CDZ Police Use of Lethal Force

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

The guy had assaulted the cop multiple times during a long foot chase. Did he need to shoot him? Not really but I'm not gonna shed a tear for the guy since he was career criminal.
And the officer did try and taz the guy first.

I can think of three instances where the cop was absolutely in the wrong when using his weapon so yeah it does happen.

But the whole nonlethal weapon thing isnt always practical,and you cant expect the cops to carry a bean bag gun when they have a very good chance of encountering armed suspects.

 

[westwall]

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.

The guy had assaulted the cop multiple times during a long foot chase. Did he need to shoot him? Not really but I'm not gonna shed a tear for the guy since he was career criminal.
And the officer did try and taz the guy first.

I can think of three instances where the cop was absolutely in the wrong when using his weapon so yeah it does happen.

But the whole nonlethal weapon thing isnt always practical,and you cant expect the cops to carry a bean bag gun when they have a very good chance of encountering armed suspects.

So says the cop, but no other witnesses testified to that. Once the man is running he ain't a threat. I went on numerous ride a longs with friends in Richmond Ca. One of THE most violent towns in the Bay area. We were ALWAYS in a pursuit within 20 minutes of going on patrol. Every time! There was a group called Metro who were ALL highly trained (at the time I was doing the ride alongs, later the Chief turned it into a "friends of the Chief group and they fell apart) and they could defuse a situation merely by getting out of their car and remaining calm.

The bad guys knew that if they did something wrong, or tried anything violent these guys were all highly trained and would simply kill them, so the bad guys behaved. Most of the time when Metro did engage it was with a TASER. Amazingly enough TASERS work, and even in a extremely violent area you don't have to shoot first and ask questions later.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

The guy had assaulted the cop multiple times during a long foot chase. Did he need to shoot him? Not really but I'm not gonna shed a tear for the guy since he was career criminal.
And the officer did try and taz the guy first.

I can think of three instances where the cop was absolutely in the wrong when using his weapon so yeah it does happen.

But the whole nonlethal weapon thing isnt always practical,and you cant expect the cops to carry a bean bag gun when they have a very good chance of encountering armed suspects.

So says the cop, but no other witnesses testified to that. Once the man is running he ain't a threat. I went on numerous ride a longs with friends in Richmond Ca. One of THE most violent towns in the Bay area. We were ALWAYS in a pursuit within 20 minutes of going on patrol. Every time! There was a group called Metro who were ALL highly trained (at the time I was doing the ride alongs, later the Chief turned it into a "friends of the Chief group and they fell apart) and they could defuse a situation merely by getting out of their car and remaining calm.

The bad guys knew that if they did something wrong, or tried anything violent these guys were all highly trained and would simply kill them, so the bad guys behaved. Most of the time when Metro did engage it was with a TASER. Amazingly enough TASERS work, and even in a extremely violent area you don't have to shoot first and ask questions later.

Tasers do not always work. And if the suspect is wearing a jacket they are useless.
And you claim the bad guys will behave when thats obviously not always the case.

 

[miketx]

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.

The guy had assaulted the cop multiple times during a long foot chase. Did he need to shoot him? Not really but I'm not gonna shed a tear for the guy since he was career criminal.
And the officer did try and taz the guy first.

I can think of three instances where the cop was absolutely in the wrong when using his weapon so yeah it does happen.

But the whole nonlethal weapon thing isnt always practical,and you cant expect the cops to carry a bean bag gun when they have a very good chance of encountering armed suspects.

So says the cop, but no other witnesses testified to that. Once the man is running he ain't a threat. I went on numerous ride a longs with friends in Richmond Ca. One of THE most violent towns in the Bay area. We were ALWAYS in a pursuit within 20 minutes of going on patrol. Every time! There was a group called Metro who were ALL highly trained (at the time I was doing the ride alongs, later the Chief turned it into a "friends of the Chief group and they fell apart) and they could defuse a situation merely by getting out of their car and remaining calm.

The bad guys knew that if they did something wrong, or tried anything violent these guys were all highly trained and would simply kill them, so the bad guys behaved. Most of the time when Metro did engage it was with a TASER. Amazingly enough TASERS work, and even in a extremely violent area you don't have to shoot first and ask questions later.

Tasers do not always work. And if the suspect is wearing a jacket they are useless.
And you claim the bad guys will behave when thats obviously not always the case.

most of them are all paper talk.

 

[Muhammed]

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.

Police are trained to shoot to stop.

 

[pismoe]

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

------------------------------------ i don't think that unloading a magazine into the torso is preferred but headshots to the head aren't as easy to hit as 2 shots to center mass and then a finish to the head . Its just that if 2 to the center mass and one to the head aren't effective and the attack continues you might as well empty your magazine into the attacker JWoodie .

 

[westwall]

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.

The guy had assaulted the cop multiple times during a long foot chase. Did he need to shoot him? Not really but I'm not gonna shed a tear for the guy since he was career criminal.
And the officer did try and taz the guy first.

