Should Police use deadly force?

kingtoocan

There is no true or correct answer to this question the only way to even begin to answer it would be to stand in the shoes of the police or anyone else there at that time

Rachel S

Police aren't taught to shoot to kill. They're taught to shoot to stop. Stop the action that is taking place. But also taught to aim for center mass since it's the largest part of the body and if the person happens to die from the wound oh well. They shouldn't have had a gun or knife in their hand intending to harm someone.

NORMAN M

I live in South Africa where violent crime is rife, my personal belief is that the punishment does not fit the crime and police have to be shot at before they can return fire.
The South African Government need to bring back the death sentence, caning and prison farms instead of putting a roof over criminals heads feeding them 3 times a day TV etc. When they are on the streets they eat out of garbage cans

sexxymexxy926

R u really that retarded? Yes, in the State of Missouri we give one maybe two commands for them to drop their weapon. If they raise the weapon towards either an officer or a citizen, we shoot to stop the threat.

I was attacked about 3 years ago. My sergeant ended up having to shoot a guy that was on top of me. If he had not, I would be dead.

posture

No, that would just create a lot more chaos.

twocooldrew

YES

D baby

Deadly force is always the last option. However it occurs when suspects try to shoot/stab officers so the officers shoot where they are trained to shoot- center mass. The intention is to stop the threat. It is done to preserve other human life.

slimthing

nope, i believe they should shoot to disarm

someonecanbme

**If a person has a gun or a knife and intends to use it for harm.** Should the police shoot to kill this person?

FOR THE VERY REASON THAT YOU LISTED....

bambi

If the lives of others are in imminent danger, than the police must do what is necessary to protect people. If there is any less drastic course of action available to the officers, then they should try it first

papa bear

yes,,better him/her than someone else !!!!!!

trailsman1961

yes

Munz

If their firearm is the only option that they have at the time then they should shoot to protect themselves or a third person.
Police officers are taught to shoot to stop the threat, not to kill.
Shooting to disarm someone is pure television, in the heat of the moment with your heart pounding hands shaking and taking everything in including where your bullets may travel to after passing through a suspect, a police officer is lucky to hit his target at all.
Police officers are taught to fire for center mass. The largest exposed portion of the body that is available to stop the imminent threat of danger to themselves or third persons.

brian2007

They should only use this as a last resort to protect themselves and the public. It will be a justifiable act of self-defense.

jennifersuem

Yes Justifiable Homicide!

Shoot first, ask questions later!

Valley Mental Health tooele Utah

only as a tool to stop overpopulation of the planet

JuVi

they should be the Judge, Jury, AND Executioner.

puresplprix

Umm i dont know where YOU stay but in the U.S. and pretty much everywhere I can think of they should and DO sometimes even if the person dosnt intend to use it for harm

evilprincess

if the person armed is coming at the officer or anyone else in a threatening matter then yes the officer will shoot the person. the police are trained to shoot to kill not shoot to disarm. most depts use less lethal forms like the bean bag gun or the taser.

djk

That is what they are trained to do.

MIKE B

yes

John Doe

YEAH WHY NOT IF HES GOING TO HARM SOMEONE

Scott

Only if they feel that person is putting themselves or other people in danger. Deadly force should always be a last ditch effort.

dan_asian991

yeah

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: