• 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

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,987
Reaction score
16,579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Should police be required to shoot to wound suspects who threatening their lives?

Yes
No
Maybe/other



I say no. They may not have time to aim for a leg,hand,foot or a arm and even if they were expert sharpshooters a such wounds may not stop a suspect. When I think of this proposed bill I am reminded of a OCP commercial on a Robocop movie where they list all the officers "who sacrificed their lives for nonlethal force act.


http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?default_fld=&bn=+A02952 &Summary=Y&Text=Y

1 Section 1. Subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of subdivision 2 of
2 section 35.15 of the penal law, as amended by chapter 511 of the laws of
3 2004, is amended to read as follows:
4 (ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
5 officer or a peace officer at the latter's direction, acting pursuant to
6 section 35.30 OF THIS ARTICLE; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, HE OR SHE USES SUCH
7 FORCE WITH THE INTENT TO STOP, RATHER THAN KILL, THE PERSON WHO HE OR
8 SHE REASONABLY BELIEVES IS USING UNLAWFUL FORCE, AND USES ONLY THE MINI-
9 MAL AMOUNT OF FORCE NECESSARY TO EFFECT SUCH STOP; or
10 S 2. Paragraph (c) of subdivision 1 of section 35.30 of the penal law,
11 as amended by chapter 843 of the laws of 1980, is amended to read as
12 follows:
13 (c) Regardless of the particular offense which is the subject of the
14 arrest or attempted escape, the use of deadly physical force is neces-
15 sary to defend the police officer or peace officer or another person
16 from what the officer reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use
17 of deadly physical force; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, HE OR SHE USES SUCH FORCE
18 WITH THE INTENT TO STOP, RATHER THAN KILL, A PERSON FROM ESCAPING OR
19 RESISTING ARREST, AND USES ONLY THE MINIMAL AMOUNT OF FORCE NECESSARY TO
20 EFFECT SUCH STOP.
21 S 3. Section 125.15 of the penal law is amended to read as follows:
22 S 125.15 Manslaughter in the second degree.
23 A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when:
24 1. He OR SHE recklessly causes the death of another person; or



An old poll I created years ago.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/archi...ops-and-feels-sorry-criminals.html#post246488
 
Last edited:

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,167
Reaction score
21,573
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
no! the amount of force used should be up to the discretion of the officer
 

HeresToThePoint

New member
Joined
May 31, 2010
Messages
37
Reaction score
9
Location
California, United States Capital of Public Debt
Political Leaning
Independent
No. If someone is threatening the lives of others, it should be a peace officer's primary job to protect the lives of the citizenry and himself. If the suspect is disabled or gives up after being shot, certainly its not okay to put an extra round in the criminal for kicks. That being said, when someone materially threatens lives I think a person gives up their right to complain about where they get shot. I'd back a officer's discretion to use as much force as he judges necessary to stop the suspect.
 

Anarcho-fascist

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 12, 2009
Messages
1,069
Reaction score
264
Location
T E X A S !
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
If you feel safe enough to think you can stop a threatening person by shooting to wound, then you probably aren't in enough danger to shoot at all.
 

webrockk

Active member
Joined
May 9, 2010
Messages
488
Reaction score
159
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
"Required" ? Clarify. Unless I'm mistaken (I'm not), "Double tap, center mass" is still policy when dealing with death and life decisions...
 
Last edited:

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Terrible, terrible idea
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,167
Reaction score
21,573
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
"Required" ? Clarify. Unless I'm mistaken (I'm not), "Double tap, center mass" is still policy when dealing with death and life decisions...

well if this thing gets passed, it'll be "single tap, in a non lethal place, but make sure you avoid arteries, and administer pain killers afterwards, 'cause we don't like criminal to be in any form of discomfort"
 

Your Star

Rage More!
DP Veteran
Joined
May 15, 2010
Messages
27,241
Reaction score
19,930
Location
Georgia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Shooting to wound with a gun is a rather hard thing to do. Either you're going to miss, hit them in a lethal spot, or hit them in an arm or leg, and risk them still being able to attack.. So there's really no point, cops shoot to protect innocent lives, and their own. It's not like they want to kill anybody, if they shoot someone in the stomach and there down, there not going to go shoot them in the head to finish them off. So its kind of a moot point in my mind.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Should police be required to shoot to wound suspects who threatening their lives?

Yes
No
Maybe/other



I say no. They may not have time to aim for a leg,hand,foot or a arm and even if they were expert sharpshooters a such wounds may not stop a suspect. When I think of this proposed bill I am reminded of a OCP commercial on a Robocop movie where they list all the officers "who sacrificed their lives for nonlethal force act.


