Shoot-to-Kill... Yes or No?

[c0da]

Do you think Shoot to Kill is a necessary risk in helping fight terrorism, or an unecessary risk that can (and has in one case) lead to the wrong person being killed.

 

[ayani]

why shoot to kill when you can shoot and disable, or not shoot at all?

remember that unmedicated (and unarmed) man who was shot to death by air marshalls? for what?

 

[YamiB.]

I don't really see why you should shoot to kill unless your life or another person's is in immediate danger.

 

[PetShopBoy88]

I don't really see why you should shoot to kill unless your life or another person's is in immediate danger.

I don't know why you would shoot unless it was to kill. Why would you shoot if your life wasn't in danger?

 

[YamiB.]

I don't know why you would shoot unless it was to kill. Why would you shoot if your life wasn't in danger?

You could use non-lethal shots to help stopping a person who is resisting and could become a danger or somebody who is escaping. You are right for the most part though.

 

[Buttercup]

Do you think Shoot to Kill is a necessary risk in helping fight terrorism, or an unecessary risk that can (and has in one case) lead to the wrong person being killed.

Could you expand a bit on the idea you're trying to get across? Does the terrorist have a gun? What type scenarios are you asking about?

 

[PetShopBoy88]

You could use non-lethal shots to help stopping a person who is resisting and could become a danger or somebody who is escaping. You are right for the most part though.

You could, but that would be about the stupidest thing you could do. You might miss. You should never shoot to wound. The risk is just waaaay too high.

 

[ChrisP]

It should be mentioned that Handguns (pistols in particular) really aren't that accurate outside of a sound stage. Centre mass is often the only place to be sure you'll get a hit.

 

[YamiB.]

I just thought, would using rubber bullets count as shooting not to kill.

 

[Booko]

I just thought, would using rubber bullets count as shooting not to kill.

Yes, but that's of more use for crowd control, even though it isn't as safe as some would say. People are maimed even by rubber bullets, depending on where they hit.

But I can't see they'd be much use against terrorists.

I'm with PetShopBoys88 on this one.

If you weren't meaning to kill, then don't pull your gun in the first place.

 

[bender118]

I just thought, would using rubber bullets count as shooting not to kill.

Those can kill if one hits the right spot

 

[cardero]

Father (former policeman) taught me three things about guns and security.
1. Never draw your gun unless you plan to use it.
2. Never shoot your gun to warn or disable.
3. Never shoot a terrorist who is wired with a bomb.

 

[Buttercup]

Father (former policeman) taught me three things about guns and security.
1. Never draw your gun unless you plan to use it.
2. Never shoot your gun to warn or disable.
3. Never shoot a terrorist who is wired with a bomb.

Are you saying that policemen are told to shoot to kill? Or was that just his personal advice? I always thought it was the other way around. Shoot to disable if possible.

 

[PetShopBoy88]

Are you saying that policemen are told to shoot to kill? Or was that just his personal advice? I always thought it was the other way around. Shoot to disable if possible.

I don't know where cardero is from, but my father was also a policeman for a time. He was taught to shoot to kill. You should never be shooting if your life isn't in danger, and if your life is in danger, you should be trying to kill. Shooting is too dangerous to have a "shoot to wound" option. In such a situation, you would use one of the many other resources a police officer would have (tazer, pepper spray, k-9, whatever).

 

[kai]

the shoot to kill scenario in Britain was brought as an answer to , what do police do with a suspected suicide bomber who of course is threatening the officers life and a lot of other people besides. it seems unquestionable to me that he has to shoot to kill unfortunately the police shot dead a man who wasnt a suicide bomber and now i am not sure.

 

[Booko]

I don't know where cardero is from, but my father was also a policeman for a time. He was taught to shoot to kill. You should never be shooting if your life isn't in danger, and if your life is in danger, you should be trying to kill. Shooting is too dangerous to have a "shoot to wound" option. In such a situation, you would use one of the many other resources a police officer would have (tazer, pepper spray, k-9, whatever).

There are no policemen in our family, but we certainly all know how to use guns. And when it comes to rules for guns, these are the top two:

1. It's always loaded.
2. Don't point unless you intend to use it (in the case of handguns, don't draw unless you intend to use it).

And when it comes to self-protection, whether it's man or beast, there's this rule: If you can escape from the situation, you don't need to shoot.

 

[Booko]

the shoot to kill scenario in Britain was brought as an answer to , what do police do with a suspected suicide bomber who of course is threatening the officers life and a lot of other people besides. it seems unquestionable to me that he has to shoot to kill unfortunately the police shot dead a man who wasnt a suicide bomber and now i am not sure.

It happens here too, kai. People make mistakes, some of them probably unavoidable, and some of them just due to too much adrenaline.

That's why the training for policemen in when to use and when not to use a gun is so critical. As well as filtering out those who show poor judgment in a crisis.

 

[Buttercup]

I don't know where cardero is from, but my father was also a policeman for a time. He was taught to shoot to kill. You should never be shooting if your life isn't in danger, and if your life is in danger, you should be trying to kill. Shooting is too dangerous to have a "shoot to wound" option. In such a situation, you would use one of the many other resources a police officer would have (tazer, pepper spray, k-9, whatever).

So if let's say Ted Bundy was running from an officer.....he had no gun but they wanted him real bad. Would they shoot or not? And would they shoot to kill?

 

[PetShopBoy88]

So if let's say Ted Bundy was running from an officer.....he had no gun but they wanted him real bad. Would they shoot or not? And would they shoot to kill?

I don't know. They might shoot to wound, but it wouldn't be because that's how they were trained, but because they were letting their emotions get the best of them. On the other hand, they might shoot to kill, and then make sure EVERYBODY around knew that Ted Bundy pulled what looked like a gun on them, wink wink.

 

[cardero]

Are you saying that policemen are told to shoot to kill? Or was that just his personal advice? I always thought it was the other way around. Shoot to disable if possible.

This is a good question. The first reason he keeps telling me alot throughout my life, which made me believe that there is some sort of protocol in which policemen should follow when their weapons are drawn (whether it would be for offense or defense). If you are pursuing a subject who the authorities believe and has been reported as armed and dangerous, it would probably be a good idea to have your weapon drawn and ready. Regardless, when you have your weapon drawn (and you are a policeman) there is a strong possibility that you will have to bring someone down by killing them.