why do Police "have" to shoot to KILL every time ??

a reply to: Answer

But we aren't talking about that. The threat of death shouldn't make a cop shoot first and be exonerated later. Know what I mean?

originally posted by: loveguy
you guys seem to forget that handing down sentences is for the court to decide...

if you're gonna soil your pants (use lethal force) b/c some scary creep looks at you sideways, you should work in a field where it's ok to shoot them...check local recruiters and aim high- so you can come back and park cars for a living...

when he has his own lethal force and intends to use it, then duh- I would shoot him too.
i just can't shoot someone b/c he made me soil myself.

And someone finally gets it.. Thank you..

What I said too, but our resident blowhards just can't put it together.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

threat of death?

If that's not reason to shoot, what in your considered expertise is? Wait 'til someones already dead?

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

threat of death?

If that's not reason to shoot, what in your considered expertise is? Wait 'til someones already dead?

Reading comprehension.... Reading comprehension... Reading comprehension...

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Answer

But we aren't talking about that. The threat of death shouldn't make a cop shoot first and be exonerated later. Know what I mean?

Actually, that's exactly what should make a cop shoot first.

Perhaps you should reword that statement.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
I have disarmed a few suspects that were attempting to hide knives and a few small firearms as well, and never had to shoot anyone,?

There's a huge difference between "attempting to hide" and "attempting to use."

If you were actually in law enforcement, you'd know that and wouldn't make such an asinine comparison.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Ok.

What is threat of death?

Some one with a weapon close enough to use it on me, who intends to kill me. Is that not the definition of Threat Of Death?

I would guess that threat of death doesn't quite mean what you think it does...

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Ok.

What is threat of death?

Some one with a weapon close enough to use it on me, who intends to kill me. Is that not the definition of Threat Of Death?

I would guess that threat of death doesn't quite mean what you think it does...

No he's just watched to many movies. You know like Westerns where the bad guy shoots at the good guy and he draws his gun and kills him. In the real world if that happens out hero is dead because who fires first wins.

Funny how people seem to expect to the police not to protect themselves. Have to say if that was true we wouldn't have any police officers in big cities. People like to be able to come home to their families at the end of the day.

The question is not whether the police should shoot to kill or not, but when to draw their gun and shoot. When anyone pulls the trigger it should be to kill, but it seems that we are seeing a common mentality for police to to pull their guns and shoot when conditions are not really life threatening, but simply when they are unsure.

How a person unarmed and not super aggressive , or committed some major crime gets shot and killed due to not following orders to the letter is very concerning.

originally posted by: seagull

Some one with a weapon close enough to use it on me, who intends to kill me. Is that not the definition of Threat Of Death?

I would guess that threat of death doesn't quite mean what you think it does...

How do you explain the rather large number of people shot and killed that were not armed?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MasterKaman
The only reason to use a deadly weapon is to kill.

crook would only need a couple of shots round his feet or into his leg to stop him.

Pretty good with a handgun against a moving target, are you?

Are you trained in any way? you seem to think you know it all but you have no clue, i have handled weapons since i was 8 years old and i had never killed anyone, but have definitely used a weapon to defend myself and protect my life. And yes i did hit someone and guess what, he was a moving target, you should "engage brain before putting mouth in gear".

People so narrow minded like you should reserve his uneducated opinion. That mentality is the reason a lot of young girls suddenly disappear, just because they were not trained in self defense in any way and are not prepared to have control over any situation. Luckily my case was very different, my grand father was in the army and he thought me how to shoot and actually understand how to use a fire arm for real.

A knife is a deadly weapon, so its a rock, have you used a knife recently? how good was the kill?

a reply to: Xtrozero

The question is not whether the police should shoot to kill or not, but when to draw their gun and shoot.

That is a valid question.
However, it is not the question asked by the OP.

Answer

>> Yay another person from the UK pretending to know something about guns because they watch movies... these threads are always fun.

** well I had a drinking pal in Danang (Vietnam) who was police Captain, and many times fired his ak47 out in the trees, so I do know what guns are Mr.Answer ! I will offer u the same challenge as Shamrock, you run off and I will shoot near your feet, with promise the second bullet goes in your assz, and let's see if you stop or not 😀 then this thread will be more "fun".

>> You also seemingly have no clue what happens when a bullet hits a living thing... if you shoot someone in the ass, the bullet can still kill or paralyze them.
** use a smaller caliber. 22 is enough

This next comment by you is important tho

>> If an officer shoots to wound someone, he's admitting is that he didn't have justification for using deadly force. If he actually stood before a grand jury and said "well, I didn't think the situation warranted a shot to the chest but I figured I'd shoot him in the leg to stop him", that officer would be guilty of attempted murder because he shot someone with the foreknowledge that they didn't present a legitimate threat.

** so the law may need changing. Juries must be directed to respect the Officers decision had saved the runners lIfe.

>> a firearm should never be used unless killing is justified. SILLY ARGUMENT

[post=19704449]Reallyfolks

>> When I get pulled over I roll down the window , music off, light on if dark and palms on the steering wheel with fingers extended. Under no circumstances does this mean I will submit to illegal searches, stand for being illegally detained, or take a smart mouth without giving it back. But it does establish I'm not a physical threat so keep your gun in your holster cowboy.

** that comment really does focus on the different ATTITUDES between Americans and UK. You treat the Officer as a "cowboy" and demand your "Rights" instantly. In UK if police asked me to step out of your car please OF COURSE I wouldn't mind to comply. Why would I want to argue ?! British are normally very helpful guys doing a vital job for society, but u Americans treat them all as enemies from the onset and EGOS rise immediately. I've many PATHETIC videos of stupid citizens demanding "rights" shrieking at police and provoking their own fates. It seems to be the American "way"

>> But quite frankly i think the cries for "why did they just not shoot the shot gun totting bank robber in the leg" are stupid.

** nobody in this thread ever said such a thing. U misunderstand. If the crim has a gun threatening you then of course aim for chest and if he dies that's too bad

But many "criminals" on the News and uTube are NOT armed when they get shot dead. And those are the cases which cause City Riots and national outrage.

Pulling you weapon and threatening a suspect with it increases the likelihood of gaining compliance. You do not "have" to then use it to kill him straight away !!

OtherSideOfTheCoin

>> Basically if someone has a gun and is a clear threat to life then he needs a bullet in the chest. I would not have thought this would have been something anyone would really think needed debated.

** u not reading properly mate. We not contesting your scenario at all.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

** gross misunderstanding Shamrock. If he's got a gun then kill him before he kills you, no argument about that. Read more carefully - or you'll get 2 holes in your assz 😀

The OP actually does both. It's literally right there. "An advancing person would only need a few shots near his feet or one in his leg to stop him" or some such tripe.

You're welcome.

a reply to: thedigirati

This could be close to the truth. A wounded perp will only sue the police. But not if he's dead....

a reply to: projectvxn

Yes a useful article point 3


3. The point of employing a firearm in a fight isn't necessarily to kill. It is to stop a threat from continuing. Sometimes that takes more than one shot. Sometimes it takes more than 10. Bullets don't mean instant death, or even instant incapacitation. You must put only as many rounds into the target as is necessary to make them stop. Sometimes that means that person is going to die. In such cases, you better make damned sure that you are justified in your actions.

** but I guess this was a British guideline. American would say "you better make damn sure he dies otherwise the department will get sued. Again illustrating the big difference in attitudes whic cause the News events