I can think of three instances where the cop was absolutely in the wrong when using his weapon so yeah it does happen.

But the whole nonlethal weapon thing isnt always practical,and you cant expect the cops to carry a bean bag gun when they have a very good chance of encountering armed suspects.

So says the cop, but no other witnesses testified to that. Once the man is running he ain't a threat. I went on numerous ride a longs with friends in Richmond Ca. One of THE most violent towns in the Bay area. We were ALWAYS in a pursuit within 20 minutes of going on patrol. Every time! There was a group called Metro who were ALL highly trained (at the time I was doing the ride alongs, later the Chief turned it into a "friends of the Chief group and they fell apart) and they could defuse a situation merely by getting out of their car and remaining calm.

The bad guys knew that if they did something wrong, or tried anything violent these guys were all highly trained and would simply kill them, so the bad guys behaved. Most of the time when Metro did engage it was with a TASER. Amazingly enough TASERS work, and even in a extremely violent area you don't have to shoot first and ask questions later.

Tasers do not always work. And if the suspect is wearing a jacket they are useless.
And you claim the bad guys will behave when thats obviously not always the case.

Never said it was. But on more than one occasion when they arrived the tension drained away immediately. Well trained cops keep honest (or mostly honest at least) people honest, and deal with violent types quickly, and efficiently. What well trained cops don't do, is panic, and shoot the wrong person.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

The guy had assaulted the cop multiple times during a long foot chase. Did he need to shoot him? Not really but I'm not gonna shed a tear for the guy since he was career criminal.
And the officer did try and taz the guy first.

I can think of three instances where the cop was absolutely in the wrong when using his weapon so yeah it does happen.

But the whole nonlethal weapon thing isnt always practical,and you cant expect the cops to carry a bean bag gun when they have a very good chance of encountering armed suspects.

So says the cop, but no other witnesses testified to that. Once the man is running he ain't a threat. I went on numerous ride a longs with friends in Richmond Ca. One of THE most violent towns in the Bay area. We were ALWAYS in a pursuit within 20 minutes of going on patrol. Every time! There was a group called Metro who were ALL highly trained (at the time I was doing the ride alongs, later the Chief turned it into a "friends of the Chief group and they fell apart) and they could defuse a situation merely by getting out of their car and remaining calm.

The bad guys knew that if they did something wrong, or tried anything violent these guys were all highly trained and would simply kill them, so the bad guys behaved. Most of the time when Metro did engage it was with a TASER. Amazingly enough TASERS work, and even in a extremely violent area you don't have to shoot first and ask questions later.

Tasers do not always work. And if the suspect is wearing a jacket they are useless.
And you claim the bad guys will behave when thats obviously not always the case.

Never said it was. But on more than one occasion when they arrived the tension drained away immediately. Well trained cops keep honest (or mostly honest at least) people honest, and deal with violent types quickly, and efficiently. What well trained cops don't do, is panic, and shoot the wrong person.

You'd like to think so yeah.

 

[Picaro]

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?

It's pretty much the only certain way to protect themselves and others many times. the fact is it's rare, and the bullshit claims there is some kind of 'epidemic' of police killings is pure fiction. the statistics make that obvious; over 45,000 assaults on police officers every year, all of which constitute justifiable cause, yet the number of shootings is miniscule, especially when taking into account there are over 330,000,000 people here now. Take the mentally ill off the streets and quit handing out big civil suit awards to the parents and relatives of asshole thugs, and watch the number drop by two thirds overnight.

Would you take a chance with your own life for the crappy pay most police in this country are paid?

 

[Bush92]

Law enforcement officers need to use deadly force to protect themselves and society in a violent nation.

 

[pismoe]

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

----------------------------------------------------------------- might be so many criminals because there are too many laws . Make enough laws and EVERYONE is a criminal law breaker . I do think though that violent criminals should never get out of lockup Mike .

 

[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?

It's pretty much the only certain way to protect themselves and others many times. the fact is it's rare, and the bullshit claims there is some kind of 'epidemic' of police killings is pure fiction. the statistics make that obvious; over 45,000 assaults on police officers every year, all of which constitute justifiable cause, yet the number of shootings is miniscule, especially when taking into account there are over 330,000,000 people here now. Take the mentally ill off the streets and quit handing out big civil suit awards to the parents and relatives of asshole thugs, and watch the number drop by two thirds overnight.

Commit a crime with a gun,automatic 20 years no parole.
Fire a firearm during the commission of a crime,automatic 40 years no parole.
Kill someone with a firearm while committing a crime.....you get 3 months to get your affairs in order.

 

[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?

