Murderous scumbag in St. Louis finds out that by shooting at two police officers, he invited far more accurate return fire. He was hit in the neck and torso, and is currently fighting for his life.
Now, there isn't much for details, except that it seems he was a bonafide scumbag. The cops were undercover when they approached, and they chased him on foot as well as in a car, which I don't know if it was marked or not, but it still doesn't discount that he is more than likely a violent criminal. What I want to point out is that in comments, some have suggested that the cops should have shot him in the leg, and that they didn't because they're racist.
It amazes me that people think that it is perfectly acceptable to shoot someone in the legs or whatnot, instead of shooting for the largest part of the body available. This guy was shooting back, so I doubt the officers were thinking that dinging the guy and leaving him painfully angry and armed on the ground was sound policy. Somewhere it was mentioned that the police should have shot him on the hand, or shot the gun out of his hand, and I find this to be laughable as well. There is only one case of the cops shooting the gun out of someone's hand that I know of, and it was entirely circumstantial. The guy wasn't shooting back.
If you are a criminal, and you shoot at someone, then expect to be shot in kind; especially if your the kind of criminal who may be wanted for murder. If I were a scumbag who could be under surveillance at any given moment, I would not expect to be treated with kid gloves in a gunfight of my choosing. Cops will do their very best to ensure that the bullets fired from their guns hit in the most devastating portion of the body available to them, and that will probably not be a place that you wouldn't mind being hit in.