Re: Boo hoo
There is no reason any officer should have to compete in hand-to-hand combat before escalating their response. There is no point during a fight at which the action stops while he picks his next weapon. An officer who loses consciousness loses control of their weapons and may very well die as a result. Their only option is to stop the threat NOW. You can critique it all you want when it is over. Anyone attacking a police officer should expect to be shot. That's just common sense. And yes, by a real gun, not a tazer or baton. Those frequently have no effect and by the time you know it hasn't worked it can be too late.
I completely disagree.
A police officer should always offer a proportionate response to a situation.Weapons of any kind should only be drawn when the officer feels there is an imminent danger to their own person or others. They should only be used in the last resort to protect their own lives or the lives of others. The chosen weapon should be proportionate to the circumstances, and the use of that weapon proportionate.
An unarmed man is acting in a threatening and violent manner. Is it appropriate to draw a weapon? Probably, although the officer should first use words to try to calm the situation.
Is it appropriate to draw a gun, if they have a taser or baton at their disposal? Probably not, and here is my reasoning. If the gun is drawn as a threat (a legitimate tactic, as many would back down from the threat of being shot), and the suspect escalates (attacks, or threatens to attack), there is only one escalation available to the cop: shoot him. Someone skilled with a gun may be able to shoot the leg or arm, intending to injure and incapacitate the suspect, but even that could kill them. If, instead, a baton or taser had been drawn, it is easier to non-lethally incapacitate the suspect, and there is still the option of drawing a firearm (albeit with more difficulty).
Police in America seem far too quick to draw their gun. There are many occasions where a suspect was killed when they could have been incapacitated and/or apprehended. To say "Anyone attacking a police officer should expect to be shot" shows a complete lack of thought. What if the person was mentally ill, suffering some kind of break down? Do they deserve to be shot, or should they be apprehended?
Accepting that the cops may shoot anyone who attacks (or looks likely to attack) them makes them judge, jury and executioner. If the suspect is, instead, caught and tried, the criminal justice system can determine an appropriate action (which is unlikely to be "shoot them in he chest and let them die horribly").
Biting the hand that feeds IT
