and it looks like not all of the shots actually hit
the target.

So yes - there is a chance of ricochet and/or bystanders
catching shrapnel of some sort - but that's the case whether
you're aiming for the body or the legs.

>i'm not willing to agree that police always shoot to kill and
>never shoot to maim b/c of the Mike Brown case having inflamed
>my thoughts about police action when dealing w/resisting
>subjects. i know better.

Inflamed/thoughts and feelings about Mike Brown are irrelevant here. We have the video of this singular incident, and it doesn't require us
to refer to other incidents. Here, they shot to kill.

i'm also not going to agree that in
>this particular case they should've shot to maim. and based
>on my professional experience i don't think the dead guy's
>estate has a very strong case in a wrongful death action.

Based on my professional experience I would agree. They don't
have a strong case. But again, identifying the present law
and legal trends is one thing, analyzing the relevant jurisprudence
and legislation which led to these trends is entirely different.

I agree that the cops were within their right to shoot and kill this suspect. Where I disagree is in the application of lethal force in
circumstances where the threat doesn't amount to a situation that requires no other alternative but lethal force. Here, two cops should've been able to maim this suspect without killing him, but
it's clear they had zero interest in doing so.

>earlier i talked about a similar case i worked on where i
>really wanted to be able to file an action against the police
>in that shooting but the more investigation i did the more it
>was clear the shooting was likely to be found justified and
>the cops wouldn't be civilly liable. it hurt to tell homie's
>family what i'd found.

The law gives great deference to police in these situations. That needs to be re-evaluated and fought both in the courts and via law-making initiatives.


-->