My Perspective is clear on this issue: Police should only shoot to kill if they feel that the other person has a weapon on them that will kill the officer in the situation. But how do police know if the person has a weapon on them or not, especially if the suspects hands are not up, or if they are running towards the officer? This leaves room for a judgement in the moment, which could be different for each police officer, however. We see that it's a common theme in police and cop shows for suspects to be running from the detective, with the detective later pulling out their gun and killing them if they feel threatened. However, should this be a common place in real life? Is it ok for police shooting to kill if they feel threatened, or should they only shoot to injure the person (like leg, stomach are, etc)? What is appropriate for police in this case? Should police shoot to kill, in any case?
Heres an article that provides some perspective on this issue from the police department itself:
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/12/shooting_to_kill_why_police_ar.html
Carina, I somewhat see where you are coming from. But I am wondering, if the suspect has his or her hands up, but still has a weapon, does that make it justifiable for the officer to shoot him or her? Also, what if the suspect does not have a weapon but displays threatening behavior?
ReplyDelete