You left out the part where after one warning, the guy growled and continued to eat the victim's (still alive) face. It was one cop. A victim was in the process of being fucking eaten. If I was the victim, I would've kind of expected the officer to help me out at this point and remove the threat of the asshole eating my face with a bit more than a 69% chance (though in this case, as we saw, even an initial gunshot didn't stop him, so I think we can, in hindsight say the taser WOULDN'T have worked).Raven said:
If I was the police officer, alone on the scene, a victim was currently being murdered and a clearly crazed man was the attacker, you can be damn straight I'd have made the same call the officer did, rather than possibly becoming a second victim myself, and now putting my weapons in the hands of a crazed cannibal.
Also, to the whole clueless "shoot him in the leg, guns can do that right?" argument people who have no clue what they're talking about always seem to bring up... most people, even those trained in the use of firearms, under extreme stress, don't shoot that well. Police don't get special forces training, police don't get to shoot tens of thousands of rounds a year in weapons familiarization and training like special military units do, and hence, shouldn't be trusted to try to shoot to immobilize.
We always see this dumb argument of "they should've shot them in the arm/leg/etc. instead of just killing them!" How would that same person respond if the officer in question had shot to immobilize, and either missed, and the stray bullet hit a child 2 blocks away, or another good possibility, the round hits the leg/arm, overpenetrates the leg/arm (seriously, 3-4 inches of soft tissue isn't going to stop a LE FMJ load) and kills someone 2 blocks away? Watching TV/Movies and playing video games doesn't qualify someone to try to argue a point about real-life firearms.
