By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
forest-spirit on 27 July 2020
Edit Thread
KLAMarine said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

No wonder that the US are so fucked up if that is true. In pretty much every civilized nation they would have been trained instead to:

  1. Ensure the safety of everybody else around
  2. Make sure nobody else could get into the crossfire
  3. Try to deescalate (and use the time to get a good description of the suspect if he tries to make a run for it so he can be easily found again)
  4. Try to disarm the suspect
  5. Apprehend the person and put him under arrest

In that exact order.

Only if 1+2 are met but 3-5 aren't possible for whatever reason will anyone even think to open fire. And even then, killing is only the very last option if everything else failed along the way. Shooting is supposed to disable the suspect, not to kill him outright.

"Shooting is supposed to disable the suspect, not to kill him outright."

>No, shooting is supposed to kill. Tasers and handcuffs are supposed to disable, shooting is for killing. The only way to make certain an armed suspect can no longer fire their weapon is to kill them.

Shooting is supposed to kill? Either you're lying/misinformed or the US police is truly fucked up. Yes, there are situations where the police has to aim for the torso, which has a high chance of mortally wounding the suspect, but that's because the torso is easier to hit than legs or arms and the suspect is deemed to dangerous for the police to take any chances. It is not done with the intent of killing.