Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
“Shoot ‘Em In The Leg”
Joe Biden offered up some training advice for our nation’s police officers. Around the one minute mark in the video above, the Democrat’s likely nominee gave an example of what they can do better. For instance, if an “unarmed person” is coming at you “with a knife,” police should shoot him in the leg, not the chest.
In the past, Biden suggested that you could defend your home by firing a shotgun in the air, which I guess is supposed to scare the intruder away. Now he is suggesting that you could neutralize a criminal by shooting their leg. Perhaps that could work in some cases, but legs are hard to hit. They move in a way a torso doesn’t and there are two of them, so if you aim for the middle you just might miss. And if that guy with a knife also has a gun on him? Well, he can still shoot you after you wound his leg.
I am certainly no gun expert, but shooting accurately while under pressure is a little more difficult than what you see in old cowboy movies. Rather than aiming for the leg, why not train the police to aim for the knife itself, and hit it in a way that it will fly out of the perpetrator’s hand and spin around until it cuts the rope that is holding up the chandelier. Then the chandelier will fall on the criminal’s head, knocking him out cold. Sounds like a workable plan.
PS. Looking at the background I wonder if Liberals are still looking to remove tax-exempt status from churches that mention politics?
Published in General
In the past, Biden suggested that you could defend your home by firing a shotgun in the air, which I guess is supposed to scare the intruder away
And if you hit a Bald Eagle? A drone? Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds?
What if the cop has slightly bad eyesight, or couldn’t get in to see the eye doctor because COVID shut down the world? What if his glasses are dirty and he doesn’t aim quite on the shin? I am not making light of George Floyd’s tragedy, but I say to Biden…..C’mon man!
@quietpi I have seen it in several videos as well. In this incident the officer was pinned in his car. He kept the shooter from advancing on him, and as soon as he got out of the car he sought cover at the back of the car. Whatever works
In the second video the officer that was being attacked with the knife was criticized by the usual suspects for not deescalating the situation by trying to talk to the attacker. Some situations need to be deescalated very quickly, like at about 1100 per second. This was one of those situations.
Larry Vickers when he breaks down the bank robbery in Heat mentions De Niro firing through the windshield and says its specifically taught.
Rosa Klebb really lacks for the Like love on this thread.
I disagree. I mean, yes—all other things being equal, if goofy ol’ Uncle Joe says something dumb off the top of his head, well, that happens to all of us and could happen/has happened to Trump.
But in the present moment, anyone who envisions himself as President has an obligation to know what he’s talking about. If he doesn’t know (after all these years, all these protests and riots? C’mon, man) and speaks anyway, that’s a problem.
If he does know and is deliberately repeating false information (e.g. Charlottesville) certain to increase the distrust and pain of Americans on all sides…that’s a problem.
I seem to recall Rodney King was tased twice and still managed to get to his feet after officers warned him to stay down. He was suspected (or found) to be on PCP . . .
Besides, I suspect injuries to Biden’s hands would be worse . . .
Yes, the breakdown of order is a huge deal. Which is why the shoplifter must be confronted and stopped with physical force if necessary. Otherwise, the store might as well set up a counter outside and give stuff away . . .
Shoot them FROM the leg:
I may get one of these.
I ran through about 40 comments here this morning after being away and this one stopped me cold. Can someone clue me as what point is being made here? My confusion is created in a sense by my attempt to consider an action that may reduce crime on one hand while committing an act that is difficult to justify on the other.
I’m confused by your confusion. ;-)
Ending “stop and frisk” has lead to increased crime rates in NYC. If I recall correctly, Bloomberg didn’t really end it, he just renamed it to appease the PC gods. De Blasio has had a hostile relationship with the police from the get-go (remember them turning their backs on him en force at a public event?). He hamstrings the police with little regard for how it affects the people they serve, so long as it virtue signals his lefty pals.
Can police stop people and search people randomly without probable cause that they have committed a crime, that was my confusion? I understand it reduced the crime rate. But I’m sure it was very intimidating for all the innocent people stopped.
Rioting and looting are immediate dangers to the police and to bystanders (which include any peaceful protesters). They need to be taken down before a building goes up in flames . . .