... about active international terrorists. And, the police he encountered were probably not among the "best and brightest".

Of course down with a leg wound won't always stop someone from pulling a gun.

Most of the time when the cops are shooting, the person is armed. It's a life and death situation.

You assume he was shot in the legs intentionally.
You assume it was a cop and not a trained soldier. Most likely it was a soldier.

Now ask yourself, what do police say to each other in private regarding wounding a civilian versus killing a civilian?

I guarantee that what they don't say is "Hey, sure every guy you shoot that survives is going to sue the shit out of you and maybe have you thrown off the force. But you should still only shoot him as few times as necessary to just disable him, because that is the morally correct course of action."

You have to support your speculation.

can't file lawsuits. Fact : Dead people can't testify. Fact : Innocent people who get shot get pretty pissed off. Fact : Lawyers love to represent innocent clients who are wrongly shot.

Michael Brown was within a few feet of the officer who shot him and there was one officer and Brown. Abdeslam was arrested in a raid conducted by numerous anti-terrorist officers. Completely different circumstances.

I imagine law enforcement in Paris wasn't 'roid raging'. Parenthetically, I doubt if LE in Brussels was doing it, either.

There are really only two reasons a cop can use lethal force: to end a (reasonably held) threat of imminent death or grave injury on themselves or others, and to prevent a violent felon from fleeing capture.

The cop in Brussels might have been acting on the later principle, but generally speaking, when you're using lethal force it's to disable (up to causing human death) the person so the threat is ended as quickly as possible. People having extreme agitation, drug use, or whatever can cause a lot of harm in a short amount of time.

it was serendipty (for him), rather than some spectacular marksmanship.

chances are, the French cop that wounded the terrorist was a sharpshooter with a scoped bolt action rifle without the stress of being under direct attack. Wilson had a pistol and that the stress of being already violently attacked. Add that to the fact that the legs were moving. A shot that would be almost impossible by anyone.

Of course, a shot in the leg can also be lethal as a deli clerk in Del Ray Beach, Florida, found out the hard way. After the clerk emptied the cash register, the robber decided to take one of the customer's totter as a hostage. That is when the clerk shot him in the leg, which sliced the femoral artery, killing the robber within a minute.

If you are, you fire at the center of mass to both minimize the chance of a stay round striking an innocent or a fellow LEO and to maximize the quickest end to the danger.

Shots to an appendage may not provide sufficient trauma to induce shock quickly enough to disable. A shot aimed at a thigh could go a bit high or low and graze a butt or calf. People in a lot of pain tend to get pissed off and take that shooting them thing personally.

There may be a small number of extraordinarily accomplished shooters capable of that but hitting a man sized target during a stressful moment from say 12 - 25 feet is not as simple as it seems. It's even more difficult if that target is also doing stuff like moving and shooting back.

Police, as agents of the government, do not need 2nd Amendment rights during the performance of their duties. Police use of force and other tactics are not within the purview of the SoP of the Group.

Regards,
Krispos42, Group Host