

As for the primary issue here, (Shoot to stop vs shoot to kill) I agree whole-heartedly with Ayoob and such agencies as NYPD, who train their officers to shoot to stop rather than kill. I first heard this idea over thirty years ago and it is so basic that I am amazed that there is any disputing it. Like Ayoob said, words have meaning, and saying the wrong thing could get you hung out to dry in court. Yet, I see very often on the web people saying that they won't be politically correct, and accusing those who say 'shoot to stop' of being less than masculine or something.

Let me finish by saying this: never shoot unless you are justified in killing even if your intent is only to stop your foe. Recognize that any hit that produces a one-shot, instant stop is also very probably going to be lethal. Even a solid hit to the torso will likely not produce an instant incapacitating stop. A person shot in the heart can still function for as long as a quarter to half a minute and that is plenty of time to do a lot of damage. Hits in the brainstem, medulla, or the upper spine will almost always be instant stops, but the flip side is that these are very small, hard targets to hit.

In the words of the old sergeant on Hill Street Blues would say "Let's be careful out there."

You are right G, Bondi was not directly prosecuting the case but a co-appointer along with Scott for special prosecutor of the case. Kind of like a mob boss ordering a hit. I didn’t care for her support for red flag laws in 2018, she goes both ways with claim of pro 2A with restrictions. Any restriction on 2A is an infringement on 2A (Shall not be infringed).
It’s sad that so many decisions are made for political reasons anymore, the Zimmerman case should have never been brought to trial. Luckily he won his case but at what cost, something like that can ruin you financially as well as future employment/public opinion. I wonder what his current status is.
Never saw Hill Street Blues, but good advice.