Do Police Guidelines Endorse Lethal Force as First Response?

Rainman

Rainman

Well-Known Member
After reading about another senseless killing of an unarmed person by a police officer I looked around to find how cops rationalize the killings. I stumbled into an article which suggests that police guidelines actually allow police officers to use lethal force first . . . in self defense. But does this still apply when a person is unarmed?
 
I bet this is a really grey area. I suspect they are permitted to use lethal force in situations of "perceived danger" - when they think someone is armed. We all know how tricky this gets though...
 
I think there has to be a reason to believe there is "imenent danger" if a police officer is going to use lethal force as a first line of defense. Perhaps maybe the suspect implies that he or she is armed, or the officer thinks that he or she is hiding a gun? It really is a judgement call on the officer's part, but any good police department is going to really investigate an incident should it occur. I don't think that lethal force is authorized unless there is the perception of no other choice, and the officer has to be able to articulate that in a court of law, or police investigation.
 
The police are like a brotherhood, which I can respect. They have to stand up for each other when no one else will stand up for them. They are privy to things the public are not privy to so sometimes that can justify why it seems they side with the officer through thick & thin. However, this has clearly been taken to the extreme. You can't turn a blind eye to wrong doing in your department. It only leads to further wrong doing.
 
I don't know what the specific "senseless killing...by a police officer" refers to, but I have to say, there is a simple equation that covers it: Let's see now, not attacking people, including a cop = not getting shot! I am outraged by the thought of ANY abuse of power, whether it be in the home, or in the Oval Office, but I don't understand how we can expect our police officers to have some sort of super powers like x-ray vision when it comes to determining whether someone is armed! There is always an investigation, and there should be, but we need to look at the real criminals in society, instead of trying to manufacture them!
 
From what I have always known, it is only to be used when the other person has a weapon, but when they are unarmed, I do not see why they should go that route.
 
But seriously, how can they always know if someone is armed? I mean of course if someone's shooting up the place,it's easy. What if, on the other hand, they're waiting in ambush? There has to be some leeway for the police in making decisions.
 
missbishi said:
I bet this is a really grey area. I suspect they are permitted to use lethal force in situations of "perceived danger" - when they think someone is armed. We all know how tricky this gets though...
Click to expand...
The issue is that these situations are always tricky and then you got people who reach into their pocket for something. If the officer is in the night it is difficult to judge whether or not the subject has a loaded weapon or not. So lethal force is more than likely to be used when things heat up.
 
Yes they are permitted to use lethal force, but this days they use lethal force even when the victim is unarmed, they seem to use it whenever they feel like it.
 
I don't think that lethal force should be used on someone who is unarmed. The only way this could happen is if someone is significantly larger than the officer and they are charging at them. Even then, I don't see how lethal force still applies. I don't think this is a guideline.
 
I do not think it must be done when a person is unarmed. It is also important that one learns to try and use the force against a person who is actually a risk.
 
I think it's appropriate if say there are two officers and a gang of ten, because they are outnumbered and should use lethal force to protect themselves. It's also hard to say whether someone is armed or not, because it's not like a film where we get to see the concealed weapon, because many people do carry them so even if one is not visible, the police officer has to decide whether it is likely.
 
This is a great question, I mean, many police officers seem to be trigger light and I think that's because they have seen a lot of bad things happen. It's not an easy job...
 
Gelsemium said:
This is a great question, I mean, many police officers seem to be trigger light and I think that's because they have seen a lot of bad things happen. It's not an easy job...
Click to expand...
It is not ever easy doing that job. You are going to have days where you would meet head on with an armed psycho about to kill an baby.
 
This can get really messy. I think its where the police officer thinks there's danger. But then that's subjective. How dangerous is danger?
 
If the situation has already gotten out of hand, and the public is in real danger, I guess that should be the time when lethal force should be used. But if the person is unarmed and not really a huge threat to the community, lethal force is not the proper response.
 
I don't know about the guidelines, but I do know the criminal element has gotten more ruthless and aggressive. Criminals today have stepped up their attack on law enforcement by shooting first. This makes it more imperative that the officer acts faster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top