# Police don't always have to shoot to kill



## Warrigal (Mar 13, 2015)

I heard this story earlier today and I thought that there is room for restraint when police have to deal with agitated people wielding weapons.



> *Darwin police shooting: Man armed with two knives runs at officer during Leanyer dispute*
> 
> By Steven Schubert
> Sat 14 Mar 2015
> ...


----------



## chic (Mar 14, 2015)

As a relative of law enforcement officals, I think our police face horrors civvies cannot even imagine everyday. I have no doubt their hair trigger reflexes save lives, including their own, on a daily basis. Police need to think and react fast. They hold public safety in their hands. I'm not very sympathetic with perps who get wounded during the commission of a crime, or armed individuals with malicious intent. I'm very much on the side of law enforcement on this issue. If someone is a danger to others, to themselves or to you,  you have to take them down quickly and anyway you can.


----------



## Warrigal (Mar 14, 2015)

Chic, don't you think that a police officer who kills someone in the course of duty is also a victim? If it can be avoided, it should be IMO.


----------



## 911 (Mar 14, 2015)

You had to know that I was going to reply to this thread. The information that I am sharing comes from what I have been told by my Trainers while as a police officer for the Pennsylvania State Police and at the Academy during advanced training courses. It is not meant to stir an argument or debate.

There has been many studies done by several public and private groups. From think tanks to government sponsored studies to private and public studies, most all have come to the same conclusion and that is time is relevant to the actions taken by a police officer when he removes his pistol from his holster. What happens next is dependent upon the actions taken by a perpetrator during the commission of a crime or if threatening the life of a victim or an officer. It really is all about time. 

When broken down what this means is that an officer only has so much time to make a decision and then to act on that decision. No one, whether it be a citizen or a police officer can predict what the perpetrator's actions will be. Most studies that have been done are on the "what if" theory. What if the officer would only shoot at an arm or a leg? What the study is actually stating is that the officer should avoid areas where there are organs that could cause death. So, other than the head, the officer should avoid not shooting to hit the torso. 

However, as earlier stated, no one can predict what the other person is going to do. Do you realize that it takes a person less than a quarter of a second to take his arm when it is at his side and then to touch his ear? What does this mean? Hypothetically speaking, think about a man is standing in front of you and is holding a gun at his side and you are holding your gun pointed at his chest. Now, suppose you are a cop and you tell him to drop it or freeze, don't move, but instead he begins to raise his arm. How are you going to react? Do you think that you will have time to now lower your weapon and shoot him in the arm or leg considering that he can bring his weapon up and fire at you in less than a quarter of a second? 

I have more information to give you more about these studies, but i think now you know how and why policeman act the way they do when confronted with anyone holding a weapon. Have you ever seen a policemen shoot at a suspect running away with his back to the officer, other than maybe in the movies? I believe the reason why a cop doesn't is obvious. 

I hope that in some small way, I have cleared up the issue as to why police officers shoot to kill. I can say this to each of you very honestly, no officer that I have ever known or been associated with has ever made any remarks stating that they were glad or they wanted to or they should have killed someone. Each time I drew my pistol, I was prepared to use it to defend myself or to protect someone. That is rule number one. Never draw your weapon unless you intend and are prepared to take a life. Fortunately, some police officers have shot suspects and only wounded them enough to be able to control the situation, but unfortunately it doesn't always turn out that way. 

My suggestion is always the same, "When given an order by a police officer, comply." Then, if anything goes awry, it may be possible to see things in a different light.


----------



## SifuPhil (Mar 14, 2015)

911 gave us a great explanation from the viewpoint of the police - allow me to try to give one from the perspective of the trained "guy in the street".

I've taught self-defense classes for many years and the one thing that I emphasize above all others is to engage in what the military calls "shock and awe". You don't mess around with someone who is seriously intent on harming you - you go right for the biggest response you can muster. Unless you are highly trained all of your emotions and your adrenaline dump and your nerves are going to be fighting against you, and anything less than your best shot is probably going to fall short of stopping your attacker.

