Shoot first! Ask questions later! mirite?!
I mean, I can understand arguing that sometimes protective violence is necessary and accepting that tragedies happen. But you're literally taking a side here and saying that police lives are more important than ours. Why?
Several people were pissed off about privacy violations when Google glass was becoming popular. I'm trying to apply the same principle here. Yes, ideally the guy shouldn't have died, but if I have to take sides I'm supporting the cops doing their jobs over the person doing something without full knowledge of the situation. Shoot first, ask later, was a perfectly good response in this situation, IMO.
That demands an immediate assessment of threat. I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that they just needed to wait a bit longer for more/better information to arrive when their current assessment based on the information available at that moment suggested a high risk to themselves or others.
LEO often have to deal with situations where information is imperfect (poor visibility, multiple actors, etc), and make judgement calls about what's the best/safest thing to do in the circumstances. Sometimes they get it wrong, because the information wasn't accurate enough, and sometimes they get it wrong because their training was insufficient or their judgement was flawed.
Clearly if training or poor judgement (or attitude) were factors in taking the wrong action then that should be addressed (and there may be a fair point to be made that in some jurisdictions LEO and their organisations are not held accountable enough for failures there).
And sometimes they get it right, and save the lives of themselves or others because they acted immediately.
Full disclosure: I have LEO family members (Canada), so I recognise I have some obvious bias on the topic.
[edit] looks like 'at night' may not have been correct; not sure where I got that from. I don't think it changes the argument much - information at hand is often imperfect; LEO need to act in some cases regardless of imperfect information due to the level of risk involved.
hmmm
>> I'm supporting the cops doing their jobs over the person doing something without full knowledge of the situation
Sure sounds like you are taking side....
I see this often when people excuse police abuse and over reach. They often claim they "dont want to take sides" or "dont want to defend their actions" but then proceed to defend the actions and/or take the side of the cops.
>>> but if I have to take sides
It's the asymmetry of this morality that horrifies me. I can understand people who think this is a terrible mistake but still sympathize with the officers and don't want to see them punished. But you guys... yikes.
Because LEOs were dead wrong in their immediate assessment of the danger, that means exactly that their actions were unwarranted. When you act upon a false and unwarranted belief, you don't get to say your actions were warranted.
It is very easy to tell what others should have done in a situation that they perceive as life and death.
If they want me to care that they perceive things as life-or-death, they need to adjust their perception. Being scared of your shadow holding a gun and pumping a house full of rounds isn't something I'm going to think is reasonable, even if you were really scared.
Soldiers in literal warzones facing trained adversaries trying to murder them aren't as jumpy as cops in a suburban neighborhood dealing with normal people.
Cops need better trigger discipline.
You should be embarassed of this comment.
>I'd prefer the officers went home to their families.
I'd prefer that unarmed, innocent civilians went home to their families.
At the point these folks thought someone might have a weapon, the prudent thing to do is hold back and carefully plan your next moves. One of the first things would be to verify your suspicions - that there was, in fact, a gun.
They knew going in that folks hold things that can be mistaken for guns. Like phones and a myriad of other things - even during normal activities like running. Protocol should reflect that knowledge and err on the safety of everyone. Things change if there are actual shots fired from that direction, but caution before such time.
(Unless you are sarcastically saying that I must be trying irony.)
If the person is stopped, doesn't die, and can be subject to trial in a court of law, that is a _better_ outcome.
Edit: clarified question.
There are a couple of issues with the idea of, say, aiming at the leg.
* A leg wound may not stop the person.
* A leg wound can be lethal: you can bleed out very quickly if the femoral artery is hit.
* The trajectory of a bullet (and its fragments) once it impacts the body can be very unpredictable: a bullet entering the leg may strike bone and enter the chest cavity.
And all of these assume precise aim under stress. You mention aiming for the heart: police won't generally be aiming for something as small as the heart. Police (and all people using firearms) should receive the best training they can (and likely more and better firearms training than is often available today), but precise aim under stress is no easy task. They may be aiming for the torso (which of course includes the heart), because shots to the torso are generally more effective at stopping a person and it's a relatively large target: shots are more likely to hit and therefore less likely to miss (and hit something else: all bullets land somewhere).
Firearms are deadly force. Police have less-lethal alternatives available as well, and should be trained to use them effectively when it's appropriate to do so. If a police officer resorts to deadly force, the goal should be to stop the person as effectively and quickly as possible.
Perhaps what you meant to communicate is that weapons other than inherently lethal firearms should be deployed?
I understand police should be better trained, and ideally they must shoot to stop vs shoot to kill.
Firearms should not be treated as implements of lethality and nothing but that. Imagine how many police shooting cases we'd see where cop claims he was shooting to wound but 'missed'
Keep guns pointed toward the ground or the air when handling, don't point at things and never point at people.
Only have your hands on the trigger if you are planning to shoot. (Corollary: if someone has hands on trigger, consider that he's gonna shoot.)
P.S. That's what I've seen at European ranges, let's assume they are taking security more seriously than American ones :D
Would you clarify what you understand as the practical, effective difference between the two?