Comments by "Arthur Mosel" (@arthurmosel808) on "TYT Lies About Adam Toledo" video.

Stop the threat is the actual thing that they are trained to do. Why center mass, less chance of a miss or through and through that woold endanger others. I guess the concept that bullets keep going if they miss or go through something that doesn't stop them is just too difficult for the liberal/left mind to comprehend.
4
@darrekworkman8685 Sorry, but that is an opinion. I have a much different opinion based on a couple of practical realities. 1. When you fire a bullet in a non-military situation; you are responsible for where the bullet ends up. This means if you miss, or if the bullet goes through what you aimed at, you are responsible for who or what is finally hit. Shooting at something or someplace where the bullet won't be stopped, by the target, or you miss a realitively small and frequently moving target like an arm or leg; and you hit someone behind that person it is possible to be held responsible especially with the attacks on qualified immunity. 2. Even if you hit an arm or a leg, there is a good chance of causing death. This is especially true in the leg where the femoral artery can bled a person out in minutes; while the main artery in an arm is somewhat slower, the death is just as likely. Beyond bleeding out, the chance of permanent injury if a bone is hit is highly possible. Depending on the caliber and overall damage, the loss of a limb is even possible. Allow this also omits considering infection. Again, legal issues abound. 3. Despite the movies, a person hit (even leathally) could still potentially fire a round back striking by the officer.m the main reason for the .45 ACP round was to increase the chance of stopping an attacker; since in the early 1900s US troops were killed or injured by insurgents hit with the .38 caliber weapons than used. So, the so.ution than was not only aim at a location that would increase the chance of stopping the attacker (center mass) but heavy enough to provide stopping power. 4. The greatest chance of stopping an attacker or preventing the attacker from further using or using a weapon in a threatening position is center mass. What is you suggestion? I will added that stun devices require personal contact which may be impossible in the situation. I own a Taser, and it is useless under most conditions, the area that you can target is limited for safety reasons, both prongs must make contact which may not happen in a fluid situation, and clothing thickness (winter jackets especially) may prevent effective use, and finally some drugs make it less effective. So, what is or are your solution/solutions?
2
@darrekworkman8685 The implication was that police are trained to kill because they are ex-military, Try to avoid that you said that fine, but that was the jestof your initial post. I notice no ideas for effective non-leathal options just a desire for them. Own what you say.
1
@darrekworkman8685 There are no standard rules of engagement; so why train on them first. Rules of engagement are determined by the nature of operations, and should not be political. One real problem is that unrealistic rules actually increase the violence. Under former President Obama rules of engagement included that fire couldn't be returned unless they could clearly see the shooter. The result dead and injured US troops because the shooters either hide among civilians or civilian occupied areas or sniped and dropped from sight and searching fire was not allowed. War and policing are two very different activities; and it is a disaster that peace keeping operations have made too many forget the objective of war is to kill or render impotent the enemy. Rules like those under Obama render our forces impotent while allowing weaker forces a stronger hand. Yes, I know that this veered of the subject; but, policingand military operations are two distinctly different worlds.
1
No one following the law sells a pistol to a 13 year old, and it s also illegal to sell a pistol to someone under 21 years old. I am considerably older, and no licensed gun dealer will sell me a weapon in Indiana, since it is illegal. In Illinois, you must have a concealed carry card to carry a concealed firearm, and open carry isn't permitted. So first in Illinois you must have a have a Firearms Owner ID (FOID) Card to buy any firearm or ammunition. To get the card requires a background check. To own a firearm, you must be of legal age, 18 for a long gun and 21 for a handgun. To carry concealed, as I have said, you have to have a Concealed Carry Card. To get this, you need to be 21, undergo another background check which includes fingerprinting, receive 16 hours of training, and already have a FOID Card, and finally the local law enforcement can still block its issuance if they view you as a riskgxc . So, let's see; a 13 year old carrying a handgun ,'which he can't legally own, shooting a cars (reported), fleeing from the police; question how many laws has the 13 year old violated without considering Federal law? Second point, if a fleeing subject could present a lethal threat to others, someone fleeing from a shooting scene should be considered a lethal threat, who seems to be getting an illegal weapon to fire at an officer, isn't asking to be shot, what is he doing? By the way, he had just returned home after two days missing (unreported by his parents, who thought that he was in his room this nighf) and was out on the street at 2:30 AM; what was the reason he was there?
1