To Kill or Not to Kill

[OULobo]

Originally posted by MJS
I hear ya and I agree with you 100% I was stating . . . .I will say though, that if its true what the cop said, that he really felt his life was in danger due to the car rolling back towards him, then I dont blame him for shooting at all. Of course, some people will say, why didn't he shoot the tires rather than the kid driving. Well when a cop has to draw his gun and he is faced with shooting someone, he's trained to shoot center mass, not at the legs, arms or anything else. You hear that all the time from people.."Why didn't he shoot him in the leg, rather than the chest, maybe he'd still be alive today!" . .. . They are probably at home to high on drugs or too drunk to realize that their kid even left the house.

Mike

There is no centermass on a car driver, but I think that fear of having car run you over is enough reason to shoot anywhere.

 

[KanoLives]

Originally posted by OULobo
Here we go. Sorry for the length and just to let everyone know this isn't an attack just a debate.

I would generally agree with you, but you have to remember that there are rules that the police must abide by, and in some situations decide not to. I don't think that you should "do whatever the cops say". That is a one way ticket to a police state. Keeping this in mind, we must use common sense and not do anything that is physically threatening or poses a risk to ourselves or others, but there are many example of police officers abusing their power over the common civilian. We have had a local case here about a cop that acted like he was going to arrest a woman and instead raped her. If you want a grand scale of power abuse, just take a look at the Patriot Act. Good ol' Ashcroft is already abusing this one. He has directly defied a federal court order to release people from encarceration. I hate to come off like a paranoid, but freedom requires vigilance, not compliance. " “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin.

What I meant by "Do what the cops say" was if a cop tells you to get out of the car with hands up, wouldn't you do it? Or would you not listen. And if you didn't listen, well I'm just puzzled by why you wouldn't. Actually I'm puzzled why you wouldn't do what a cop says? Like you said using common sense. If you look at most cases, the people that get shot by cops (not all but most) usually have done something wrong or have something to hide or whatever. It comes down to the guy not doing what he was told and making movements that could be taken as hostile. Why not just listen and then sort things out once everything is under control. As far as the cop raping the woman, well that's just horrible, but you can't let one bad apple ruin the bunch. My point is that most cases where an officer used deadly force, is justifiable. And I don't think it's right that they have to go through what they do just for protecting us. From my experience and things I've seen, why try to fight the cops or run from them. You never win.

 

[OULobo]

Originally posted by ChineseKempoAL
What I meant by "Do what the cops say" was if a cop tells you to get out of the car with hands up, wouldn't you do it? Or would you not listen. And if you didn't listen, well I'm just puzzled by why you wouldn't. Actually I'm puzzled why you wouldn't do what a cop says? Like you said using common sense. If you look at most cases, the people that get shot by cops (not all but most) usually have done something wrong or have something to hide or whatever. It comes down to the guy not doing what he was told and making movements that could be taken as hostile. Why not just listen and then sort things out once everything is under control. As far as the cop raping the woman, well that's just horrible, but you can't let one bad apple ruin the bunch. My point is that most cases where an officer used deadly force, is justifiable. And I don't think it's right that they have to go through what they do just for protecting us. From my experience and things I've seen, why try to fight the cops or run from them. You never win.

I agree, I had a coworker who used to say "Don't poke the bear." What he meant was if you come across a bear in the woods don't walk up and kick it in the shins. Just like don't try to cut off a semi if you are on a motorcycle or don't flick off a guy with a gun (or don't pull a knife on the little old filipino guy ) . If you do, expect what kind of action they take. So in that sense I totally agree. I just can't advocate blindly obeying whatever a cop says. Just like I don't listen to "masters" who say "Sign this, but don't bother reading it."

 

[KanoLives]

Originally posted by OULobo
I agree, I had a coworker who used to say "Don't poke the bear." What he meant was if you come across a bear in the woods don't walk up and kick it in the shins. Just like don't try to cut off a semi if you are on a motorcycle or don't flick off a guy with a gun (or don't pull a knife on the little old filipino guy ) . If you do, expect what kind of action they take. So in that sense I totally agree. I just can't advocate blindly obeying whatever a cop says. Just like I don't listen to "masters" who say "Sign this, but don't bother reading it."

