Law Enforcement and Deadly Force

[Ed Anger]

3 shot grouping to the chest is always a good thing.

[Barrister]

Not quite.  I'm not sure how to phrase it, and the RCMP don't give out their exact use of force guidelines to the public, but they certainly can draw their firearm when the situation is elevated but doesn't yet require lethal force.

Well, on COPS*, I've seen cops draw weapons without firing plenty of times.  Often they'll draw their sidearm, point it at a suspect, yell at a suspect to get on the ground, and then a partner (if one is present) will cuff the person behind their back or whatever while the gun is still trained on them by cop #1.

* yes people, I realize this is television and the cops may not act this way when the cameras are off.

Only thing I'd tend to disagree with in real life is the "gun trained on them".  It's my understand that when the RCMP (which is the only agency I have experience with, so all I can talk about) unholster their firearm they do not point it directly at the subject, they kind of point it down towards the ground in front of the subject.

[garbon]

An unarmed person?  Never.  If we have cops that cannot subdue an unarmed suspect without killing them then we need to get rid of them and get better cops (or at least send them in pairs).

Yeah and in this case one can't hide behind the idea that he was concealing a weapon as there aren't many places that a naked person can be hiding one.

[DGuller]

Your question should read whether a single cop should be going to a call of domestic disturbance or not.

That's part of the question.  However, given that there is only one cop, a single male cop is less likely to be physically overpowered than a single female cop.

Bullshit.

No.

[DGuller]

I'm actually surprised that some posters here think the cop is allowed to shoot an unarmed person that does not present an immediate threat to anyone.  That's a big no-no, AFAIK.

[Caliga]

Only thing I'd tend to disagree with in real life is the "gun trained on them".  It's my understand that when the RCMP (which is the only agency I have experience with, so all I can talk about) unholster their firearm they do not point it directly at the subject, they kind of point it down towards the ground in front of the subject.

Hmmm... well, granted on television it can be hard to tell if they might not be doing the same thing.  Also key would be whether the cop's actually got his finger on the trigger.  I would thing that once you finger is off the guard and onto the trigger itself you better be prepared to fire.

[Caliga]

I'm actually surprised that some posters here think the cop is allowed to shoot an unarmed person that does not present an immediate threat to anyone.  That's a big no-no, AFAIK.

Who thinks that?

[garbon]

I'm actually surprised that some posters here think the cop is allowed to shoot an unarmed person that does not present an immediate threat to anyone.  That's a big no-no, AFAIK.

I don't know...a nude male walking towards a female cop is certainly sexually menacing.

[Barrister]

Just remember everyone: a stapler is a deadly weapon. 

[garbon]

Just remember everyone: a stapler is a deadly weapon. 

Is a penis?

[DGuller]

I'm actually surprised that some posters here think the cop is allowed to shoot an unarmed person that does not present an immediate threat to anyone.  That's a big no-no, AFAIK.

Who thinks that?

Three Canuck lawyers, for example.

[DGuller]

Just remember everyone: a stapler is a deadly weapon. 

Is a penis?

You can use it to screw someone to death.

[crazy canuck]

Get back in her car, lock the door, call for backup - this is assuming she is not confident she can take the guy in a physical altercation.

Police are not required to "take" someone in a physical altercation before they fire and it would put police in too much danger if such a policy were in place.  He was coming at her.  Do you think it reasonable that she turn and return to her car?

When would you say lethal force should be authorized?  Only when the bad guys draw a gun?  Police can get hurt or killed with suspects who do not have guns too.  Just because they are police does not give them superior strength.

[garbon]

You can use it to screw someone to death.

I wonder what the most powerful man's would be like.

[crazy canuck]

I'm actually surprised that some posters here think the cop is allowed to shoot an unarmed person that does not present an immediate threat to anyone.  That's a big no-no, AFAIK.

It is surprising to me that there are people here who say he was not a threat.  He got to her, took her gun and shot here with it.  The events of the case itself show that he was in fact a threat.