• 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
It is if the position being fired from is an office which wields the power and soveriegnty of the People and the "being human" part is abuse of said power and improper actions against the rights and liberties of the People while wielding their power and authority.

Repeating "rights and liberties" blah blah blah doesn't make my statement any less reasonable.
 
Yes, because getting injured by insane maniacs when they do not carry tools for self defense is a part of a paramedics job.

Guess I should have made that 2 sentences so everyone can understand what I said. The medics are there to transport the person who is out of control, the BACKUP is there to help subdue. Or did you miss the word BACKUP?
 
depends on the outcome....an officer injuring perp is one thing, a seriously maimed or killed perp, that is another....
Sucks, but that is how it goes. Anyone can be a great guy or gal, and make just ONE mistake, and pay for it the rest of his life. No amount of good evaluations and/or awards will allow for that one really stupid mistake.
Tain't fair, but it is what it is....

There is a point where your actions go from being an emotionally driven mistake, to becoming criminal.

Rodney King would be an example. Rodney King was an example of officers extremely pissed off at that guy and beating him long after he needed to be beat.

Contrary to popular belief though, It wasn't racism. King's black passenger who surrendered upon King stopping the vehicle was not beaten.
 
Repeating "rights and liberties" blah blah blah doesn't make my statement any less reasonable.

No does your claim that your statement is reasonable detract from it being incorrect. It's like saying a politician gets caught taking a huge bribe and it's "Oh, well he's just human. We'll forgive his blatent selling of his vote this time, this is the first time we've ever heard of this guy doing something wrong; so it's ok." No, he's out. Toss him into the street, tell him to get a new job. Any position which wields the power and sovereignty of the people is a position necessarily under extreme scrutiny. Any abuse of our power and sovereignty is rightful grounds for dismissal. Plain and simple.
 
It is if the position being fired from is an office which wields the power and soveriegnty of the People and the "being human" part is abuse of said power and improper actions against the rights and liberties of the People while wielding their power and authority.

agree, somehow some of our people in positions of power and authority lose perspective. It is bad enough when it is an unarmed poliltician betraying the public trust, but do we really want to give guns and power to those who can't control themselves?
 
agree, somehow some of our people in positions of power and authority lose perspective.

This is, sadly, exactly true. And I think it affects well more people on some level more than we're willing to admit.
 
Again, please read more carefully. There are THREE situations I am describing...one in town with an asswipe with an attitude who was trying to impress a potential date,
Did he state that he was trying to impress a date? See here we go again with making assumptions as fact.

what I wanted, but he was so out of control that he wouldn't let me speak at first.
No, sorry, engaging you in conversation to find out what you wanted, while trying to keep his attention on the car he has stopped, and now you as well as the roadway, no. you leave the man alone and let him do his job. NEVER roll up on an officer on a traffic stop and pester him with mundane ****.
 
No does your claim that your statement is reasonable detract from it being incorrect. It's like saying a politician gets caught taking a huge bribe and it's "Oh, well he's just human. We'll forgive his blatent selling of his vote this time, this is the first time we've ever heard of this guy doing something wrong; so it's ok." No, he's out. Toss him into the street, tell him to get a new job. Any position which wields the power and sovereignty of the people is a position necessarily under extreme scrutiny. Any abuse of our power and sovereignty is rightful grounds for dismissal. Plain and simple.

Your comparison is lame. Taking a huge bribe is not a "heat of the moment" scenario. It would be no different than a police officer taking a bribe to which I would also have to say is criminal.

If your compairson is how you are looking at my argument you need to go back and re read what I said instead of just blathering on like some kinda anarchist.
 
Your comparison is lame. Taking a huge bribe is not a "heat of the moment" scenario. It would be no different than a police officer taking a bribe to which I would also have to say is criminal.

You saying my argument is lame doesn't make it any less reasonable. All people who wield the power and sovereignty of the people are subject to extreme scrutiny of the job. That's it. You want to try to pretend that a politician abusing his power is somehow different than a cop abusing his power, but it's the same.

If your compairson is how you are looking at my argument you need to go back and re read what I said instead of just blathering on like some kinda anarchist.

Blah blah blah, this is your typical ad hominem attacks when you have nothing left in your tank.
 
