Police are absolutely not trained to shoot to kill if shooting to injure can stop the target.
As to the rest of your statements, I think your statement that "we are on his {the officer's} side says it all. 
I'll wait until I have the facts before choosing sides is necessary, if it is necessary at all.
And my true colors were also calling out the protestors for creating division rather than allowing an objective determination of facts.
Police are absolutely not trained to shoot to kill if shooting to injure can stop the target.
As to the rest of your statements, I think your statement that "we are on his {the officer's} side says it all.
I'll wait until I have the facts before choosing sides is necessary, if it is necessary at all.
And my true colors were also calling out the protestors for creating division rather than allowing an objective determination of facts.
Thank you for posting the right wing blogs, that don't reference any specific policy.
Go back and read what I wrote.
Police are absolutely not trained to kill if shooing to injure can stop a target.
Are you suggesting that if a thief is running from police, the officer will shoot for the head as opposed to the leg?
You should google more on law enforcement policies for discharging a firearm.
I think all of your 'facts' above are not in evidence yet.
Right now, the only facts are the dead man and the number of bullet holes.
The articles you posted dealt with police in life and death confrontations. A police officer is trained to shoot to kill when there is no other option and that is not what I am disputing.
I am stating that law enforcement manuals (and I am looking at one now) are such that discharging your weapon is not with the intent in every situation of killing the target.
The articles you posted dealt with police in life and death confrontations. A police officer is trained to shoot to kill when there is no other option and that is not what I am disputing.
I am stating that law enforcement manuals (and I am looking at one now) are such that discharging your weapon is not with the intent in every situation of killing the target.
Well.....police will pull their weapons frequently in non-threatening situations (for example, if a suspect is a distance away, an officer may do so to prevent the person from fleeing).
So, I fully respect and support an officer pulling a weapon in non-dangerous situations.
Well.....police will pull their weapons frequently in non-threatening situations (for example, if a suspect is a distance away, an officer may do so to prevent the person from fleeing).
So, I fully respect and support an officer pulling a weapon in non-dangerous situations.
I imagine it happens, but that really wasn't what I said. Its actually in the manual to show your weapon to prevent a suspect from fleeing. What happens when some flee is a different matter and obviously, case by case.
Autopsies can be for different things. We like to think that they are all to show the actual cause of death, but it sounds like the last one that was just released was more for wound ballistic testing, which the other was not.
I'm certain they will provide their verbalized support on this any day.
||an_blowhorn.gif' border=0> “What do we want?”.............
“Darren Wilson.”
||an_blowhorn.gif' border=0> “How do we want him?” .........“Dead.”
Autopsies can be for different things. We like to think that they are all to show the actual cause of death, but it sounds like the last one that was just released was more for wound ballistic testing, which the other was not.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