I thought we were both saying the same thing. I like that "Don't poke the bear". :rofl: I definitely agree that blindly obeying is not a good idea either cuz as stated there are bad seeds in the crowd. And from a very very young age my father taught me to never sign anything that I didn't understand or not know what I was signing. Some good advice.

 

[DAC..florida]

I work in law enfocement and agree that sometimes you will get a LEO that abuses thier power or loses it! Just like anyone else a LEO is a person and has stress. A police officer never knows what type of scituation they may walk up on or who thier dealing with, sometimes the public thinks thier rude or over abusive. These orders are given for the protection of the officer, the people involved and the general public. Sometimes a cop can lose it and slip to the criminal walk of life or maybe someone is hired into a law enforcement position that shouldnt, no-one is perfect and people do make mistakes. If a law enfocement officer asks you to do something that you feel is not right, ask them why? ask them to talk to thier supervisor, ask for another unit to be present but by all means do it with respect and be polite and in no way make that officer think that your a threat to his life or the life of anyone else. 99.9% of the time thier is a good reason for the officers demands and very rarely do you see the abuse, think about it how many traffic stops or other complaints calls ect. do the police in this country respond to everyday? Do you ever hear about the posative side? NO! the general public only hears about the mistakes.
:asian:

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by OULobo
There is no centermass on a car driver, but I think that fear of having car run you over is enough reason to shoot anywhere.

I realize this. In the case we are referring to, the cop, I believe was not in the direct line of the car, he was on the side of it, broke the window with the gun and fired shots into the car, killing the driver. I think the jury looked at it and said, "Well, if you were out of line of getting hit by the car, why did you shoot?" Like I said, I was not there, and am only going on what I read in the paper and hear on the NEWS. IMO, the fact of the matter is, is that the cop was fearing for his life and did what he was trained to do. I think it is more of a racial issue than anything else.

Mike

 

[MJS]

Originally posted by DAC..florida
Do you ever hear about the posative side? NO! the general public only hears about the mistakes.
:asian:

No, you dont hear anything positive. And its really too bad too. There are way too many people out there that have no idea as to what a cop goes through in the run of a day. I say to public who has no idea--You should not judge someone until you have walked in their shoes. Maybe if they went on a ride along with a cop for 8hrs and saw all the BS that they put up with, maybe then they would understand what its like.

Mike

 

[OULobo]

Without being inflametory it is important to remember that we do hear quite a bit of positive things about the police, like the heroics of 9/11 and the countless times they have come to aid of people. The papers are saturated with the good deeds of our protectors in blue, but the reason that there may be a little less acknowledgment for the positive things is because postitive things are what is expected of them in their jobs. They SHOULD be polite and helpful all of the time, not just on good days. They are meant to protect and serve. I wouldn't praise an employee for not stealing merchandise, but I would definitly notice and take action if they did. I would also expect any emplyee to respect the customer. I know the situation is very different, but the taxpayer is still the customer.

Someone, I think on this forum, said that nowhere in a police officer's job description does it say that they are required to help a citizen in need, only to protect the safety of public land and property. This shocked and disgusted me. I don't know if it is true, but if it is, I feel less likely to pass any levy here to give more money to police. All jobs have pluses and minuses; danger and, saddly, low pay are negatives to being a LEO, but how many other jobs allow you to carry the weapons and train the tactics that an officer carries and trains, and not be a soldier (although in these times I might call a cop a soldier). That's not to mention the job satisfaction of being a protector of the innocent and lawfull of this society.

 

[ETorbin]

I am surprised at the total ignorance concerning the use of lethal force. Lethal force is justified whenever a "reasonable person" would feel that their life was in jeopardy and there is no other option to remove that jeopardy. A cleaver acronym to remember is AOI which stands for Ability, Opportunity, and Intent. These are the three things an attacker must have in order for lethal force to be justified.

