TTC Police Shooting

[cybercoma]

Obviously he has the right to use it when he believes it's necessary, unlike a civilian. What basis do you think a police officer has for using his gun? You think he's going to run it by a judge and jury first, use a life line, call a friend? If he believes it is necessary, then he will deem it reasonable. Why would an officer think, "I believe it's necessary, but is it reasonable?" Obviously, to the cop making the call, "necessary" and "reasonable" are one and the same.

perhaps instead of being snarky and sarcastic you should take the time to learn what "reasonable" means in legalese. I'll tell you what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean just because the cop believes it's reasonable it is,

[dre]

so this then turns us back to the real issue-how do we properly control deranged people?

That entirely depends what they are doing... In this case the UOF model calls for the use of intermediate weapons (baton, beanbag gun, taser, pepper spray, etc)

[Black Dog]

No, it doesn't. I said, clearly, that there are times when the intent is to stop the behavior; ie: not kill OR do great bodily harm. I said that sometimes the intent is to intimidate and/or frighten the perp into cooperating.

O RLY?

If a cop's intention was to kill, no one would survive being shot at by a cop, yet I would wager that more survive than die. The idea is to get the behavior to stop.

I didn't say they never shoot to kill; I said they don't shoot to kill every time they shoot at a perpetrator.

Or they shoot until the perpetrator surrenders.

What you clearly said earlier was that cops don't shoot to kill when they fire their weapons. You never said a single word about intimidation of frightening someone.

[Guest American Woman]

perhaps instead of being snarky and sarcastic you should take the time to learn what "reasonable" means in legalese. I'll tell you what it doesn't mean. It doesn't mean just because the cop believes it's reasonable it is,

Perhaps instead of being all indignant you should grow a pair, and learn to take what you dish out.

And fyi, I never said that "just because the cop believes it's reasonable it is." There wouldn't ever be a charge against a cop if that were the case, eh?

Edited September 6, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

O RLY?

What you clearly said earlier was that cops don't shoot to kill when they fire their weapons. You never said a single word about intimidation of frightening someone.

Yes. O RLY. Why do you think being shot at would stop the behavior?? - because they were intimidated or frightened. Sorry that wasn't as clear to you as I thought it would be.

[g_bambino]

Perhaps instead of being all indignant you should grow a pair, and learn to take what you dish out.

That's a bit rich coming from someone who runs off to the moderators to cry over the most innocuous jibe.

[Black Dog]

Yes. O RLY. Why do you think being shot at would stop the behavior?? - because they were intimidated or frightened. Sorry that wasn't as clear to you as I thought it would be.

Actually I would think having pieces of hot metal entering their body at up to 1400 feet per second would be the thing that makes people shot by cops stop what they are doing.

There's a reason cops shoot centre of mass and not at someone's feet like something out of an old western and it's not to scare them.

[g_bambino]

I agree that a deranged person presents a problem as to how to deal with them and I'm no expert, but, maybe the taser first, instead of after nine shots! Perhaps a little discussion with the guy. Maybe a tear gas canister if he starts to kill himself. I would think it a tad easier for the cops to deal with him killing himself rather than they doing the job for him for no apparent reason.

It's one thing to say it would be better if police had less life-threatening ways of getting an armed deranged person to disarm himself and another thing entirely to figure out what those are. A taser has a far more limited range than a gun; it also isn't guaranteed to immediately render someone incapacitated. Ditto for tear gas; it can't be counted on to make someone release their weapon. And how's anyone supposed to have a productive discussion with a deranged person? Someone's incapability of rationally engaging in a discussion is precisely what earns them the label "deranged".

[ed.: c/e]

Edited September 6, 2013 by g_bambino

[Guest American Woman]

Actually I would think having pieces of hot metal entering their body at up to 1400 feet per second would be the thing that makes people shot by cops stop what they are doing.

And I would think that the prospect of "having pieces of hot metal entering their body at up to 1400 feet per second" would be intimidating and frightening.

There's a reason cops shoot centre of mass and not at someone's feet like something out of an old western and it's not to scare them.

