Really wasn't meant to be a strawman. I didn't realize you wanted the cop to aim and fire at the suspects waist or just below. Sorry, but no, if someone's brandishing a knife inches from my neck I want the best chance at them being stopped and as immediately as possible, with the best chance of success. That's going to be center mass.
First, in the case of the shot dead teenager, the knife was not "inches from [the other girl's] neck".
Second, for whatever reason people discussing this issue, you included, insist on changing the circumstances of the example into something they can successfully argue against, despite the fact no one is arguing the straw man circumstances.
Why are people building straw men to argue against? Obviously, the real issue is very difficult to defend.
IN THIS CASE,
this is one example where the cop could have used another option had he not been trained to only shoot to kill.
Center mass in this case was not just the girl's chest. I'm repeating myself yet again, I'm annoyed at attempts to change my argument to something it isn't.
The girl presented a large target, the cop was close enough he apparently wasn't concerned about shooting the girl who was being attacked with that knife. He could have shot into the victim's hip or very large thigh.
Think about that. Was the cop putting the girl who was at risk of being stabbed at more risk by shooting so close to her? What if one of his shots hit her instead of the girl holding the knife?
He felt safe enough to shoot the knife wielder, why not shoot her large ass and/or thighs?
We know he didn't because he was trained to shoot to kill or don't shoot.
I am not blaming the cop for following his training. I'd like to see that training addressed.
Can those of you arguing against this for one second simply consider other options than the knee-jerk shoot to kill or don't shoot?
Are you (several people here) incapable of rethinking what you believe to be true?
Is there nothing in your lives you were absolutely certain of that additional evidence led you to change that certain belief? Isn't that what critical thinking is about, considering one's biases might be wrong?
I find it hard to believe police in Europe would've taken a different approach in this situation. There could be some scenario where shooting to wound is better, but more likely than not there was probably a better less lethal option IMO. I'd like to see examples of shoot to wound police shootings in Europe, and what their doctrines and training are. Google is letting me down.
No doubt you find it hard to believe, but why not look at the evidence?
ETA1: I disagree with your assertation that if the cop had shot her in the hip theres no doubt she wouldn't have stabbed the other girl.This was a highly stressful and very fluid situation. He may have missed. He may may have taken much longer to aim and by then she'd stabbed the other girl, he may have shot her and she stabbed the other girl anyways. Is it possible that had he tried to shoot her hip then no one would've died? Sure. I don't know that beyond a doubt either.
Good grief, you think getting shot wouldn't have gotten her attention? This is nonsense.
How about the risk of the cop hitting the wrong girl? Why are you excluding that from possible outcomes?
[snipped the rest, that shooting of the homeless man was clear cut murder and the cops were never charged.]