Ability
Do they have the ability to harm me? In the case presented, there were two attackers with only one person defending. This is called a disparity of force. It is considered the same as a 250 pound man attacking a 95 pound woman or anyone attacking someone with a weapon.

Opportunity
Can they harm me right now? In the case presented, the fight was on, they clearly had the opportunity to cause damage right now.

Intent
Judging by the injuries received by the person that was attacked (black eyes), he was receiving attacks to the head. Attacks to the head can cause pain, unconsciousness, brain damage, or death. Even in the case of unconsciousness, you now are at the mercy of those that attacked you. In this case there was certainly intent to cause grave bodily harm or death.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that lethal force was justified (with either a handgun, knife, or bare hands) in this case (as it was described). If anyone is unsure of this, please do some research on the laws on your own. Good sources of information would be a basic handgun course, a lawyer, or books. Massad Ayoob is considered to be one of the leading authorities in the country in the use of deadly force. He offers non-shooting classes around the country. Also his book "In the Gravest Extreme" would be a good place to start. He covers not only criminal cases, but civil as well. Consider this, to worry about a civil case (ie. the person suing you) you must first survive the criminal case. To worry about the criminal case, you must survive the incident. The best defense for this is to learn the laws beforehand. Don't assume anecdotal evidence is correct, learn the laws.

ETorbin

 

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by ETorbin
... A cleaver acronym to remember is AOI which stands for Ability, Opportunity, and Intent. These are the three things an attacker must have in order for lethal force to be justified. ...

The real problem, whcih you brought out a little, is that a reasonable person cannot acertain these factors in many situations.

Someone in a dark alley approaches you, and refuses to let you leave. If they MIGHT have the ability, MIGHT have a weapon, and MIGHT intend on killing you, how can you prove to yourself otherwise?

I'm not saying just shoot them. I'm saying that if they do not heed warnings that you are armed and prepared, and still do not let you leave, you cannot just wait there until they find the right time to take your ability to defend yourself away so they can do what they will. This is, of course, assuming you cannot otherwise defend yourself under the circumstances (i.e. not trained, too dark to see all but movement and shapes, whatever).

Even then, shooting low would be disabling, but less likely to kill.

Unfortuneatly, cops often "have to" carry around an extra unregistered gun to plant on someone they shoot by accident, such as a kid brandishing something reflective in a dark corner somewhere and not hailing police demands to drop whatever it was.

Every situation is different, but the main pioint is avoiding being in such a circumstance, and if you have to (ie. law enforcement) there are protocols to limit such a possibility of last-resort, at-that-split-second shooting to avoid potential harm.

We only pray that if the protocols are followed, the jury will uphold the law, which is not necessarily inclined to do so in all cases.

 

[Turner]

Unfortuneatly, cops often "have to" carry around an extra unregistered gun to plant on someone they shoot by accident, such as a kid brandishing something reflective in a dark corner somewhere and not hailing police demands to drop whatever it was.

I hope this is not the case. I know that a cop's job can often be very difficult and there are times that a kid brandishing something reflective in a dark corner and not listening to the cop's instruction and give the cop every right (in my opinion) to shoot, but I don't believe that there is anything morally or ethically right in planting evidence. A person must take responsibility for his/her own actions. I don't believe that there is ever a time that a person should act in a less than honorable manner. It takes courage to act with honor and integrity especially when it means that you may lose your job or even go to jail... but I would rather endure the punishment knowing in my heart that I was right rather than living my entire life knowing that I acted without honor.

That is my opinion. I will do everything that I can not to harm someone or ultimately take someone's life, but if I am forced to defend myself or my family I am very willing to take responsibility for my actions and be punished if the law deems it necessary.

 

[Ken JP Stuczynski]

Originally posted by Turner
I hope this is not the case. I know that a cop's job can often be very difficult and there are times that a kid brandishing something reflective in a dark corner and not listening to the cop's instruction and give the cop every right (in my opinion) to shoot, but I don't believe that there is anything morally or ethically right in planting evidence. A person must take responsibility for his/her own actions. ...