Of course there is, but the intent isn't to kill; it's to stop the behavior. To get the perp to surrender. Edited September 6, 2013 by American Woman

[guyser]

Of course there is, but the intent isn't to kill; it's to stop the behavior. To get the perp to surrender.

You believe the PR, most anyone else will believe the truth.

A centre mass shot is taught to all Cops, I am sure you can agree.

A centre mass shot means targeting the heart lungs, nerves that support both etc, meaning lets stop those and we stop the behaviour....all good but one also stops the others life.

This instructor puts it succinctly.....

Center mass. It’s ‘operations central’ for your body, houses your heart, a most important muscle that sends blood to all parts of your frame. Your lungs are also here and they are necessary for the balanced exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide. You got nerves, lots of nerves that pass through center mass. The vagus nerve for instance represents the golden highway of neurological life sustaining information between your brain and vital organs. This nerve is the master switch for heart rate and blood pressure. Turn off that switch, empty the pump of blood or puncture a lung and a person is likely to die—quickly. This folks is where we are going to put our bullets.”

[cybercoma]

Of course there is, but the intent isn't to kill; it's to stop the behavior. To get the perp to surrender.

Cops aim for the heart just to stop behaviour and to get them to surrender? I guess, if dying is surrendering.

[Guest American Woman]

Cops aim for the heart just to stop behaviour and to get them to surrender? I guess, if dying is surrendering.

Cops always aim for the heart?

[cybercoma]

Cops always aim for the heart?

That's what your comment was in reply to, so that's what I'm addressing.

[Guest American Woman]

That's what your comment was in reply to, so that's what I'm addressing.

No, my comment was in reply to reasons cops shoot. That's what I was addressing.

[Black Dog]

And I would think that the prospect of "having pieces of hot metal entering their body at up to 1400 feet per second" would be intimidating and frightening.

Probably not if we're talking about someone who already has a gun trained on them and continues to refuse to stop what it is they are doing to the point that it is necessary for cops to fire.

Of course there is, but the intent isn't to kill; it's to stop the behavior. To get the perp to surrender.

No the intent is simply to negate the threat to the officer. Death or incapacitation. Death being a highly likely outcome as you yourself have admitted. once the situation has progressed to the point where the trigger is pulled, it's no longer about scaring anyone.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Black Dog

[Guest American Woman]

Probably not if we're talking about someone who already has a gun trained on them and continues to refuse to stop what it is they are doing to the point that it is necessary for cops to fire.

Probably it would if they didn't think the cops would fire, but once they did, it very well could be frightening and intimidating. It's why some surrender after being shot at.

No the intent is simply to negate the threat to the officer.

IE: "Stop the behavior." By stopping their behavior, they negate the threat to the officer - and/or to others. You're saying what I've been saying - that the intent isn't to kill, but to stop the behavior.

Death or incapacitation. Death being a highly likely outcome as you yourself have admitted. once the situation has progressed to the point where the trigger is pulled, it's no longer about scaring anyone.

It can very much still be about stopping the behavior, alleviating the threat, once the trigger is pulled. That can still very much be the intent. Even if death were "the likely outcome," and stats show that it isn't, it still doesn't mean that it's the intent. The intent is to stop the behavior, however you choose to word it. Edited September 6, 2013 by American Woman

[Black Dog]

Probably it would if they didn't think the cops would fire, but once they did, it very well could be frightening and intimidating. It's why some surrender after being shot at.

That might make them reconsider their actions. Of course, at that point they're being shot.

IE: "Stop the behavior." By stopping their behavior, they negate the threat to the officer - and/or to others. You're saying what I've been saying - that the intent isn't to kill, but to stop the behavior.

It can very much still be about stopping the behavior, alleviating the threat, once the trigger is pulled. That can still very much be the intent. Even if death were "the likely outcome," and stats show that it isn't, it still doesn't mean that it's the intent. The intent is to stop the behavior, however you choose to word it.

I draw your attention, once again, to this statement:

How many people shoot another person with the "intent to do great bodily harm but not kill" the person? It's a rather ridiculous notion when the weapon in question is a gun.

