• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should police be required to shoot to wound suspects who threatening their lives?

Should police be required to shoot to wound suspects who threatening their lives?


  • Total voters
    68
No. I think the majority of police officers do a pretty good job already of using deadly force only when absolutely necessary. Those that don't are unlikely to follow the new law anyway, so it doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose
 
Last edited:
My daddy always told me...if you pull it, be ready to use it. If an officer is threatened enough to pull a gun, he better be shooting to kill, for his safety and the safety of anyone else around. Thats also why they have tasers, sticks, etc. If less force than lethal force is needed, they use other things besides their gun.
 
Last edited:
I think you got a wee bit too literal there.

I do believe the poster was speaking in terms of a reasonable level of force to be used at the discretion of the Officer.

You know, that guy or gal who is THERE at the time and whose responsibility it is to make a quick decision to safeguard the lives of the public, themselves, their fellow officers, and yes, even the suspect.

Personally I think this was just another lame attempt to make a jab at officers who act out of accordance with training and policy. Yes, Ikari, we get it, some guys act like complete douchebags..... Moving on....

Personally, I think this was just another lame attempt to make a jab at me because you don't like my personal opinions. Like it or not, what I gave was a complete answer, so get over yourself already. If you can't handle complete answers, well I don't know what to really tell you. Should be well within the abilities of any human.

And if you weren't being so smarmy and trying to jump on my ass for nothing, as per usual. You would have noted that I said exactly as others have said. If someone threatens the life of an officer, pulls a gun or something like that, it is reasonable to react with deadly force. So try reading and comprehending instead of flying off the handle at all my posts.
 
Given the inaccuracy of pistols and the high stress nature of shooting, police have trouble even hitting the target, much less aiming for specific body parts. The center of mass is chosen as the main target primarily because it enhances hit probability. To make things worse, incapacitation is fairly random. Unless you hit the central nervous system, pain and shock are the primary means of neutralizing the target. Sometimes a person drops after a single hit, sometimes they keep coming after half a dozen. Realistically, the officer has no control over whether they kill or wound the subject in most circumstances.
 
Spend one week patrolling with a police officer in an inner-city setting and you'll change your mind.

As it is you don't have a clue.
How about you spending one week studying the definition of "civility", Goshin. Then spend another week thinking of what I wrote..... For my entire life(70 years) this business of kill or be killed has been going on....where has it gotten us??
Bigger, more lethal weapons and flack jackets?
More body bags?
Walls between nations?
What a waste!
I think we are intelligent beings, there must be a better solution.
Or, have we come to the limit of our intelligence and we must now revert to being animals?
BTW, my poll response was "other".
 
Last edited:
no! the amount of force used should be up to the discretion of the officer

I love how you explained the flaw in J-rage's logic and his total misunderstanding of the SOP, but he thanks you anyway...

That's classic.
 
How about you spending one week studying the definition of "civility", Goshin. Then spend another week thinking of what I wrote..... For my entire life(70 years) this business of kill or be killed has been going on....where has it gotten us??
Bigger, more lethal weapons and flack jackets?
More body bags?
Walls between nations?
What a waste!
I think we are intelligent beings, there must be a better solution.
Or, have we come to the limit of our intelligence and we must now revert to being animals?
BTW, my poll response was "other".
You say that as if the police arent CONSTANTLY looking for better non-lethal solutions. However...the reality is SOMETIMES the other person isnt committed to civility and there IS only one response.

I dont see anyone advocating shooting people for jaywalking. I dont see anyone suggesting police should kill more often. The thread is simply If police NEED to shoot should they be REQUIRED to wound instead of kill...and anyone with ANY experience with firearms or combat knows how absolutely foolish that is.
 
ABSOLUTELY NOT
requiring an office to wound in a life threatening situation will only lead to the following

slower response/reaction time
hindrance of enforcing law and order
more law enforcement and victim deaths
more and braver criminals
more disorder
 
For my entire life(70 years) this business of kill or be killed has been going on....where has it gotten us??

We are alive, are we not? Look at the works of our civilization, and the great civilizations that have preceded ours, before you lament that our ways have given us nothing.

I think we are intelligent beings, there must be a better solution.
Or, have we come to the limit of our intelligence and we must now revert to being animals?
BTW, my poll response was "other".

Our violence, both our capacity for it and our inclination to it, has always been a part of us and to claim now that it makes us little more than the lesser animals whom we exercise our dominion over is to deny human history and human nature. It is to deny part of our humanity and part of what has made us great over the ten millennia of our history.

However...the reality is SOMETIMES the other person isnt committed to civility and there IS only one response.

People seem to forget that civility only has value among those who share the same commitment to upholding it.
 
Last edited:
You say that as if the police arent CONSTANTLY looking for better non-lethal solutions. However...the reality is SOMETIMES the other person isnt committed to civility and there IS only one response.

I dont see anyone advocating shooting people for jaywalking. I dont see anyone suggesting police should kill more often. The thread is simply If police NEED to shoot should they be REQUIRED to wound instead of kill...and anyone with ANY experience with firearms or combat knows how absolutely foolish that is.
As far as the specific case in this debate goes; the policeman should do what is most effective..be that kill or wound; I agree, of course, that to require that the police be required to wound rather than kill is absurd..
I favor what England has done, but this may not be effective over here.
As I say, first we must advance to the 20th century....
 