That's why I said "have to" in quotes. I'm not saying it's right -- I'm just saying it is a practice common in some departments (as is keeping confiscated drugs or doing anything else not in the manual).

Having an out like that, IMO, would make it easier for a cop to be sloppy and then gust plant the gun he grabbed off some kid the day before. However, some officers feel they need that recourse to avoid getting in deep doodo when they do the right thing and jurors don't see it that way.

Personally, if I felt such a need was necessary, I'd do my darndest to find another job, or beat, or whatever.

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by theletch1
Is the question one of legality or one of morality?

I'm talking about the morality of the situation. The legality of it is clear, leathal force was justified. But I like to believe that I live in a way that is more than just, "Is it legal", but rather can I live with myself afterwards. Why should I let some attacker ruin my dreams and give me nightmares for the rest of my life?
Someone said that the situation was not one condusive to getting a gun, well said, if I had been carrying I wouldn't have let them know, because in that situation it could have been taken from me and used against me.
However what complicated the situation was that my then girlfriend(now wife) had been following me home, saw the situation and for whatever stupid reason came running up and kicked one of the attackes in the kidney. Perfect flying sidekick though (she learned from a good teacher ). This is what gave me the oportunity to kick them out of the car and get out. This is also where the situation hit the perverbial fan. My wife is 5'2" 95lbs and I wasn't about to let either one of them get a chance at grabing her. The situation hadn't really hit an extreme emergency level with me until this point. Yes they were trying to seriously hurt me, but I've had bigger guys than them try and fail so I wan't extremely worried. When she entered the equation however, I saw where it could end up. A full throttle punch from a 200 lb guy could ring my bell, but could kill her. As I got out of the car, the guy closest to me got my hardest right hook to the side of the head and a good push into the other guy so they both went down away from where she was standing. They then got up and jumped into the truck and took off. We only caught them because she followed them in her car and got the licsence plate number. Again a pretty stupid decision, but it all worked out in the end.

At the point where I exited the car and hit the closest guy, I didn't care if the punch broke his neck, my intent was to imobilize both of them with that one guy. If that ment he died, then he died. So I guess I did use lethal force in that situation. The fact that he didn't get seriously injured means nothing, I still used that level of force. But being in that mind set is what scared me. I thought afterwards about what would have happened if when I attacked him I had seriously hurt of killed him. what if that hook had conected with his neck? This is what got me thinking.

7sm

 

[Turner]

I agree, that was on my mind as well. If they feel justified in planting the gun they just may get sloppy and be willing to pop off a shot at the slightest hint of danger. However, being responsible for your actions and wanting to make absolutely sure that you are doing the right thing may be negative as well. As you depate pulling the trigger or striking out at your assailant you might pause for that brief second and wind up getting killed.

I have nothing against guns, I love to shoot; but I don't think that I'd choose a firearm as a self defense tool simply because I know that I'd wind up pausing at the wrong moment. Give me a taser or a pepperball gun and I'll fire away in a second. I think that it would be the best idea for LEOs to be armed (and have readily available while on patrol) with both Lethal and Less-lethal weapons so that when they see someone lurking in a corner with something the looks like a gun but can't be sure, they can respond with enough force to incapacitate but not kill. That seems smart to me, but I am not an LEO so what do I know?

 

[OULobo]

Originally posted by Turner
I agree, that was on my mind as well. If they feel justified in planting the gun they just may get sloppy and be willing to pop off a shot at the slightest hint of danger. However, being responsible for your actions and wanting to make absolutely sure that you are doing the right thing may be negative as well. As you depate pulling the trigger or striking out at your assailant you might pause for that brief second and wind up getting killed.

I think a gun would be the best choice. I do agree with the idea of nonlethals, but I think a gun can be both, especially with good training and a level head; plus you can't beat the range and relative accuracy.