If that's ridiculious, then how stupid is it to suggest someone can shoot someone without intending to cause bodily harm or killing the person? Pretty stupid or really stupid?

[Guest American Woman]

That might make them reconsider their actions. Of course, at that point they're being shot.

Yes, it just might - which is the intent. The intent of shooting at the perp is to stop the behavior; ie: alleviate the threat.

I draw your attention, once again, to this statement:

If that's ridiculious, then how stupid is it to suggest someone can shoot someone without intending to cause bodily harm or killing the person? Pretty stupid or really stupid?

It all boils down to intent; the difference between "shooting someone" with the intent to kill and "shooting at someone" with the intent to stop the behavior. Again, it's about intent. That's why the crown, from all I've read, has to prove intent. I'm saying that the intent "to do great bodily harm, but not kill" is a rather ridiculous notion. 'The officer's intent wasn't to kill him when he shot him; his intent was to do great bodily harm' vs. 'The officer's intent wasn't to kill him, but to stop the behavior/allevieate the threat.' The former sounds rather ludicrous while the latter is the reason officers shoot at a perp in the line of duty.

Edited September 9, 2013 by American Woman

[Black Dog]

Yes, it just might - which is the intent. The intent of shooting at the perp is to stop the behavior; ie: alleviate the threat.

It all boils down to intent; the difference between "shooting someone" with the intent to kill and "shooting at someone" with the intent to stop the behavior. Again, it's about intent. That's why the crown, from all I've read, has to prove intent. I'm saying that the intent "to do great bodily harm, but not kill" is a rather ridiculous notion. Officer: 'My intent wasn't to kill him when I shot him; my intent was to do great bodily harm' vs. 'My intent wasn't to kill him, but to stop the behavior/allevieate the threat.' The former sounds rather ludicrous while the latter is the reason officers shoot at a perp in the line of duty.

I agree when a cop shoots someone, the goal is to to stop the behaviour. But they do so by inflicting death or grevious bodily harm on the subject.

"I intended to stop him, but not hurt/kill him" simply doesn't fly when we're talking about a gun, because of the inevitability of death or serious injury that results from the use of that particular method.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Black Dog

[cybercoma]

BD, just stop replying to her. Nobody in their right mind thinks that cops (or anyone else for that matter) shoot people in the chest to simply make them stop doing what they're doing. Only someone that has twisted themselves into an illogical pretzel would make such a ridiculous argument to the contrary.

[Guest American Woman]

I agree when a cop shoots someone, the goal is to to stop the behaviour. But they do so by inflicting death or grevious bodily harm on the subject.

"I intended to stop him, but not hurt/kill him" simply doesn't fly when we're talking about a gun, because of the inevitability of death or serious injury that results from the use of that particular method.

Actually, it does fly. Or cops would be charged with murder every time a perp was killed. It's why the crown, from all I've read, has to prove intent.

Again. The intent is to stop the behavior, and sometimes it does - without inflicting death or grevious bodily harm on the perp. Sometimes the perp surrenders before that happens. But if it does result in death or grevious bodily harm, it most likely is an unfortuate result, not the intent. It's why cops are so rarely charged with murder.

[cybercoma]

Cops don't shoot to kill because they're rarely charged with murder because they don't shoot to kill. This is circular logic, just so you know.

[Guest American Woman]

Cops don't shoot to kill because they're rarely charged with murder because they don't shoot to kill. This is circular logic, just so you know.

It's also not my logic. Just so you know.

[Black Dog]

Again. The intent is to stop the behavior, and sometimes it does - without inflicting death or grevious bodily harm on the perp. Sometimes the perp surrenders before that happens. But if it does result in death or grevious bodily harm, it most likely is an unfortuate result, not the intent. It's why cops are so rarely charged with murder.

It's a virtually inevitable result when the weapon in question is a gun. As you've admitted.

[Guest American Woman]

It's a virtually inevitable result when the weapon in question is a gun. As you've admitted.

I've "admitted" no such thing. What I have said is that death would be virtually an inevitable result if the intent were to inflict grevious bodily harm.

Edited September 9, 2013 by American Woman