Guess I should have made that 2 sentences so everyone can understand what I said. The medics are there to transport the person who is out of control, the BACKUP is there to help subdue. Or did you miss the word BACKUP?
My guess is that you haven't seen many crazy people being subdued. Being tazed is far less violent.
 
You want to try to pretend that a politician abusing his power is somehow different than a cop abusing his power, but it's the same.
LOL. And this is what you do when YOU have nothing left in your tank.
What you do is ignore what someone wrote and repeat "rights and blah blah"
Re read what I typed. I stated that your compairson would be the same as stating that a Police Officer took a bribe. They would both be wrong and criminal. They would both be using their position for personal gain.

In no way does your compairson of a politician taking a bribe relate to an officer who kicks a handcuffed guy a few times after a long chase when the adrenaline is rushing and he has let his emotions get the best of him.

While both technically "abuse of power" one is a mistake in the heat of the moment, and in my opinion forgivable. The other is a straight up criminal act.


Try reading plz. Kthnx.
 
They are both criminal acts. You simply do not want to see one as such because of your innate bias on the subject. Try thinking plz. Kthnxbye
 
From the cop documentaries I've seen they have enough trouble hitting the target at all, without worrying about just wounding people.
 
Well, I'm gratified to see that this thread remained on a lofty plateau of civil and intellectual discourse, and did not decend into the sort of petty personal bickering as threads often do...




:mrgreen:
 
From the cop documentaries I've seen they have enough trouble hitting the target at all, without worrying about just wounding people.

athe average cop doesn't shoot much

in 1989 I studied the Local Police Dept. It had 989 cops and they went through 140k rounds that year. since cops could shoot for free at the local police range-it was assumed most of them weren't buying lots of ammo and shooting at non-government ranges.

the training officer and three of his assistants were responsible for about 40K rounds of ammo. That means the rest shot about 120 Rounds a year and since the qualification course was 60 rounds that meant one qualification course and one practice run a year

when I was an A class USPSA/IPSC open divisions shooter(back in the Pre-Master days) I was shooting 35-60K rounds a year not counting hours of dry firing, airguns etc.

trying to be a competent pistol shot shooting 100 -300 rounds a year is akin to trying to be a 5 handicap golfer playing 2 rounds a year
 
athe average cop doesn't shoot much

in 1989 I studied the Local Police Dept. It had 989 cops and they went through 140k rounds that year. since cops could shoot for free at the local police range-it was assumed most of them weren't buying lots of ammo and shooting at non-government ranges.

the training officer and three of his assistants were responsible for about 40K rounds of ammo. That means the rest shot about 120 Rounds a year and since the qualification course was 60 rounds that meant one qualification course and one practice run a year

when I was an A class USPSA/IPSC open divisions shooter(back in the Pre-Master days) I was shooting 35-60K rounds a year not counting hours of dry firing, airguns etc.

trying to be a competent pistol shot shooting 100 -300 rounds a year is akin to trying to be a 5 handicap golfer playing 2 rounds a year


Excluding guys that are on SWAT or similar, this is true: most cops are not all that great with guns. Any serious competition shooter will be faster and more accurate than 95% of ordinary LEOs.
 
To shot someone should be a last resort action, not something that the police is required to do.
 
To shot someone should be a last resort action, not something that the police is required to do.

I'm wondering if you understood the question and it's context. The question was "should police be required to shoot to WOUND (as opposed to shooting to stop/kill) when a suspect is threatening someone's life."

It is a police officer's DUTY to act when someone threatens his own life or the life of an innocent citizen, he does not have the option of doing nothing, or of taking ineffective action, or being squeamish when someone's life is on the line. In most cases the most effective reaction will be to shoot the subject; if the officer fails to shoot the subject when the subject is threatening an innocent life, the officer may be held to have failed in his DUTY to protect the innocent.

The question was whether they should be required to shoot to wound rather than shooting center-of-mass (which is more often lethal), which is ridiculous because of a variety of practical considerations.

If you're not sure you can shoot someone at need, don't join the police department, because it is a job requirement.
 
Not just no but HELL NO !! But then I'm married to a cop. :cool:
 
Excluding guys that are on SWAT or similar, this is true: most cops are not all that great with guns. Any serious competition shooter will be faster and more accurate than 95% of ordinary LEOs.