I once heard a statistic, that I can't confirm, that the percentage of people who die after being wounded by a knife, is higher than the percentage of death from a gunwound. A Dr. friend said that knives do mare ripping and tearing when they get inside and that many people get shot in places where it is common to survive.

With that in mind I don't think I would pause very long.

 

[7starmantis]

Originally posted by OULobo
I think a gun would be the best choice. I do agree with the idea of nonlethals, but I think a gun can be both, especially with good training and a level head; plus you can't beat the range and relative accuracy.

I once heard a statistic, that I can't confirm, that the percentage of people who die after being wounded by a knife, is higher than the percentage of death from a gunwound. A Dr. friend said that knives do mare ripping and tearing when they get inside and that many people get shot in places where it is common to survive.

With that in mind I don't think I would pause very long.

But as a civilian you have to remember that shooting someone to wound them is illegal. You may only withdraw your weapon if the case calls for you to kill someone, in which case you must then follow with a shot, that must be beyond resonable doubt ment to kill, or else the gun was not needed in the first place and you go to jail. Thats why you can only get a CONCEALED handgun liscence. If you draw your weapon and the situation did not call for lethal(deadly) force, you are acting illegaly.

It has to do with the same reason you can't run down the street shooting at the guy driving off in your car.

7sm

 

[KanoLives]

Originally posted by 7starmantis
But being in that mind set is what scared me. I thought afterwards about what would have happened if when I attacked him I had seriously hurt of killed him. what if that hook had conected with his neck? This is what got me thinking.

7sm

I think it's normal for people to think like that. However, like I said before, those guys didn't respect life or fellow man in the first place. So if you did seriously hurt him..... to me oh well. What goes around comes around all in time. You were commited to doing what you needed to do to try and get out of the situation. I think that's another important part of this situation. And BRAVO to your wife for lettin' that side kick fly. Not to many woman I know would do anything but freak out and freeze. :asian:

 

[ETorbin]

"Even then, shooting low would be disabling, but less likely to kill."

Never, never, never, never shoot to wound. Shooting someone is considered lethal force regardless if you shoot them in the toe or between the eyes. How would you explain to the police or DA that you only wanted to injure them so you shot them in the leg, inadvertently hitting the second largest artery in the body and killing them.

When you shoot, you shoot to stop, but must be justified to kill. That mean shooting at the center of the largest target available and stop shooting once their aggression has stopped. If they die as a result of the shooting, it is unfortunate (morally), but it was necessary to save your own life.

OULobo
A gun is never considered non-lethal. Even police shotguns loaded with bean bag rounds are considered "less than lethal", meaning that it is less likely to cause death, but still possible.

ETorbin

 

[OULobo]

Originally posted by 7starmantis
But as a civilian you have to remember that shooting someone to wound them is illegal. You may only withdraw your weapon if the case calls for you to kill someone, in which case you must then follow with a shot, that must be beyond resonable doubt ment to kill, or else the gun was not needed in the first place and you go to jail. Thats why you can only get a CONCEALED handgun liscence. If you draw your weapon and the situation did not call for lethal(deadly) force, you are acting illegaly.

It has to do with the same reason you can't run down the street shooting at the guy driving off in your car.

7sm

Are you sure about this. I think you are allowed to wound if you feel your life is in danger. If a guy 20ft. away has a machete, and sees I have a gun, but still starts to dash towards me, could I not shoot him in the leg and keep him there until the police arrive. Lets say I have a bad knee and can't run away. I just can't belive the law would be designed form me to kill instead of wound if given the option. I know that is a ton of what ifs, but that's kind of what laws are designed to deal with; theoretical situations.

 

[OULobo]

Originally posted by ETorbin


OULobo
A gun is never considered non-lethal. Even police shotguns loaded with bean bag rounds are considered "less than lethal", meaning that it is less likely to cause death, but still possible.

ETorbin

I stand corrected. I should have remembered that the term is "less than lethal" for anything that can, but doesn't always kill or wasn't designed to kill, like pencils, screwdrivers and wrenches.