CDZ Police Use of Lethal Force

[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.

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.

What good does that do when the guy has a .45?

 

[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.

Name them.

All of them. Per capita, the number of shooting deaths attributed by police is off the charts in the USA compared to the rest of the industrialized world. No other country even comes close.

 

[westwall]

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

I've disarmed people with a broomstick. It ain't rocket science. It's training. I have more than a little in that respect but if it was your relative who was LEGALLY carrying a gun, and was complying with the cops orders, who then shot and killed your relative.....how stupid would you feel for allowing untrained LEO's to be out on the street?

 

[OnePercenter]

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?

No. I don't believe that the Police kill enough.

 

[westwall]

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.

What good does that do when the guy has a .45?

It depends on the situation now doesn't it? If I see a bad guy waving a gun around in a random manner I can safely use a less lethal device on him. On the other hand, if he is pointing it with purpose, I would drop him with my own gun in an instant. How about the black man who was running away from the cop? There was no threat, not in the slightest. Why on earth would the cop shoot the man in the back? Poor training, or worse. Either way, the dudes not fit to be a cop. Not in the slightest.

 

[miketx]

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

I've disarmed people with a broomstick. It ain't rocket science. It's training. I have more than a little in that respect but if it was your relative who was LEGALLY carrying a gun, and was complying with the cops orders, who then shot and killed your relative.....how stupid would you feel for allowing untrained LEO's to be out on the street?

Why do libs always start BS'ing? Who said anything about untrained? Take your broomstick to the next confrontation, see how that works out.

 

[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.

All of them. Per capita, the number of shooting deaths attributed by police is off the charts in the USA compared to the rest of the industrialized world. No other country even comes close.

That's probably not true in Brazil. Their cops kill a LOT of people.

 

[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.

All of them. Per capita, the number of shooting deaths attributed by police is off the charts in the USA compared to the rest of the industrialized world. No other country even comes close.

NRA tried to get a law passed that would send criminals to jail for 5 years if they are caught with a gun. Libs wouldn't allow it. Why are libs pro crime? Why do you libs always want more gun control when you won't punish criminals?

 

[OnePercenter]

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

I've disarmed people with a broomstick. It ain't rocket science. It's training. I have more than a little in that respect but if it was your relative who was LEGALLY carrying a gun, and was complying with the cops orders, who then shot and killed your relative.....how stupid would you feel for allowing untrained LEO's to be out on the street?

Broomstick vs. Glock......Yeah, that's going to end well! LOL

I see you've changed your location again.

 

[westwall]

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

I've disarmed people with a broomstick. It ain't rocket science. It's training. I have more than a little in that respect but if it was your relative who was LEGALLY carrying a gun, and was complying with the cops orders, who then shot and killed your relative.....how stupid would you feel for allowing untrained LEO's to be out on the street?

Why do libs always start BS'ing? Who said anything about untrained? Take your broomstick to the next confrontation, see how that works out.

Already have and won. Read what I said mike. MOST cops are untrained in anything related to use of force. That is a fact. They are excellent report writers, and they can handle non violent confrontations very well. It's the violent, or seemingly violent confrontations that catch them up.

 

[miketx]

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.

What good does that do when the guy has a .45?

It depends on the situation now doesn't it? If I see a bad guy waving a gun around in a random manner I can safely use a less lethal device on him. On the other hand, if he is pointing it with purpose, I would drop him with my own gun in an instant. How about the black man who was running away from the cop? There was no threat, not in the slightest. Why on earth would the cop shoot the man in the back? Poor training, or worse. Either way, the dudes not fit to be a cop. Not in the slightest.

Now the race baiting starts.

 

[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.

Name them.

All of them. Per capita, the number of shooting deaths attributed by police is off the charts in the USA compared to the rest of the industrialized world. No other country even comes close.

That's probably not true in Brazil. Their cops kill a LOT of people.

I was referring to Europe and Asia. I don't know about Brazil.

 

[OnePercenter]

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.

All of them. Per capita, the number of shooting deaths attributed by police is off the charts in the USA compared to the rest of the industrialized world. No other country even comes close.

NRA tried to get a law passed that would send criminals to jail for 5 years if they are caught with a gun. Libs wouldn't allow it. Why are libs pro crime? Why do you libs always want more gun control when you won't punish criminals?

Which law was that?

 

[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.

All of them. Per capita, the number of shooting deaths attributed by police is off the charts in the USA compared to the rest of the industrialized world. No other country even comes close.

NRA tried to get a law passed that would send criminals to jail for 5 years if they are caught with a gun. Libs wouldn't allow it. Why are libs pro crime? Why do you libs always want more gun control when you won't punish criminals?

Neither TAZ nor I want more gun controls. We want fewer gun controls. What we want are competent LEO's and FEWER gun laws for the people.

 

[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.

Name them.

All of them. Per capita, the number of shooting deaths attributed by police is off the charts in the USA compared to the rest of the industrialized world. No other country even comes close.

NRA tried to get a law passed that would send criminals to jail for 5 years if they are caught with a gun. Libs wouldn't allow it. Why are libs pro crime? Why do you libs always want more gun control when you won't punish criminals?

I'm not an advocate of gun control of any kind. Additionally, I'm also not an advocate of mandatory minimums, so I'm glad your alleged law failed.

 

[westwall]

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

I've disarmed people with a broomstick. It ain't rocket science. It's training. I have more than a little in that respect but if it was your relative who was LEGALLY carrying a gun, and was complying with the cops orders, who then shot and killed your relative.....how stupid would you feel for allowing untrained LEO's to be out on the street?

Broomstick vs. Glock......Yeah, that's going to end well! LOL

I see you've changed your location again.

It was broomstick vs machete, and I've never changed my location once since I joined, silly boy.

 

[miketx]

libs are, and they always want to let criminals off. Imagine if we locked them all up how much crime would decrease?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

libs are, and they always want to let criminals off. Imagine if we locked them all up how much crime would decrease?

Imagine if "small government" conservatives actually practiced what they preached as opposed to constantly wanting to strengthen and prop up an abusive police state depriving people of their liberties while ironically waving around their "Don't Tread on Me" flags.

 

[westwall]

libs are, and they always want to let criminals off. Imagine if we locked them all up how much crime would decrease?

No. PROGRESSIVES are. Neither TAZ nor I are progressives. Neither of us want to let criminals off. Far from it. What we don't is an over politicized police force that has low standards, bad training, and innocent people dying because of that. I am surprised that you are not on our side. We DON'T want gun control. Far from it. We DO want bad guys to go to prison forever, We DON'T want government interfering with our daily lives.

 

[OnePercenter]

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

I've disarmed people with a broomstick. It ain't rocket science. It's training. I have more than a little in that respect but if it was your relative who was LEGALLY carrying a gun, and was complying with the cops orders, who then shot and killed your relative.....how stupid would you feel for allowing untrained LEO's to be out on the street?

Broomstick vs. Glock......Yeah, that's going to end well! LOL

I see you've changed your location again.

It was broomstick vs machete, and I've never changed my location once since I joined, silly boy.

You brought a broomstick to a large knife fight? Western Va?