Law Enforcement and Deadly Force

[Maximus]

Bullshit.

Agree. Proper training will more than make up for the size/gender difference.

[Barrister]

Bullshit.

Agree. Proper training will more than make up for the size/gender difference.

Well my perspective is more that if someone isn't big enough or strong enough then they shouldn't be a cop, man or woman.  The notion that you'd have two classes of cops, and in particular that those two classes are divided by gender, is just offensive.

[Caliga]

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.

The counter-argument is going to be that she didn't know he would attempt to take her gun from here, the counter-argument to which is that this case proves indeed it's possible and that therefore her life was in danger.

[Berkut]

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?

I did not say they should be required to "take" them - but it is certainly an option, and one used rather often.

And yes, I think it is entirely reasonable for her to return to her car, rather than killing him. Her pride has no value compared to his life.

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.

It should be authorized when the life of the officer or someone else is in imminent danger, or they are in danger of serious harm.

Her life was not in danger, as far as I can tell. The use of deadly force should be a last resort.

[Berkut]

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.

She let him become a threat. Why didn't she just back away from him, get in her car, and call for backup and observe?

If he starts walking away again and goes after someone else, she can get back out and make sure he doesn't harm anyone.

[crazy canuck]

The counter-argument is going to be that she didn't know he would attempt to take her gun from here, the counter-argument to which is that this case proves indeed it's possible and that therefore her life was in danger.

The important point that the "just walk away" crowd is missing is that cop was in danger.  That is why she fired. 

[Berkut]

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.

The counter-argument is going to be that she didn't know he would attempt to take her gun from here, the counter-argument to which is that this case proves indeed it's possible and that therefore her life was in danger.

He can only take her gun away from her if she allows him to get close to her.

If in fact she did not feel she could get away from him, then perhaps there can be an argument that shooting was justified.

Still seems like she could have just turned around and run from him though.

[garbon]

The counter-argument is going to be that she didn't know he would attempt to take her gun from here, the counter-argument to which is that this case proves indeed it's possible and that therefore her life was in danger.

Also, she doesn't sound very good at her job. She tazed a guy and shot him but still ended up getting shot after? Clearly her methods were ineffective.

[ulmont]

The counter-argument is going to be that she didn't know he would attempt to take her gun from here, the counter-argument to which is that this case proves indeed it's possible and that therefore her life was in danger.

1) It cannot be ok to shoot an unarmed suspect who is stationary.
2) It must be ok to shoot an unarmed suspect who has their hands around someone's neck.

Applying that to the described situation, somewhere after the justified tasering and before the unarmed suspect took the gun away from the police officer, lethal force becomes legally justified. 

I see the use of lethal force without another non-lethal attempt against an unarmed suspect as morally wrong, and submit that different police procedures could have ended this situation without anyone being shot.  But no, instead, we get lowest-common-denominator, shoot as soon as you think you can get away with it, bullshit.  Yay, you shot an unarmed man, go you!

[crazy canuck]

The counter-argument is going to be that she didn't know he would attempt to take her gun from here, the counter-argument to which is that this case proves indeed it's possible and that therefore her life was in danger.

Also, she doesn't sound very good at her job. She tazed a guy and shot him but still ended up getting shot after? Clearly her methods were ineffective.

Rather her weapons were ineffective.

[Berkut]

The counter-argument is going to be that she didn't know he would attempt to take her gun from here, the counter-argument to which is that this case proves indeed it's possible and that therefore her life was in danger.

The important point that the "just walk away" crowd is missing is that cop was in danger.  That is why she fired. 

I still don't see it - how was she in danger from this unarmed man?

[crazy canuck]

1) It cannot be ok to shoot an unarmed suspect who is stationary.
2) It must be ok to shoot an unarmed suspect who has their hands around someone's neck.

Now you are just making up facts to suit your argument.  He was not stationary.  He was coming at her.

[garbon]

Rather her weapons were ineffective.

So she should have high-tailed it then? Based on what he had been doing, it doesn't seem like she should have tried to kill him.

[ulmont]

I still don't see it - how was she in danger from this unarmed man?

Well, Berkut, clearly a police officer armed with a gun is always in deadly danger from an unarmed man; he might take away the gun and shoot her with it!

[crazy canuck]

I still don't see it - how was she in danger from this unarmed man?

Why do you an Ulmont cling to the belief that someone who is unarmed is not a threat.  I can hurt someone pretty badly with my own hands and after seeing your pictures I would guess the same is true of you.