CDZ Police Use of Lethal Force

[jwoodie]

This may have been brought up before, but why do police have to resort to a "shoot to kill" response if they perceive a threat of great bodily harm to themselves or others? Aren't there other means to subdue dangerous suspects?

I am not criticizing all police shooting deaths, especially if a suspect is pointing a loaded gun at someone, but I am wondering if there are alternate means of immobilizing these suspects. Any thoughts?

 

[Fenton Lum]

The power structure knows full well it has lost all semblance of legitimacy. As the societal economic plundering continues by the substantial people, they know what's coming; social unrest. We're seeing the ramp up of privatized prisons and militarized crowd containment security police undergoing dress rehearsals. The return to corporate convict leasing? There's ya jobs-coming-back. Dress rehearsals on the unsubstantial people, no real backlash from the citizenry, scale up on down the road now that the concept has been accepted.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

They could just drop shipping crates on the bad guys instead.

It save the taxpayers in legal fees.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[miketx]

The power structure knows full well it has lost all semblance of legitimacy. As the societal economic plundering continues by the substantial people, they know what's coming; social unrest. We're seeing the ramp up of privatized prisons and militarized crowd containment security police undergoing dress rehearsals. The return to corporate convict leasing? There's ya jobs-coming-back. Dress rehearsals on the unsubstantial people, no real backlash from the citizenry, scale up on down the road now that the concept has been accepted.

What has this to do with his question? Nothing.

What does the OP think can be done to end a threat from someone with the means to instantly inflict death or injury? You may not realize that this stuff happens in an instant and you may not have anytime to think about taking them alive.

 

[the_human_being]

If someone is about to do you harm, you take him out as quickly as you can.

 

[Montrovant]

This may have been brought up before, but why do police have to resort to a "shoot to kill" response if they perceive a threat of great bodily harm to themselves or others? Aren't there other means to subdue dangerous suspects?

I am not criticizing all police shooting deaths, especially if a suspect is pointing a loaded gun at someone, but I am wondering if there are alternate means of immobilizing these suspects. Any thoughts?

I'd like to make two separate responses to this.

In response to the general question, yes, there are alternative methods of subduing subjects. Tasers, pepper spray, even basic physical force are all possible ways for an officer to subdue someone. The question is how to determine which is appropriate to the situation. An officer has to worry about their own safety as well as the safety of any innocent bystanders.

As far as "shoot to kill" goes, my understanding is that officers are taught to aim for 'center mass'. This is because, while it might look great in film, trying to do something like hit someone in the leg, or shoot a gun out of someone's hand, is a terrible idea. Shooting a gun accurately is, from everything I've heard or read about it, harder than it may look; shooting a gun accurately with one's adrenaline flowing in a life-or-death situation is harder still. I'm sure we've all seen stories about shootouts between police and criminals in which dozens of shots are fired and few, or even none, hit their target. I don't know if it counts as "shoot to kill," but having officers aim center mass is perfectly reasonable once they determine a need to shoot at all.

While there are certainly instances in which it seemed police would have been better served using an alternative method to their firearms, I don't know if the prevalence of such instances is enough to warrant any sort of change in police policy.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Well they tried tasers only to be sued when the suspect falls on his head and dies.
Bean bags can work but only if you have other officers with real firearms to protect the bean bag shooter.
If the suspect is armed shoot until he's no longer a threat.

 

[westwall]

This may have been brought up before, but why do police have to resort to a "shoot to kill" response if they perceive a threat of great bodily harm to themselves or others? Aren't there other means to subdue dangerous suspects?

I am not criticizing all police shooting deaths, especially if a suspect is pointing a loaded gun at someone, but I am wondering if there are alternate means of immobilizing these suspects. Any thoughts?

Police forces are universally poorly trained in the proper use of force. Firearms should only be pulled when they are going to be used, or their use is imminent. Cops universally pull their weapon first to coerce behavior. A completely WRONG use of their weapon. Add to that the abysmal skill levels that the majority of them have, and the antiquated techniques they are trained in, and the lowered standards to become an LEO in the first place and you end up with a recipe for disaster.

