Originally Posted By: Artem
I never understood why cops always have to shoot to kill... Why not shoot him in the arm that's holding the knife? Shoot him in both legs so he falls down and tackle him.
They are trained shooters yet it seems as if they always close their eyes, turn their heads and just open fire until the clip is empty
You'd think that some situations like this, death can be avoided and the criminal can be subdued with just a few NON-LETHAL properly placed shots so he can later be charged after he gets out the hospital.
Just my
If a threat is lethal, then the response must sufficient to stop the threat. Period.
Trying to shoot an arm or leg is ridiculous - you've sent lethal force downrange with a near-zero chance of hitting that target. Have you ever tried to shoot at moving targets in a real situation? Blood pumping? Adrenaline flowing? Fine motor skills degraded by thos factors? Even the best shooters will tell you that shooting at a limb is foolish, you can't hit it when it's moving.
If your life, or the life of the public, is in danger (i.e. threat triangle present), then you must act to stop the threat in the most effective way possible - lethal force to center mass (and perhaps one to the head, but that's a topic for another day) because that is the most effective, proven way to stop a threat. A shot to the limbs? Doesn't stop the threat...you haven't defended yourself or others. In fact, because of the almost certain chance that the bullet will miss the limb, you've unreasonably placed bystanders at risk...
The second part of the discussion, beyond threat triangle and lethal force application is the continuum of force and the proportionality of response. If a person has a knife, that is a lethal weapon. You may not realize how quickly you can be killed by someone with a knife, but it is lethal. The response to lethal threat is lethal force. That's proportional.
If we're talking about a "hobo" with no apparent weapon, they still pose a threat, but it is less than lethal. No officer wants to get close to a potential assailant - who can strike, struggle for the officer's weapon, and pose a serious threat. Many folks on the streets, including our "hobo" are under the influence of drugs or other substances that increase strength, reduce pain, reduce fear and make a seemingly ordinary person a serious threat to an officer. Again, we can do the toxicology afterward, but that information is not known to the officer at the time. This is where a taser can give the officer a more proportional response, and allow him to engage a threat with non-lethal force at a range of several feet, and I am a big fan of giving the officer that range of options.
And video? ugh, there are so many details are missing from video - and the vast majority of us are not trained in the law or in the use of force, that looking at a video of a shooting is like looking at a video of brain surgery...you might think you know what is going on...but you really don't because you're not trained in that area...this isn't Hollywood, or TV, this is the real world, and very few Hollywood writers live in the real world.
Judging a person's actions from video without the experience and training in teh functino they are performing is an exercise in inaccuracy and unfairness.
