Monday, January 11, 2016

Why you ALWAYS shoot to Kill


Anonymous said...

Feral, your forum site isnt accepting logins.

Well, its obvious the genral public, and in this case juries, dont understand this principal.

For those that arent Canadian, CBC is as left leaning as Fox is right leaning, so its hardly an unbiased source. But it does reflect the attitudes of downtown toronto, where I guess this jury pool was called from.
I have mixed opinions on this. On one hand, the suspect was in a contained area with no hostages, so there was no need for the police officer to put himself in harms way. But once he had, he wasnt given much option but to fire. If you look into the verdict, the jury said he was allowed(legally) to fire the first 3 shots, but then he paused, and fired 6 more, and for this he was found guilty of attemted murder. I dont understand the legal logic of that, other than they wanted to punish him with 'something'.
Is the lesson from this that police arent going to pause when firing from now on? Who can tell, but its definitely shows that the public thinks that even police should shoot to wound, not kill.

Madmissileer said...

Shooting to kill is not a moral stance. You shoot to stop. As an example, if you were in a hand fight, would you continue hitting the person if you knocked them unconscious? In a gun fight, would you shoot them in the head if they were laying on the ground badly wounded and their gun was taken away?

In self-defense, we only use that force which stops the attack. We are never willing the attackers death, but if it happens we are not culpable. Obviously, that does not mean you shoot at someone's legs or hands if you are afraid for your life. Shooting at non-vital areas or into the air would tend to indicate that you were not that afraid.