Let me clarify... Reb put "shoot to kill" as a justification for not performing CPR and providing aid to a wounded suspect if possible. That gives the impression that we are training police to be glorified infantrymen or a death squad which is totally not true. Training with the targets they do (human silhouette) gets muscle memory to shoot human shaped targets. So making that a classification as being trained to kill would probably also fit for an army finance officer, a military chef, or another non combatant who fires once or twice a year.And yes all the people saying shoot them in the leg, hand, or etc either are themselves the best shots in the world so they feel all should be able to match their level or they are talking out their posterior. I believe more of the latter. Police are trained mostly in the concepts of use of force and objectivable reasonableness. I t basically is to use the amount of force reasonably necessary to defuse the situation. This includes stuff like contact controls, non lethals, and lethal weapons .I used to do armed security for a government contractor years ago. We worked in conjunction with local law enforcement, since we were basically securing a small city. A power plant with 4,000 construction workers, all with access to many tools and other things they can use as weapons to kill or cause harm. Many of my fellow guards were former cops, deputies, prison guards, and state troopers. The money in government security was better, and it was a little less dangerous than being out on the street dealing with the absolute scum of humanity on a daily basis.
We carried our service weapon, hand cuffs, expandable baton, and pepper spray on our belts. You're trained on which one is best to use depending on the situation and several factors that I'm not going to get into. But let me be perfectly clear on something...you're trained that if you ever unholster your weapon, you better be ready to pull the trigger. If you feel you have to pull the trigger, you shoot to kill. Period. As my instructor used to put it, "There's two things I'm allergic to....hot lead and cold steel".
If you've made the decision to shoot, then you better have made that decision because you felt this perpetrator was a threat to yours or someone else's life. Once you've made that decision, you shoot to kill.
Now, all this obviously happens much faster than that. And things aren't ever crystal clear when you're faced with this type of decision. You just make the best decision you can, and one that gives the best chance for you to go home to your family that night.
These people that talk about these cops needing to shoot dangerous criminals in the leg or arm to injure them are completely clueless. You aim center mass to kill. But also to decrease your chances of missing the target. Those chances only increase the further from center mass you get. Nevermind the lawsuit that's going to follow after that criminal sues you for shooting them in the leg or arm. Your life is ruined.
Furthermore, anybody can sit there on the couch and just watch the news coverage of these riots and see why these people are getting shot by police. You've got cops out there in riot gear trying to get these people off the streets and stop them from destroying property and committing crimes. What do they do? They just keep standing there. Throwing bottles, etc. They want confrontation with the cops.
You can literally sit there and watch an explosion of tear gas go off right in the middle of these idiots and they scatter. They run about 20 yards, stop....gather up again, throw bottles, rinse and repeat. They simply will not do what the cops are telling them to do. This is exactly the type of behavior they exhibit during these encounters with law enforcement that ends up with someone shot. It's the exact same thing. They won't obey the commands of law enforcement, and they intentionally portray themselves as a threat by not obeying the simplest of commands whether it's dropping the gun or knife, or simply taking your hands out of your pockets and keeping them where law enforcement can see them.
If the perp gets out of their vehicle and starts walking towards the cop with a gun in his hand, it's a pretty safe assumption they're going to get shot. I'd call that "objectivable reasonableness". I don't care if Joe Q. Public agrees with me or not, what I care about is living to go home to my family, and letting a jury of my peers decide based on the evidence whether it was justified. Either way, the officer still has to live with the burden of taking someone else's life after giving them as much opportunity as possible to stay alive.
I'm convinced most of these people don't want to live anyway. They simply can't after exhibiting some of the behavior I've seen. This guy had already been tased.
The false narrative being spewed out there constantly has to stop. It's all BS.
My point is police shootings happen way more because the police have assessed a threat that even a reasonable objective person could find as a threat to oneself or others that could cause serious bodily harm or death.
And to Selma's point about CPR, police are trained very regularly on immediate life saving skills so it's not beyond them unless a threat still exists to attempt to provide aid to the victim until medical arrives. They aren't doctors so they can't pronounce someone dead on the scene, and perception is everything as you see in some of these many posts from people nowhere near Tulsa.
Last edited: