the "x shots" fallacy
know how many bullets i want shot at me? zero.
some argument ploys reliably mark the ployer as a shameless dipshit. new LRC writer “A.D Lelong” this morning uses one of the more embarrassing of these tramps — the “officers emptied x shots” gambit. oh my.
an implied acceptance of limited police power sits at the root of the indignant “x shots” appeal to emotion; the “x shots” slacker objects not to lethal force in general, but… well, exactly what the fuck material issue he objects to is foggy, and searching for clarity in the matter exposes the vacuous wasteland in which x-shotters frolic. apart from being merely stupid, these arguments, via hand-wringing distraction, support police crimes — the opposite of their dressed intent. the “x shots” angle does have worthwhile secondary considerations such as bystander safety. however, if basic criteria are met, logic supports high-density shootings over low-density. key in any shooting is whether lethal force was justified. jumping to the “x shots” spiel bypasses this crucial question and, as mentioned, considers it a given. well, as soon as you do that, you’re fucked.
the worshipfulness of the average dipshit regarding cops has distorted lethal force incidents into a de facto street trial of efficiency — a tidy confluence of conditions that allows cops to dispatch scumbags and keep the courts clear for matters that aren’t so clear cut. this is of course mistaken. the ideal behind police action in potentially lethal encounters is to capture perpetrators as quickly as possible, with the least injury to all parties, but in favor of harming perps if this harm is necessary to protect the non-aggressive (including cops, presuming for argument that cops are correctly non-aggressive). despite weapon advancement, however, the best solution (quick, reliable) for incapacitating humans also happens to tend to kill them.
so the primary matter for discussion in cop killings of innocents is whether this dire force of gunfire should have been applied, not how many rounds were fired. and if gunfire were justified, assuming it’s directed at an isolated target where missed shots would not hit other humans, the shooter should empty his magazine(s) whenever there’s any doubt that the aggressor has been constrained. these ignorami bitching about “x shots” are arguing against safety, not for it — posturing with a vague platform that assumes 1) the shooting, removed from rounds fired, was justified, and 2) for every shooting, there is a proper number of rounds, beyond which the shooter is in error. of course, these people won’t tell you what the “correct” number of rounds is, because 1) they’re ball-less, unaccountable, stupid fucks, and 2) they lack empathy.
lack empathy? yes; it’s the chief ingredient absent from monday morning quarterbacks. know what i’m going to do if presented with an aggressive, lethal threat and i’m armed with a semiauto? assuming it’s the only threat, i’m going to keep firing (i hope with accuracy) until i don’t have any more ammo or there’s no question i’m safe. why? because i have already decided to kill the threat, and the matter of how many bullets go through that threat is basically meaningless when weighed against assuring my safety. makes no difference whether one is a cop, because cops may theoretically be moral. of course, the “x shot” argument presumes this morality anyway, as i’ve said. what it doesn’t presume is akin to arguing whether it’s worse to drown someone in 5′ of water or 20′. the “x shotters” are too fucking stupid and ignobly offended to figure this out.