Follow by Email

Joan and Bill

Tuesday, August 26, 2014


If a police officer decides (for whatever reason) to shoot an unarmed person, why is it necessary to shoot to kill?

If the person is unarmed wouldn't it be reasonable to aim for the leg, rather then the chest or head?


Anonymous said...

Exactly what I have always thought. But even more, if they are armed why shoot to kill when they can wound and shoot the weapon out of their hands. Maybe you have to be a sharp-shooter, I don't know, but shoot to kill should be rare.

Tim A said...

It seems that most police officers sign up to use weapons not to "protect and serve." A possibly not probably armed suspect gives their over inflated ego and barely concealed power trip the only excuse they need to act on their internal urge to harm another in a legally justified manner. I'm not implying all cops are like this but it's becoming more and more prominent. Sadly, violence is just more accepted these days. That being said it also instills fear in the masses which is always a welcome achievement for the powers that be...

Anonymous said...

Agreed Bill and I have read numerous times that low IQ is a requirement. ..makes you wonder.

James Romano said...

Shoot to kill has been established to instill fear into regular citizens. This is something that has been put into place so that the average citizen will not step out of line when it comes to interacting with the police AKA law ENFORCEMENT. It is legal for them to do anything they desire. The LAW of MAN doesn't apply to them nor their managers/handlers.

Anonymous said...

Regardless of what you think that man deserved to get shot. Michael Brown was a thief robber slash burglar a repeat assaulter and a bloods gang member. He fought the store owner he faught the cop he reached for the cops gun because his finger prints were found on the weapon which means he intended to take that gun for a purpose possibly to shoot the cop and or rob another store or bank or your place. This was not a good character and he had to be stopped thank god that cop shot him.

Tony Snodgrass said...

Greetings Bill, I was a law enforcement officer, and a peace officer. I went though the basic police training Academy. The class on (arrest search & seizure, class taught by a lawyer.
the one thing i remember is (shoot don't shoot) a film shown in the class.
the lawyer said in his closing remarks that the written policy was in short shoot to wound. his statement was ( if you must shoot, shoot to kill. It's one less witness against you.

Phyllis Foster said...

I am an African American woman and it never fails to astonish me how the real issue of racism in this country gets washed over with comments like "He was a Gang member"; "he was stealing a pack of gum" or "he reached for the cops gun", etc., most of which is one side of the story--the other guy can't tell his version. If it's true that they hire people of low I.Q. to become cops then is that any excuse for equipping them with a gun and putting them in neighborhoods where they have nothing but contempt for the people who live there? Cops continue to disproportionately kill black men and it's business as usual in the poor neighborhoods of America. Why do you suppose the nightly news and CNN aren't reporting white males being shot in the back every few weeks? Or put in an illegal choke hold? Do you think it has anything to do with their I.Q.? It's because cops have been conditioned to see and perceive black men as a threat--as their common enemy...plain and simple. What if that dead kid just happen to be your nephew, son, or brother what would your position be then? There are all sorts of ways to subdue a person without taking their lives--and a cop could just as easily fire his weapon to wound than to kill. Racism, I repeat is at the heart of all of this no matter how many debates you wish to engage in. It is real in this country and as long as people continue to be in 'denial' by virtue of their own bigotry or naiveté or ignorance, the violence against black people, black men in particular will only continue to escalate.

mike bell said...

that is how they are trained

Manuel Coronado said...

Who do you hold accountable for the black on black crime in Chicago?

Bill D said...

Why does race have to enter the comments.
We are not discussing people who break the law ad kill others.

We are talking about law abiding police officers and whether
it would be more reasonable to not shoot to kill when the
other person does not have a weapon.

If they have a weapon fine.
But if they have no weapon why not shoot for the leg and
leave the person alive.

Obviously people who are not police officers are not going
to follow any rules when they confront unarmed people.