"Current training calls for you to continue shooting until the suspect stops."
That's exactly our problem. "Leadership" considers it OK for police to be trained that way, and the rest of the population is generally disinterested in doing anything about it. There are more options for an officer than either turning a suspect into dog food with a hail of bullets or letting himself being chopped into dog food. That's a kill or be killed mentality that will ensure that the cops, with the bigger guns, will continue doing the killing where it is unwarranted. With regard to the"shoot-the-leg" issue - this is a cop-out (no pun intended). Ignoring legs and other squiggly bits hanging off the torso, the torso is a big area. A cop standing a ways away from an armed suspect, even if that suspect is moving at some speed other than a blind charge, has the opportunity to aim away from the center of the chest, hopefully not hitting vital organs in a way that is immediately lethal. The cop in that situation also has the opportunity to shoot once or twice and see if the suspect is still a threat, not 10, 20, 30 times. If the guy is falling over, let him fall over - you don't need to keep shooting for the sake of shooting. When those 14 bullets hit their target, that was just a matter of a few seconds. That wasn't enough TIME for the suspect to have stopped, or for a cop to have decided what was necessary. Hell, most of the moving he was doing during those few seconds was caused by twitching and falling and flailing as bullets tore a human body apart. Hey, the longer the shooting goes on, the more moving the suspect will be doing - shall we consider that a reason to keep pumping in bullets, too? Without getting into the debate of how the suspect should have been stopped, with or without a gun, one bullet may have been a non-lethal and effective measure. But the cops will never know because they never stopped shooting to find out. You can always add another bullet. You can't take one back. The force continuum used by the police must not be restricted one of three settings only - do nothing; or if doing something and the suspect is unarmed but not just standing docilely, beat until not moving; or if doing something and the suspect is armed, shoot until nothing remains but a bloody pulp. Sure, a more reasonable approach is more difficult to learn, but that's the cops' JOBs to learn that, and their superiors' jobs to teach and enforce that. Any cop who can make a decision to turn a human being into dog food can make a decision to use his senses and judgment to use reasonable force instead. But that cop won't, as long as his superiors and trainers are telling him it's OK to kill, and he doesn't need to make that more refined decision. Roxana Orrell Central [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 23:22:47 EST > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [Mpls] Re: Police bashing > > <snip> > The man would not put down his machete. Taser > fire was ineffective. If you were a police officer, > would you take the chance of being chopped into dog > food in order to handcuff this man? You have to stop > him from continuing to roam the neighborhood, and > your tools are limited. Current training calls for > you to continue shooting until the suspect stops. > There might be other and better methods that > could be used, but they are not part of the MPD's > toolbox at this point. If we are going to allow the > mentally ill to wander the streets until they > become "a danger to themselves or others" the MPD > is going to need those tools. _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