Bills

1 Section 1. Subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of subdivision 2 of
2 section 35.15 of the penal law, as amended by chapter 511 of the laws of
3 2004, is amended to read as follows:
4 (ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
5 officer or a peace officer at the latter's direction, acting pursuant to
6 section 35.30 OF THIS ARTICLE; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, HE OR SHE USES SUCH
7 FORCE WITH THE INTENT TO STOP, RATHER THAN KILL, THE PERSON WHO HE OR
8 SHE REASONABLY BELIEVES IS USING UNLAWFUL FORCE, AND USES ONLY THE MINI-
9 MAL AMOUNT OF FORCE NECESSARY TO EFFECT SUCH STOP; or
10 S 2. Paragraph (c) of subdivision 1 of section 35.30 of the penal law,
11 as amended by chapter 843 of the laws of 1980, is amended to read as
12 follows:
13 (c) Regardless of the particular offense which is the subject of the
14 arrest or attempted escape, the use of deadly physical force is neces-
15 sary to defend the police officer or peace officer or another person
16 from what the officer reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use
17 of deadly physical force; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, HE OR SHE USES SUCH FORCE
18 WITH THE INTENT TO STOP, RATHER THAN KILL, A PERSON FROM ESCAPING OR
19 RESISTING ARREST, AND USES ONLY THE MINIMAL AMOUNT OF FORCE NECESSARY TO
20 EFFECT SUCH STOP.
21 S 3. Section 125.15 of the penal law is amended to read as follows:
22 S 125.15 Manslaughter in the second degree.
23 A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when:
24 1. He OR SHE recklessly causes the death of another person; or



An old poll I created years ago.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/archi...ops-and-feels-sorry-criminals.html#post246488

A firearm is a lethal weapon. It's use inherently threatens people's lives. The mechanics of a gun design it to kill rather than wound. And the difficulty of making a wounding shot is quite difficult.

Instead, police officers should not be trained in how to make "wounding shots" but rather trained and equipped with "less than lethal weapons." These include tasers and beanbag shotgun shells. I think these type of weapons should be developed and researched more, and should be done for the safety of the police officer and the suspects they have to use nonlethal force on.

I think police officers should be armed with both a firearm and a less-than-lethal weapon, and the use of each is at the discretion of the officer. I'm no expert, but I think a standard operating procedure should be that an officer with a partner should use have his less-than-lethal weapon ready but his partner should have his firearm ready as well, in case the less-than-lethal weapon is ineffective.
 

O_Guru

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
758
Reaction score
155
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I replied NO, only because there wasnt a HELL NO
suspects threatening their lives or others = a free 1st class ticket to Deadly Force Island
Sorry I have no remorse for these people, cop killers and people that attempt such are scum
 

ADK_Forever

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
3,706
Reaction score
1,001
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This is dumb, dumb, dumb. Even tho some situations look like shooting to wound could have been used, trying to legislate this will cause police and victims to die. There is no looking back from dead.
 

tacomancer

Christian Capitalist Social Democrat
Bartender
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
49,477
Reaction score
29,174
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The police should have the option to shoot to kill if they perceive a credible threat.

First of all, shooting to wound takes more aiming time which is dangerous
Second, it may not wound the other person sufficiently for them to no longer be a danger.
 
Last edited:

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,235
Reaction score
14,250
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I think police should be able to kill in self defense, but non lethal force should always be the priority. However, if the guy is shooting at you and non lethal force isn't an option, I'm all for cops shooting to kill.
 

Zyphlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
51,312
Reaction score
35,173
Location
NoMoAuchie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Absolutely positively not.

If a suspect is threatening the lives of the officer, his fellow officers, or the citizenry they're supposed to be protecting then I have no issue with the law enforcement officer (or military officer honestly) using lethal force if they feel its needed.

If they believe lethal force is needed but try for less than lethal force by trying to "Wound" them they are essentially putting their life, the lives of their fellow offiers, and the citizens around. Aiming to "wound" requires more thinking then instinct (yay for muscle memory), is a smaller target that is moving far more than center mass, and is no garauntee that it will actually actively stop the threat.

Its idiotic.
 

Cephus

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 15, 2007
Messages
31,034
Reaction score
11,932
Location
CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Absolutely not. If you're going to shoot at all, you shoot to kill. Police are trained to aim for the main body mass and put down the target.
 

country

Member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
89
Reaction score
23
Location
mo
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Absolutely not. In the first place , a wounded suspect would still be capable of inflicting life threatening damage to the officer or others.
Second place, few people are that accurate in a life threatening situation. Go for the kill every time!
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
76,519
Reaction score
32,395
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Of course not. The ONLY reason to fire a weapon is imminent threat to life. The answer at that point is shoot to end the threat. center mass...twice to the chest, one to the head. Observe. Fire again if needed.
 

