"Required" ? Clarify. Unless I'm mistaken (I'm not), "Double tap, center mass" is still policy when dealing with death and life decisions...
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
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?