Bare-handed encounters are one thing - when the attacker pulls out a weapon, be it a knife, a club or a gun, the scenario has just escalated and you will most probably be justified in the eyes of the law using whatever force necessary to stop the threat.

I teach 6 levels of response, ranging from just running away to using a deadly response. You don't mess around in the street if you're Joe Citizen - you don't have the options that the police have. You have to take care of business directly or not go home at all. 



> (Note - they did not aim at his chest)



Then they were not following their training.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Mar 14, 2015)

I agree Warri, they don't always have to shoot to kill but they're doing that more often here in America, for those who have _no weapons _in hand.  In the case you mention, the man did run out toward the officer with two knives in hand, but I wonder what the distance was.

  Also, if the cop had a police dog, why wasn't it let loose on the guy, he would surely have been knocked to the ground at least?  It sounded like there was more than one cop there, nobody else had a taser or pepper spray that worked?  If that's the case, then the department needs to get some supplies.

  Maybe I'm misunderstanding what happened, I don't know.  The good thing is, they didn't kill him like they do all too often here, he appeared to only have injuries in the hand and thigh, that's the way it should be unless there's a man with gun in hand threating the officer, or a personal close attack is in process.


----------



## Don M. (Mar 14, 2015)

911 is correct.  All this recent publicity about police shootings overlooks the fact that a police officer must make a Snap Decision when confronted by a hostile individual.  If he guesses wrong, he may very well become the victim.  Only a Complete Idiot fails to stop and obey the police when that officer says "Halt".  In virtually every one of these recent cases that the media has been consumed with, the individual who was shot had a criminal record, and behaved in a hostile manner when the officer arrived.  These "victims" have no one but themselves to blame.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Mar 14, 2015)

911 said:


> Hypothetically speaking, think about a man is standing in front of you and is holding a gun at his side and you are holding your gun pointed at his chest. Now, suppose you are a cop and you tell him to drop it or freeze, don't move, but instead he begins to raise his arm. How are you going to react? Do you think that you will have time to now lower your weapon and shoot him in the arm or leg considering that he can bring his weapon up and fire at you in less than a quarter of a second?



Whether I'm a cop or not, if somebody is threatening me with a gun in his hand, I would shoot to kill before he took my life.  In a case with police, when someone is armed with a gun, and he doesn't throw it on the ground and put his hands up when ordered to...then shoot to kill would be an order, IMO, seconds would matter.  Depending on the situation, there may not be time to order the criminal to drop his weapon...but unless they're planning to attack the officer, they normally would drop it and put their hands up voluntarily in order not to get shot themselves, that's what I would do if I was a criminal anyway.


----------



## Shalimar (Mar 14, 2015)

I have had a gun pointed at me by someone who had no idea what they were doing. Scary stuff, and not something Canadians are particularly accustomed to. Fortunately, things turned out well. That said, I was so terrified, I would have shot him if I was armed,I still struggle to come to terms with the cultural conflict I feel around that.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 14, 2015)

Still doesn't convince me that Cops always have no choice but to kill...   So many times a disabling shot would have worked.   I'm just not buying into it.


----------



## Don M. (Mar 14, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Still doesn't convince me that Cops always have no choice but to kill...   So many times a disabling shot would have worked.   I'm just not buying into it.



If you were a cop, faced with an assailant, would you take several seconds to carefully aim at the lunatics kneecap?  If so, You would probably be the one going to the hospital or grave.  I seriously doubt that you have ever held a gun, much less tried to aim it at a moving target.  These confrontations happen very quickly, and there is little or no time for a cop to be "Politically Correct".  Anyone who acts aggressively in a tense situation with the police is just asking to be shot.