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
81,601
Reaction score
49,863
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
no! the amount of force used should be up to the discretion of the officer

Not quite. If someone is acting in a way that threatens the life of the officer, I have no quarrels with him defending himself and using deadly force. However the amount of force used by police officers in general should not be up to the discretion of the officer. Because they can very easily then abuse said discretion. The actions of the officers should always be reviewed to ensure that they reacted reasonably and did not use excessive force. Such as if a suspect is handcuffed and on the ground...probably shouldn't beat him with nightsticks and boots. But if a guy pulls a gun and a cop shoots him, then that was, IMO, reasonable response by the officer.
 

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
36,167
Reaction score
21,573
Location
Didjabringabeeralong
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Communist
Not quite. If someone is acting in a way that threatens the life of the officer, I have no quarrels with him defending himself and using deadly force. However the amount of force used by police officers in general should not be up to the discretion of the officer. Because they can very easily then abuse said discretion. The actions of the officers should always be reviewed to ensure that they reacted reasonably and did not use excessive force. Such as if a suspect is handcuffed and on the ground...probably shouldn't beat him with nightsticks and boots. But if a guy pulls a gun and a cop shoots him, then that was, IMO, reasonable response by the officer.

well, thats what i meant, in a situation when the officers life is threatened, it up to their discretion, i should've been more specific
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,586
Reaction score
50,204
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
A firearm is a lethal weapon. It's use inherently threatens people's lives. The mechanics of a gun design it to kill rather than wound. And the difficulty of making a wounding shot is quite difficult.

Instead, police officers should not be trained in how to make "wounding shots" but rather trained and equipped with "less than lethal weapons." These include tasers and beanbag shotgun shells. I think these type of weapons should be developed and researched more, and should be done for the safety of the police officer and the suspects they have to use nonlethal force on.

I think police officers should be armed with both a firearm and a less-than-lethal weapon, and the use of each is at the discretion of the officer. I'm no expert, but I think a standard operating procedure should be that an officer with a partner should use have his less-than-lethal weapon ready but his partner should have his firearm ready as well, in case the less-than-lethal weapon is ineffective.


That's actually more-or-less a good description of how most departments do things these days. We didn't have Tasers back in my day, but almost all the young cops I see these days have both a Taser and a sidearm. The exception to having one cop with his Taser out and one ready to use his sidearm would be a criminal who was armed with a firearm: you can't play with those situations.

"Shooting to wound", along with "why did they shoot him five times?" are questions I hear mainly from people who have little or no knowlege of firearms or lethal-force situations. Handguns are weapons with inherently limited accuracy and power; aiming anywhere but center of mass is a good way to miss for most shooters. Also, one or two shots center-of-mass (COM) may not result in an instant "STOP" (cessation of hostile activity or flight) in many cases, necessitating more shots fired... this problem would be far more exacerbated by any attempts to "shoot to wound".

It is also a generally held legal principle in the US that if you "shot to wound" then the situation wasn't serious enough to shoot at all. I do find it a bit hypocritical that we hold that legal principle while at the same time claiming that "intent to STOP" vs "intent to kill" has something to do with whether it was a lawful good-shoot or not, especially since it is widely held that to shoot at all is considered "lethal force" regardless of intent. :roll:
 

earthworm

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
5,728
Reaction score
904
Location
Goldsboro,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Lets try to bring this into the 20th century before the present one (21st) is over.
Generally NO to killing using guns.
Lets see if we can police up some good ideas from those most affected.
Any intelligent law enforcers out there?
BTW, the law itself requires reform/improvement.
 

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,951
Reaction score
12,422
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Should police be required to shoot to wound suspects who threatening their lives?

They should replace all weapons with a peer mediation councilor.
They should also give potential criminals a bullet proof vest, in case the officer brings his own weapon from home.

Can't be to careful. :neutral:
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,586
Reaction score
50,204
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
They should replace all weapons with a peer mediation councilor.
They should also give potential criminals a bullet proof vest, in case the officer brings his own weapon from home.

Can't be to careful. :neutral:


Tasty jalepeno-flavored irony, I like it. :mrgreen:
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,586
Reaction score
50,204
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Lets try to bring this into the 20th century before the present one (21st) is over.
Generally NO to killing using guns.
Lets see if we can police up some good ideas from those most affected.
Any intelligent law enforcers out there?
BTW, the law itself requires reform/improvement.


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.
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Not quite. If someone is acting in a way that threatens the life of the officer, I have no quarrels with him defending himself and using deadly force. However the amount of force used by police officers in general should not be up to the discretion of the officer. Because they can very easily then abuse said discretion. The actions of the officers should always be reviewed to ensure that they reacted reasonably and did not use excessive force. Such as if a suspect is handcuffed and on the ground...probably shouldn't beat him with nightsticks and boots. But if a guy pulls a gun and a cop shoots him, then that was, IMO, reasonable response by the officer.

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....
 
Top Bottom