Before ruling:
“I shot the suspect because I had a reasonable suspicion he was armed and dangerous.”
After ruling:
“It was necessary to shoot the suspect because I had a reasonable suspicion he was armed and dangerous.”
I feel safer already.
3 Likes
Will there be a distinction between “reasonably necessary” and “necessarily reasonable”?
1 Like
We need a lot better non-lethal weapons. Honestly, I’d like to see the cop carry the Tazer and other non-lethal weapons, and have a shotgun and a rifle in the car, but not on them.
Everything I’ve read has said that shooting not to kill doesn’t really work. I don’t want the cops thinking that they can shoot someone and expect them to survive, because the odds are they won’t. Even getting shot in an extremity has a fairly good chance of death.
2 Likes
They wouldn’t aim for the head anyway. Shooting people is hard. Professionals aim for the chest or the gut just because that’s where there is the most margin for error where they would still hit something.
And there aren’t really any body parts you can shoot that will disable someone without probably killing them. A hole big enough that they can’t ignore it and keep fighting is a hole big enough to bleed out.
They shouldn’t be shooting anybody unless society would agree the target needs to immediately die.
5 Likes
This is a bad idea. If you have the opportunity to shoot to wound, then it could be argued (and rightfully so) that the cop never should have shot in the first place.
If lethal force is used, it should because thee was little to no other recourse.
Also a “wounding” shot can fast become a lethal one. Which is why we should use less lethal measures when possible, but not abuse them (they are less lethal, not ‘non-lethal’).
Obama’s War on Cops
Thin Blue Line of Heroes
Why are you making my job harder?
Punisher skulls
I was In Fear!
Have I missed anything?
I hope California leadership has the will and tools needed to enforce this law. The “ghost” of LAPD Police Chief Darryl F. Gates still lingers in the form of a police force – now not only limited to just Los Angeles – that is in many respects still paramilitaristic and tuned to view the citizenry as the enemy.
2 Likes
Plenty of countries have beat cops who do not carry lethal weapons. No reason not to do that here, give that they can’t seem to help themselves.
Um. Okay. My point is they should shoot to kill unless they are god damn certain that the person they are dealing with is a lethal threat themselves. Period.
Maybe that’s the case, then. They can’t help but to shoot children fleeing from them, shooting children playing with toys, shooting people with mental illnesses for not complying, including people who are NAKED.
They should not use it in the vast majority of cases. Period.
Let’s take their guns away. Fuck it. I’m sick of hearing about children dying.
2 Likes
Yeah, everyone on both sides who has looked into this seems to agree that you don’t shoot unless you mean to kill, and when you shoot, you shoot to kill. So shooting should be last resort. Now for defining last resort…
I’m glad that everyone could jump one the one point that they think I fucked up in all my statements about this. Because that was the core of my entire argument… /s
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
