originally posted by: tmeister182
How about if the perp has made no aggressive moves at all? Is it still ok to use deadly force?
Many of the recent shootings have involved people who just haven't dropped their weapon whether
real or air-soft. Is it morally correct to kill someone on the chance you might be wounded or killed
or should the cop be required to maintain and wait for help? Don't we really need rules for deadly
From a non-LEO perspective......
If someone presents a severe threat to me or my family I will use whatever means necessary to negate the threat. If that means putting 10 shots into
someone, so be it. If the person dies from such injuries, so be it. They chose to initiate the encounter, they suffer the consequences.
If the person has made no aggressive moves then I will not view it as a threat. If that person presents a weapon, that is an aggressive move and the
threat will be countered accordingly.
If a police officer orders you to drop your weapon and you do not, you should expect to be shot. The officer will view your non compliance as an
indication that you are weighing the options and risks of using that weapon. You are still a threat to the officer. If an officer orders you to stop
and you advance aggressively towards the officer, even without a weapon, you are presenting a threat, expect to be shot.
If someone is threatening severe injury or death to you, are you morally justified in defending yourself? Are you morally justified in killing that
person if there is a chance that person will kill you if you don't? IMO, yes. That person made a choice to initiate the exchange and should be
prepared to suffer whatever consequences follow.
I will be the first to criticize a bad shooting. Recently an officer shot a man in an apartment building. The officer was patrolling the hallway,
which was dark. I believe there was a call and they were looking for someone. A guy came out of his door unaware the police were there and startled
the officer. The officer shot him. That officer should go to jail. If it was me, I would be locked up ... no questions asked. You are not justified in
shooting someone because you were surprised. I understand the adrenaline rush and the situation ... looking for someone in the dark and all, but any
civilian who accidentally shoots an innocent person is most likely going to jail.
Anyway, to make sure I am on topic, yes shoot center mass because it's the quickest way to stop the threat. While you are deciding if you should
shoot in the leg, foot, hand, chest, etc .. and trying to evaluate whether you think the aggressor is going to kill you, cripple, you, bash your
head, stab you, or injure you in some other way ... and will you be justified in using deadly force, equal force, non lethal force, etc ..... just
forget about it ... you won't need to worry because you'll be dead. Your family can debate on what you should have done at your funeral.
At what point does personal responsibility come into these debates? Should the police use deadly force against an aggressor? How about if you don't
attack people it's unlikely the police will be shooting at you to begin with. Mistakes happen, unfortunately, and the police should have to answer
for those mistakes just like anyone else. But let's be realistic here .... the vast majority of people shot by police would not have gotten shot had
they not been engaging in criminal activity to begin with.
As far as civilians shooting ... if you have the need to prey on innocent people and they shoot and kill you ... too bad. I guess you should have
stayed home that day. Sympathy=0.