It's pretty much the only certain way to protect themselves and others many times. the fact is it's rare, and the bullshit claims there is some kind of 'epidemic' of police killings is pure fiction. the statistics make that obvious; over 45,000 assaults on police officers every year, all of which constitute justifiable cause, yet the number of shootings is miniscule, especially when taking into account there are over 330,000,000 people here now. Take the mentally ill off the streets and quit handing out big civil suit awards to the parents and relatives of asshole thugs, and watch the number drop by two thirds overnight.

Would you take a chance with your own life for the crappy pay most police in this country are paid?

------------------------------------------------------- i don't want to pay police any more taxpayer money , they all volunteer for their jobs knowing what the pay situation is Picaro . Just a comment !!

 

[Picaro]

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?

It's pretty much the only certain way to protect themselves and others many times. the fact is it's rare, and the bullshit claims there is some kind of 'epidemic' of police killings is pure fiction. the statistics make that obvious; over 45,000 assaults on police officers every year, all of which constitute justifiable cause, yet the number of shootings is miniscule, especially when taking into account there are over 330,000,000 people here now. Take the mentally ill off the streets and quit handing out big civil suit awards to the parents and relatives of asshole thugs, and watch the number drop by two thirds overnight.

Would you take a chance with your own life for the crappy pay most police in this country are paid?

------------------------------------------------------- i don't want to pay police any more taxpayer money , they all volunteer for their jobs knowing what the pay situation is Picaro . Just a comment !!

Yes, everybody wants the super cops Hollywood shows us every night on TV, Chuck Norrises and Steven Seagals with master's degrees in Psychology along with their 10 years of martial arts and 20 years of sniper training etc., but let's then pay them $10 bucks an hour ... and no time and half for overtime either! lol

 

[Onyx]

I don't believe in public enforcers, so I do not even accept the existence of police.

 

[pismoe]

as i said , public servants , police know what the pay scale is when they volunteer for their jobs . They are aware of all the benefits , vacation , retirement and other perks . My thinking of no more pay for police applies to ALL public servants . Everyone can go to school to become a dentist , lawyer or doctor . I bet that Dr. Ben Carson makes a fortune same as lawyer 'gloria allred' Picaro .

 

[Onyx]

Picaro is right. Better thugs work for better pay. If the streets are going to be patrolled by goons, then I prefer the usual dorks that got picked on in school.

 

[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?

It's pretty much the only certain way to protect themselves and others many times. the fact is it's rare, and the bullshit claims there is some kind of 'epidemic' of police killings is pure fiction. the statistics make that obvious; over 45,000 assaults on police officers every year, all of which constitute justifiable cause, yet the number of shootings is miniscule, especially when taking into account there are over 330,000,000 people here now. Take the mentally ill off the streets and quit handing out big civil suit awards to the parents and relatives of asshole thugs, and watch the number drop by two thirds overnight.

Would you take a chance with your own life for the crappy pay most police in this country are paid?

------------------------------------------------------- i don't want to pay police any more taxpayer money , they all volunteer for their jobs knowing what the pay situation is Picaro . Just a comment !!

Yes, everybody wants the super cops Hollywood shows us every night on TV, Chuck Norrises and Steven Seagals with master's degrees in Psychology along with their 10 years of martial arts and 20 years of sniper training etc., but let's then pay them $10 bucks an hour ... and no time and half for overtime either! lol

----------------------------------------- and as a general rule i am not looking to see more police on American streets . Also , i like the police but i see a HUGE change in police since the early 60s when i first became aware of them Picaro .

 

[BuckToothMoron]

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?

What other means? Taser, mace? These don't always immobilize people, and are not necessarily long lasting. If a guy is coming after me with a gun or even a knife, I'd feel much safer shooting him with a gun than a temporary electric shock.

 

[Picaro]

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?

It's pretty much the only certain way to protect themselves and others many times. the fact is it's rare, and the bullshit claims there is some kind of 'epidemic' of police killings is pure fiction. the statistics make that obvious; over 45,000 assaults on police officers every year, all of which constitute justifiable cause, yet the number of shootings is miniscule, especially when taking into account there are over 330,000,000 people here now. Take the mentally ill off the streets and quit handing out big civil suit awards to the parents and relatives of asshole thugs, and watch the number drop by two thirds overnight.

Would you take a chance with your own life for the crappy pay most police in this country are paid?

------------------------------------------------------- i don't want to pay police any more taxpayer money , they all volunteer for their jobs knowing what the pay situation is Picaro . Just a comment !!

Yes, everybody wants the super cops Hollywood shows us every night on TV, Chuck Norrises and Steven Seagals with master's degrees in Psychology along with their 10 years of martial arts and 20 years of sniper training etc., but let's then pay them $10 bucks an hour ... and no time and half for overtime either! lol

----------------------------------------- and as a general rule i am not looking to see more police on American streets . Also , i like the police but i see a HUGE change in police since the early 60s when i first became aware of them Picaro .

Yes, they are much better in some ways than they were, but I never had a problem with them in the 'old days' either, since I'm not competing for a Darwin Award like a lot of idiots are, and I'm not suicidal.