 

[pismoe]

The power structure knows full well it has lost all semblance of legitimacy. As the societal economic plundering continues by the substantial people, they know what's coming; social unrest. We're seeing the ramp up of privatized prisons and militarized crowd containment security police undergoing dress rehearsals. The return to corporate convict leasing? There's ya jobs-coming-back. Dress rehearsals on the unsubstantial people, no real backlash from the citizenry, scale up on down the road now that the concept has been accepted.

What has this to do with his question? Nothing.

What does the OP think can be done to end a threat from someone with the means to instantly inflict death or injury? You may not realize that this stuff happens in an instant and you may not have anytime to think about taking them alive.

------------------------------------- Generally speaking cops and other armed people shoot to immediately Stop the threat and generally that means that death of the attacker will be the result . Everything i have ever learned , read or heard is that if in fear for your life you put 2 in the chest and one to the head and that should stop the attacker . Course if that doesn't stop them immediately you just continue pulling the trigger if you have a large capacity pistol JWoodie .

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

This may have been brought up before, but why do police have to resort to a "shoot to kill" response if they perceive a threat of great bodily harm to themselves or others? Aren't there other means to subdue dangerous suspects?

I am not criticizing all police shooting deaths, especially if a suspect is pointing a loaded gun at someone, but I am wondering if there are alternate means of immobilizing these suspects. Any thoughts?

Considering that police shootings in Europe and first world Asia are rare, I would say yes, there are plenty of alternatives.

 

[pismoe]

This may have been brought up before, but why do police have to resort to a "shoot to kill" response if they perceive a threat of great bodily harm to themselves or others? Aren't there other means to subdue dangerous suspects?

I am not criticizing all police shooting deaths, especially if a suspect is pointing a loaded gun at someone, but I am wondering if there are alternate means of immobilizing these suspects. Any thoughts?

------------------------------------------------------- and generally the words are 'shoot to Stop' rather than'shoot to kill' JWoodie .

 

[pismoe]

This may have been brought up before, but why do police have to resort to a "shoot to kill" response if they perceive a threat of great bodily harm to themselves or others? Aren't there other means to subdue dangerous suspects?

I am not criticizing all police shooting deaths, especially if a suspect is pointing a loaded gun at someone, but I am wondering if there are alternate means of immobilizing these suspects. Any thoughts?

Considering that police shootings in Europe and first world Asia are rare, I would say yes, there are plenty of alternatives.

-------------------------------------------------- generally speaking it is only the USA where lots of people have guns . Europe and England and probably Asia not so much . I mean anyone in the USA can be carrying a gun in their pocket .

 

[jwoodie]

What does the OP think can be done to end a threat from someone with the means to instantly inflict death or injury?

I don't know - that is why I asked the question. When dealing with terrorists a head shot is more effective, so I don't know why emptying a magazine into someone's torso is the preferable response. (Remember the bystanders who were hit by police bullets in Times Square a few years ago?) What about less lethal knock-down ammunition, chemical agents or super-tasers? With modern technology (and training) it seems that other alternatives should be developed and made available to law enforcement agencies.

Times Square Shooting Leaves 2 Bystanders Wounded by Police

 

[westwall]

This may have been brought up before, but why do police have to resort to a "shoot to kill" response if they perceive a threat of great bodily harm to themselves or others? Aren't there other means to subdue dangerous suspects?

I am not criticizing all police shooting deaths, especially if a suspect is pointing a loaded gun at someone, but I am wondering if there are alternate means of immobilizing these suspects. Any thoughts?

Considering that police shootings in Europe and first world Asia are rare, I would say yes, there are plenty of alternatives.

-------------------------------------------------- generally speaking it is only the USA where lots of people have guns . Europe and England and probably Asia not so much . I mean anyone in the USA can be carrying a gun in their pocket .

Guess what, the same is true in Europe too. The reason why gun crime is lower in Europe is purely cultural, but criminals carry them all of the time.