We are alive, are we not? Look at the works of our civilization, and the great civilizations that have preceded ours, before you lament that our ways have given us nothing.
Yes, we are alive; Am I seeking to be more than alive?
And, during my lifetime, 100,000,000 or so people are not alive. These people, if not for their position, would beg to differ.....And the criminal or the criminal to be, if there was more civility and respect on our end, would this help?



Our violence, both our capacity for it and our inclination to it, has always been a part of us and to claim now that it makes us little more than the lesser animals whom we exercise our dominion over is to deny human history and human nature. It is to deny part of our humanity and part of what has made us great over the ten millennia of our history.



People seem to forget that civility only has value among those who share the same commitment to upholding it.

Anyway, even as I differ with you, Korimyr, a thank you.
This site needs some tweaking, I think the old one was fine as is.
 
Personally, I think this was just another lame attempt to make a jab at me because you don't like my personal opinions. Like it or not, what I gave was a complete answer, so get over yourself already. If you can't handle complete answers, well I don't know what to really tell you. Should be well within the abilities of any human.

And if you weren't being so smarmy and trying to jump on my ass for nothing, as per usual. You would have noted that I said exactly as others have said. If someone threatens the life of an officer, pulls a gun or something like that, it is reasonable to react with deadly force. So try reading and comprehending instead of flying off the handle at all my posts.

I did read that you agree with the TOPIC of the thread.

What is your reason for bringing up some asshat dirtbag of a cop beating a handcuffed subject when that is not the topic of debate?
Lets try to stay on topic then Ikari.
 
ABSOLUTELY NOT
requiring an office to wound in a life threatening situation will only lead to the following

slower response/reaction time
hindrance of enforcing law and order
more law enforcement and victim deaths
more and braver criminals
more disorder

Not to mention, aiming for targets like hands and feet, a smaller more mobile target like this, could lead to more missed shots. These missed shots have to go somewhere, and could pose a greater risk of accidentally wounding the public instead of the suspect.

While yes this is already an issue that law enforcement faces, which is why it is always important to consider your backdrop when deciding when and where to engage with deadly force, this notion that we now should take time to aim at smaller more mobile targets only makes this problem worse.
 
I did read that you agree with the TOPIC of the thread.

What is your reason for bringing up some asshat dirtbag of a cop beating a handcuffed subject when that is not the topic of debate?
Lets try to stay on topic then Ikari.

It's called an example. I assumed you were familiar with the term. Guess I was wrong.
 
It's called an example. I assumed you were familiar with the term. Guess I was wrong.

An example that was off topic nonetheless.
 
Oh hell no! And no again. That would be the most incredibly stupid **** ever created on planet earth.

You don't have time to aim for a non-lethal area. You shoot to kill, period.
 
SOME cops are trigger happy, with their guns and their tazers....a recent event in Utah had a cop tazing a mentally disturbed man who was unarmed, and either off his meds or having a bad reaction to them. The man died. His family was there and between family and cop they should have been able to tackle him.

If they have time to shoot to wound, they should make the first shot from a designated shooter to wound any perp with a non firearm weapon. Give that a few seconds, if the perp is still up and threatening, shoot to kill.....
I read a story about a cop shooting an armed suspect point blank with a .357 magnum, 3 rounds, and the perp turned and ran down an alley. Cop couldn't believe that he had missed. Turns out the perp was on PCP, didn't know he was dead. They found him down the alley, dead, still clutching his weapon. He could have killed the cop, but this time turned out good.
OTOH, some cops are over confident that they can take out a perp withoug killing him, and it goes bad, and a cop gets killed.

Nothing is simple in these kinds of situations...
 
The utter morons who would suggest such a policy clearly are completely clueless about

1) the accuracy of the average police officer or even a skilled one

2) the stopping power of handguns

3) the time it takes to acquire a target like a leg when your adversary is shooting to kill you
 
SOME cops are trigger happy, with their guns and their tazers....a recent event in Utah had a cop tazing a mentally disturbed man who was unarmed, and either off his meds or having a bad reaction to them. The man died. His family was there and between family and cop they should have been able to tackle him.

If they have time to shoot to wound, they should make the first shot from a designated shooter to wound any perp with a non firearm weapon. Give that a few seconds, if the perp is still up and threatening, shoot to kill.....
I read a story about a cop shooting an armed suspect point blank with a .357 magnum, 3 rounds, and the perp turned and ran down an alley. Cop couldn't believe that he had missed. Turns out the perp was on PCP, didn't know he was dead. They found him down the alley, dead, still clutching his weapon. He could have killed the cop, but this time turned out good.
OTOH, some cops are over confident that they can take out a perp withoug killing him, and it goes bad, and a cop gets killed.

Nothing is simple in these kinds of situations...

tazers are not designed to be used against someone deploying deadly force against an officer.

you have a tazer and your opponent has a gun you will most likely die

if a suspect challenges a cop with a knife or a club, the proper response is to draw a pistol

two reasons, non lethal means-mace, tazer, etc are notoriously unreliable stoppers

secondly, drawing a nightstick on a guy with a knife is a challenge. however, if you draw a gun you have given him an honorable option of backing down
even the toughest biker scum are not going to call a fellow mope a coward for dropping a knife when someone is pointing a 40 caliber at his head.

now if he backs down to a PR-24 or a tazer that is seriously dent in the cred
 
Back
Top Bottom