The "minimum force" bill, which surfaced in the Assembly last week, seeks to amend the state penal codes' "justification" clause that allows an officer the right to kill a thug if he feels his life or someone else's is in imminent danger.
The bill -- drafted in the wake of Sean Bell's controversial police shooting death -- would force officers to use their weapons "with the intent to stop, rather than kill" a suspect. They would be mandated to "shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg."
Look, Albert, one reason we aim for the middle of the bad guy is so that if we miss our point of aim by, say, six inches in any direction, we're still hitting something that deserves to be shot. Namely the bad guy.
Another reason is that, contrary to popular belief, the gun is not a magic wand. You can't guide the bullet to its final resting place with mind waves. In most shooting situations, you should be glad when your officers hit the suspect at all, let alone some specific part of the suspect.
Lastly, you need to rid yourself of the damnfool notion that there's a "nice" way to shoot somebody. If you blow apart a knee joint or a wrist with a bullet, or puncture a femoral artery, is that somehow kinder than putting one right in the boiler room? All that Hollywood make-believe crap where the good guy just "wings" the bad guy, and it's "only a flesh wound" is just that: Hollywood make-believe crap.
Go write laws about topics you understand well, like graft and corruption, and leave the shooting to the shooters.