----------



## Shalimar (Mar 14, 2015)

I really don't understand why we cannot debate this issue without descending into personal attacks. It is not helpful, and does not bolster our arguments in the least. Whatever happened to grey areas, and everyone being entitled to their own opinion?


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 14, 2015)

Don M. said:


> If you were a cop, faced with an assailant, would you take several seconds to carefully aim at the lunatics kneecap?  If so, You would probably be the one going to the hospital or grave.  I seriously doubt that you have ever held a gun, much less tried to aim it at a moving target.  These confrontations happen very quickly, and there is little or no time for a cop to be "Politically Correct".  Anyone who acts aggressively in a tense situation with the police is just asking to be shot.




Nope... Still not convinced...  Teach them to aim at the kneecap..   Or disable in some way... While I agree that there are times when there is no choice... I would bet that over 50% of the time killing was unnecessay...


----------



## oldman (Mar 14, 2015)

QuickSilver said:


> Nope... Still not convinced...  Teach them to aim at the kneecap..   Or disable in some way... While I agree that there are times when there is no choice... I would bet that over 50% of the time killing was unnecessay...



I think you would be wrong....Dead Wrong!


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 14, 2015)

oldman said:


> I think you would be wrong....Dead Wrong!




Nope... I will NEVER believe that... I think it's just easier to shoot to kill..  IT takes skill to make a snap decision to shoot to maim or disable... Very easy to aim for the kill and then CLAIM there was no other choice.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 14, 2015)

When I was in the Coast Guard we were charged with many responsibilities.  Air/Sea rescue, marine game laws, marine environmental law enforcement and Drug intervention to mention the main ones.  We were specifically trained for certain duties.  We were taught in some instances like boarding a suspected drug boat if confronted by an armed individual, to aim and shoot for the largest target, the torso.  This talk of arm or leg shots is crazy when the suspect can still kill you.  Your job is to protect yourself and other citizens, not the suspect.  If I had to kill in performing my duty, I would have followed my training.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Mar 14, 2015)

Jim, of course if he was armed with a gun you'd shoot to kill, but I'm curious, would you have killed someone if they were just at a distance holding a knife?


----------



## SifuPhil (Mar 14, 2015)

This reminds me of the old argument in the martial arts world about pressure point fighting.

There were some self-styled "masters" who claimed that they could win any fight by striking a specific point on their opponent's body with only one or two fingers. They did fine when they put on demonstrations with their students, but when they faced an "outsider" they consistently lost to the traditional punches and kicks. Why? Because the REAL opponents didn't stand still long enough for the "master" to place his shots. 

Only someone who has never had an occasion to use a firearm, especially a handgun, under duress would believe that you can place your shots so accurately. Hollywood loves to depict the old West sheriff shooting the gun out of the bad guys hand, but that's all it is - Hollywood. It isn't reality.


----------



## SifuPhil (Mar 14, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> Jim, of course if he was armed with a gun you'd shoot to kill, but I'm curious, would you have killed someone if they were just at a distance holding a knife?



There's something called the "21 foot" rule. If you are facing a knife-wielding opponent who is within 21 feet of you, even though you have a gun you can still be defeated.


----------



## AZ Jim (Mar 14, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> Jim, of course if he was armed with a gun you'd shoot to kill, but I'm curious, would you have killed someone if they were just at a distance holding a knife?



SB, It's a decision I never had to make and there are many circumstances one must be prepared to encounter so it's not possible to answer that unless we knew ALL the circumstances.


----------



## QuickSilver (Mar 15, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> Jim, of course if he was armed with a gun you'd shoot to kill, but I'm curious, would you have killed someone if they were just at a distance holding a knife?




And this is what I'm saying also.   Of course if someone is pointing a gun at an officer, he would shoot to kill... BUt.. SO many times the "suspects" are holding knives, or are completely unarmed and considered to be "resisting arrest".. yet they are killed.. There is no reason for it.. aim to disable maybe, but kill?   Ridiculous


----------