 

[miketx]

What does the OP think can be done to end a threat from someone with the means to instantly inflict death or injury?

I don't know - that is why I asked the question. When dealing with terrorists a head shot is more effective, so I don't know why emptying a magazine into someone's torso is a preferable response. (Remember the bystanders who were hit by police bullets in Times Square a few years ago?) What about less lethal knock-down ammunition, chemical agents or super-tasers? With modern technology (and training) it seems that other alternatives should be developed and made available to law enforcement agencies.

Times Square Shooting Leaves 2 Bystanders Wounded by Police

Because in a stressful situation it's easier to hit the torso which is the largest part of the body. No, until they come out with star trek phasers, shooting them is the only way if they won't surrender.

 

[miketx]

This may have been brought up before, but why do police have to resort to a "shoot to kill" response if they perceive a threat of great bodily harm to themselves or others? Aren't there other means to subdue dangerous suspects?

I am not criticizing all police shooting deaths, especially if a suspect is pointing a loaded gun at someone, but I am wondering if there are alternate means of immobilizing these suspects. Any thoughts?

Considering that police shootings in Europe and first world Asia are rare, I would say yes, there are plenty of alternatives.

Name them.

 

[westwall]

This may have been brought up before, but why do police have to resort to a "shoot to kill" response if they perceive a threat of great bodily harm to themselves or others? Aren't there other means to subdue dangerous suspects?

I am not criticizing all police shooting deaths, especially if a suspect is pointing a loaded gun at someone, but I am wondering if there are alternate means of immobilizing these suspects. Any thoughts?

Considering that police shootings in Europe and first world Asia are rare, I would say yes, there are plenty of alternatives.

Name them.

Talking the person down. Less lethal munitions and weapons. Various martial art weapons that use blunt force trauma to deal with an attacker, gas, high decibel sound, high intensity light, high pressure water, nets, sticky foam, I am sure there are other alternatives but those are off the top of my head.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

This may have been brought up before, but why do police have to resort to a "shoot to kill" response if they perceive a threat of great bodily harm to themselves or others? Aren't there other means to subdue dangerous suspects?

I am not criticizing all police shooting deaths, especially if a suspect is pointing a loaded gun at someone, but I am wondering if there are alternate means of immobilizing these suspects. Any thoughts?

Considering that police shootings in Europe and first world Asia are rare, I would say yes, there are plenty of alternatives.

Name them.

Talking the person down. Less lethal munitions and weapons. Various martial art weapons that use blunt force trauma to deal with an attacker, gas, high decibel sound, high intensity light, high pressure water, nets, sticky foam, I am sure there are other alternatives but those are off the top of my head.

So a cops going to drive around in a fire truck?
None of those are practical in a one on one scenario with an armed suspect.

 

[miketx]

Blunt force trauma is my favorite. Just so long as someone else goes over to disarm them, right?

 

[westwall]

This may have been brought up before, but why do police have to resort to a "shoot to kill" response if they perceive a threat of great bodily harm to themselves or others? Aren't there other means to subdue dangerous suspects?

I am not criticizing all police shooting deaths, especially if a suspect is pointing a loaded gun at someone, but I am wondering if there are alternate means of immobilizing these suspects. Any thoughts?

Considering that police shootings in Europe and first world Asia are rare, I would say yes, there are plenty of alternatives.

Name them.

Talking the person down. Less lethal munitions and weapons. Various martial art weapons that use blunt force trauma to deal with an attacker, gas, high decibel sound, high intensity light, high pressure water, nets, sticky foam, I am sure there are other alternatives but those are off the top of my head.

So a cops going to drive around in a fire truck?
None of those are practical in a one on one scenario with an armed suspect.

Yes they are. Batons, gas grenades, stun grenades, sting ball grenades, high intensity light and foam/nets are all easily carried. What they all require is training in their proper use. Most departments don't feel they should expend the money and they will simply pay the various judgments against them because it ain't their money. It's the taxpayers money so they don't care.