Related Information to Who Should Shoot First?

Who Should Shoot First? - Page 2

As seems to the opinion of most people in this thread, I think non-lethal force is best. Obviously, non-lethal weapons have no yet been perfected, but I think we do have several options available.
Any option that immediately leaves the assailant open to return fire is obviously not acceptable. I believe officers should instead be equipped with a safety gun, firing either rubber bullets or bean bags. Their lethal gun should be loaded with Teflon-coated bullets, as these will penetrate bullet-proof vests (as long as no armor plate is used).
In circumstances where only one officer is available, I think they should use whatever means necessary to bring the assailant down without causing harm to bystanders, even if it means lethal force. However, if two or more officers are available, I think one officer should first use non-lethal force to attempt to disable the assailant, with another officer providing cover with lethal force. If non-lethal force is ineffective, the other officer can fire a lethal shot.

First Shoot Who

Interesting topic. I lived in a conceal/carry state, which meant that I was allowed to get a license that allowed me to carry a gun for protection. One of the things that the instructor for the training required to get the license told me was that if you are in a situation that you are required to use leathal force (protection of yourself, family or innocent others that are in harms way), BE SUCCESSFUL. When I asked him "why shouldnt I just shoot them in the leg or something to make them stop", he said, "If you do, you could quite possibly be sued and there are people that have been convicted of protecting themselves but not successfully using leathal force - it is hard to argue with a corpse". Now that sounded pretty rough, but America is a law suit happy society and I see his point.

It is a shame that if you are a police officer that you must even have to think about such things. However, no one should ever be incorrectly caught in a position where they are pointing a gun at a police officer. I can only say that if it were to happen, the officer has all rights to defend himself and others around him.

If a intruder came into your house and held your spouse or child at knife point, do you really have to wait for them to go further (do they actually have to try and cut your loved one?) before you protect them or yourself? I know I wouldnt hesitate.

Just a thought,

Vincenzo

Who Should Shoot First? History & Civil Business Politics

Regarding whether or not to shoot to kill in such a situation, I have to say that if you are firing a loaded gun at somebody, you have already made the judgement that the safety of yourself, your family, innocent victims, or the entire society is of more value than the target's life. When shooting a gun at a person, you must expect that your action will cause death, and be ready for the responsibility associated with that action. What if you aimed to maim and actually killed the person? Would you be able to carry that burden? It is much better to shoot only when circumstances are such that deadly force is warranted. Then, aim to kill. If a person is dangerous enough for an officer to shoot at him, he is dangerous enough to be killed for the greater good in such circumstances.

Page 2 First Shoot Who

There will be abuses no matter what.... but I agree that the focus should be on non-lethal weapons. Is seams utopia right now (especially for some conservative states) but I bet in the future will prove the best choice (if the society will advance in the peaceful way)

First Shoot Who

If the situation can be perceived as a lethal threat, then lethal force can be used.

While "shooting to wound" sounds good, it is not realistic (often argued by someone who has never shot a handgun). Handguns simply are not that accurate during a stressful situation. I have heard that LE officers can expect to shoot about 25% of their qualification score under the stress of an actual gunfight. Obviously it depends on the individual situation, but for the best handgun shooters that implies that only ONE out of every FOUR bullets fired will even HIT the person at all. Trying to target a kneecap while under stress can get an officer KILLED - which is why "shooting to wound" is not a good policy.

Also remember that handguns are not the magic death weapons that the news and Hollywood would have you believe. Most people who are shot with a handgun do survive (85%+ I think). Most common law enforcement handgun cartridges have less than half the power of even a moderately powerful rifle or shotgun. (However, they are effective in STOPPING an attacker with a center of mass hit).

While less than lethal force is a great alternative, current technology does not offer anything as effective as a handgun at stopping threats at the same range as firearms. The Tazer range is between 5-15 feet but only ONE shot at a time and both prods have to hit the target in order for it to work. (between it is a good intermediate force weapon for law enforcement). Unfortunately, phasers set on "stun" are not available at this time.

Who Should Shoot First?

In america we provide our police with body armor and still we let cops shoot armed suspects in the back? So who is to protect the "innocent" who hasn't been tried and found guilty? I once observed a traffic stop in Albuquerque that involved seven officers surrounding what must have been a seventy year old woman in an electric wheelchair, and of course several of them felt the nescessity of keeping their hands on their weapons in case they were attacked! They obviously were not there to serve or protect that woman. Nor did they feel the need to arrest her. I think that our country needs more cops, but they don't need to treat everyone as a threat and they dont need to treat everyone who is not a cop as a second rate citizen. We need Responsible, Mature officers who know how to use every tool at their disposal not just their firearms, because everyone is not "out to get them."

Who Shoot First - Page 2

If a criminal pulls a gun on a police officer, the only sure way to protect the life of the officer is if the Criminal is immediately incapacitated. A wound shot will not stop an armed assailant from firing his weapon at the officer or at another person in the area. If a criminal is using a Gun in a crime or uses it as a threat, he has put himself in a situation where his life is forfeit. The officer has a right to defend his life, or the life of others(and this should be the rule, not the exception).

That would be the same if My life or Family were threatened. If someone is threatening to kill me with a Gun the last thing I would do is to try to wound the person. I would put two in the chest and one in the head before the perp could ever have a chance to hurt me or my Family. Once he threatened (by raising a gun, this is an implied threat of lethal force) to kill my wife or kids, his life has become infinitely less important to me then that of my loved ones. Heck, even if the person was threatening to kill an unarmed stranger I would have to defend the life of that stranger. Criminals are coddled too much and need to be dealt with swiftly and cleanly when they threaten others with a deadly weapon.

That is the oddest rule I have ever heard (OK, I am sure that I have heard odder rules, but none come to mind.) If the criminal shoots first the police officer will most assuredly die. Who would want to put themselves in that situation?

What?
Isn't every criminal who raises (a nonverbal communication that the person wants to kill the officer) a gun to an officer a threat and should be dealt with by the officer?

Who Shoot First Politics Business Civil & History - Page 2

I agree with Dbackers totally. IF a perp is using a deadly weapon or a weapon that can potentially kill any one an officer has the right..no that is not right he has the obligation to remove the criminal from the gene pool.

Police officers were created to protect us from those who can not abide by the laws governing our society. It is people who are living outside of the rules that are a inherent danger to all that our society stands for. If we coddle them we are sending a clear message to others that our rules and laws are not meant to be followed. Any who do not obey our set rules and laws in our area are a possible danger to us. It is the police officers who stop them and remove them from society. It is the criminals use of weapons that has given the police weapons to counter them. This includes fire arms to be used to kill criminals where they become dangerous.