Loosedhorse
Moderator
NPR ran a story a couple of days ago. In the aftermath of well-publicized "police shootings of unarmed suspects", apparently several items are now being re-evaluated as possibly re-entering police "use of force" policies:
Story: Police warning shots may be in for a comeback
My take, FWIW: I understand, especially in the wake of what might seem to be "too many" shootings by police, deciding to review police use-of-force policies. I even understand starting the review process with "all options on the table for discussion." Having said that, I think that "shooting to wound" is a VERY bad idea for all the reasons usually discussed. I also think that "warning shots" that were both safe and necessary would be so rare that changing policy to allow them is another bad idea.
- Warning shots
- Shooting to wound
Story: Police warning shots may be in for a comeback
- What do you think of changing the police policy?
- If the policy does change, does that mean that private citizens should also adopt these deadly-force options for lawful self-defense by private citizens?
- If police policy changes, and private citizens do no follow suit, do they then become vulnerable to the charge, "You didn't have to shoot to kill: you could have fired a warning shot, or shot to wound"?
My take, FWIW: I understand, especially in the wake of what might seem to be "too many" shootings by police, deciding to review police use-of-force policies. I even understand starting the review process with "all options on the table for discussion." Having said that, I think that "shooting to wound" is a VERY bad idea for all the reasons usually discussed. I also think that "warning shots" that were both safe and necessary would be so rare that changing policy to allow them is another bad idea.