The most respected police and civilian firearms instructor in Ohio noted that if you went to "Targetworld" (A public shooting range in northern Cincinnati) and pulled ten people off the range at random on a saturday afternoon in the winter (the busiest season) and then went over to the nearby Cincinnati Police Department range and pulled ten cops at random and had each group shoot the POlice qualification course and then take a written test on firearms related topics including laws, safety rules etc the 10 target world customers would destroy the cops 99 times out of 100.
 
The most respected police and civilian firearms instructor in Ohio noted that if you went to "Targetworld" (A public shooting range in northern Cincinnati) and pulled ten people off the range at random on a saturday afternoon in the winter (the busiest season) and then went over to the nearby Cincinnati Police Department range and pulled ten cops at random and had each group shoot the POlice qualification course and then take a written test on firearms related topics including laws, safety rules etc the 10 target world customers would destroy the cops 99 times out of 100.

Thats because those individuals take firearms up as a hobby, while its just a small (but important) part of the job of policing.

Some cops take up firearms as a hobby too, I think your firearms instructor fails to realize this.

Although to be honest, I don't have much of a hobby in the way of firearms. Hell, If I can't do it at home, and I can't take my kids to do it with me, I can't have it as a hobby currently. I used to go shooting back when I was at Ft. Bragg and didn't have kids.

When they get older, maybe, but I can't see bringing a 3 and 2 year old into a shooting range.
 
Thats because those individuals take firearms up as a hobby, while its just a small (but important) part of the job of policing.

Some cops take up firearms as a hobby too, I think your firearms instructor fails to realize this.

Although to be honest, I don't have much of a hobby in the way of firearms. Hell, If I can't do it at home, and I can't take my kids to do it with me, I can't have it as a hobby currently. I used to go shooting back when I was at Ft. Bragg and didn't have kids.

When they get older, maybe, but I can't see bringing a 3 and 2 year old into a shooting range.

Given the guy was an MP in the Nam and then spent 10 years as a patrol officer and SWAT member and then a couple decades of the combined county wide SWAT team's head (our county has lots of villages and small cities that cannot afford each to have a SWAT TEAM so each community would provide one officer who would serve in a joint SWAT TEAM) I suspect he knows that. I also (given I spent years defending police officers and various agency LEOs in lawsuits) know that police work involves far more than shooting.

I also know that when I hear chiefs of police pontificating on firearms laws I just laugh.
 
Given the guy was an MP in the Nam and then spent 10 years as a patrol officer and SWAT member and then a couple decades of the combined county wide SWAT team's head (our county has lots of villages and small cities that cannot afford each to have a SWAT TEAM so each community would provide one officer who would serve in a joint SWAT TEAM) I suspect he knows that. I also (given I spent years defending police officers and various agency LEOs in lawsuits) know that police work involves far more than shooting.
Understood. Although strangely, I would suspect that many rural departments (especially rural southern departments) have a greater portion of their police force interested in firearms as a hobby than your city departments. In the country people in general like to go shoot targets in their own back yards, its a hobby they can enjoy. There are too many ****ty laws to make hobbies such as gun shooting very enjoyable in cities. Your police force is usually a representative of your city as a whole, so there you go.

I also know that when I hear chiefs of police pontificating on firearms laws I just laugh.
Why is that?
 
Understood. Although strangely, I would suspect that many rural departments (especially rural southern departments) have a greater portion of their police force interested in firearms as a hobby than your city departments. In the country people in general like to go shoot targets in their own back yards, its a hobby they can enjoy. There are too many ****ty laws to make hobbies such as gun shooting very enjoyable in cities. Your police force is usually a representative of your city as a whole, so there you go.

Why is that?

Good points-

POlice chiefs tend to be the pet monkeys of the politicians they answer too

I had the Cincy Chief of POlice make the mistake of arguing guns with me. I tore him up so badly on a local TV station that the mayor of the city chewed his ass out the next day. He claimed they needed an assault weapon ban (remember cities can only pass misdemeanor ordinances) because they caught a "drug dealer" with a loaded tech 9 (32 round magazine-makes it a machine gun under Ohio law) and they couldn't arrest him.

So I pointed out all the laws they could have used to arrest the mope.

You know as well as I do that most big city police chiefs are politicians and bureaucrats more than they are cops

and nothing psses me off more than one of those clowns trying to use his status to con the press into thinking they know more about guns than people like me or worse, claiming only cops ought to be allowed to have 17 shot glocks etc
 
Back
Top Bottom