Teen shot and killed by Edmonton police officer.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by puckluck

How about no, and I'm not your buddy.

Well I'm not your guy, buddy.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by puckluck

How about no, and I'm not your buddy.

Oh please, don't flatter yourself. Your posts get worse as the night progresses; I'd hate to see how grumpy you are with your 4am fares

[Kjesse]

While I don't know that this cop's actions were optimal they appear to be justified.

But my question is different and from comments in this thread and many previous.

I have always heard that cops are taught that if they are justified to shoot, they should shoot to kill, and also to always shoot at least twice.

I can see that hitting the torso is easier than hitting the leg, and thus less risky to the officer who is being threatened, but still, shouldn't the officer make the call? If someone brought a knife to a gun fight, I'd think a few shots to the legs should be enough to end the confrontation.

And to add to the debate, I think the taser is too unreliable to be used as a defensive weapon in a potentially fatal situation for the officer.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Delgar

While I don't know that this cop's actions were optimal they appear to be justified.

But my question is different and from comments in this thread and many previous.

I have always heard that cops are taught that if they are justified to shoot, they should shoot to kill, and also to always shoot at least twice.

I can see that hitting the torso is easier than hitting the leg, and thus less risky to the officer who is being threatened, but still, shouldn't the officer make the call? If someone brought a knife to a gun fight, I'd think a few shots to the legs should be enough to end the confrontation.

I agree, I'd love to hear from Hockeycop firsthand on this sort of thing. And I do think cops are indeed trained to "go big or go home" when it comes to stopping an attacker using deadly force, but thats just heresy.

[puckluck]

Originally Posted by Ducay

Oh please, don't flatter yourself. Your posts get worse as the night progresses; I'd hate to see how grumpy you are with your 4am fares

Actually I'll be the bigger man.

[Super-Rye]

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Well I'm not your guy, buddy.

I'm not your buddy, friend.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Ducay

I agree, I'd love to hear from Hockeycop firsthand on this sort of thing. And I do think cops are indeed trained to "go big or go home" when it comes to stopping an attacker using deadly force, but thats just heresy.

Cops don't shoot to kill, cops shoot to stop the threat. However, usually in a situation like that, it may result in the officer killing the subject. Training is to always shoot in the centre of mass, being the torso or the back. Pretty much the largest body mass presented to you.

Shooting legs/arms are nearly impossible in high stress situations and simply are a waste of time due to the small chance of effectiveness.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Police should always shoot to kill.

To me, this statement is too stark to be true, hence my earlier post. "Always" means no exceptions. If the cop is the one on the receiving end of a deadly threat, isn't s/he the one best able to determine if s/he should shoot to kill? I'd think there are times a threatened officer could shoot other than to kill.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Delgar

To me, this statement is too stark to be true, hence my earlier post. "Always" means no exceptions. If the cop is the one on the receiving end of a deadly threat, isn't s/he the one best able to determine if s/he should shoot to kill? I'd think there are times a threatened officer could shoot other than to kill.

I stated it in my previous post but I feel it needs repeating....cops don't shoot to kill, they shoot to stop the threat.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Cops don't shoot to kill, cops shoot to stop the threat.

I get your point and thanks for the rest of the post which makes sense. But this line is pure semantics...though maybe comforting to cops who have killed. I take what you're saying is, don't risk not hitting a leg, hit the torso, its more likely to kill, but also more certain to be successful stopping the threat.

Being a cop is dangerous and I have no problem with them using deadly force to prevent serious injury to themselves, but the whole shoot the torso thing without considering otherwise removes their discretion and they're the one facing the threat.

edit: i posted this before seeing your last response. Not trying to go in circles.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I get your point and thanks for the rest of the post which makes sense. But this line is pure semantics...though maybe comforting to cops who have killed. I take what you're saying is, don't risk not hitting a leg, hit the torso, its more likely to kill, but also more certain to be successful stopping the threat.

Being a cop is dangerous and I have no problem with them using deadly force to prevent serious injury to themselves, but the whole shoot the torso thing without considering otherwise removes their discretion and they're the one facing the threat.

edit: i posted this before seeing your last response. Not trying to go in circles.

I don't believe its semantics...there's definitely a correlation between one and the other, but if police were really going for the "kill", they'd be trained to do only headshots, which are pretty much the highest chance of killing a person, but even than its not guaranteed.

And TBQH, the reason the discretion is removed for the most part is because the extra time it takes. The amount of times a police officer trains, draws his gun, and shoot centre of mass is probably in the thousands. It becomes muscle memory and not to say a cop isn't always assessing the threat and situation, but as with everything, in a high stress situation, training overrides and you react as you would in training.

That being said, you do see in a lot of officer involved shootings that the officer becomes somewhat "fixated" on the weapon and shoots the hand/arm that is holding the weapon...but that definitely isn't on purpose.

[zamler]

I've always held the belief that if someone possess a deadly weapon, and comes at you with that weapon, they have the right to defend yourself. Even if it means using deadly force.

The Officer has no choice but to shoot, I see no reason for him to put his life on the line to protect someone that is threatening him with deadly force. Tragic as it is, the cop did the right thing, assuming the basic details are correct.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by jar_e

but if police were really going for the "kill", they'd be trained to do only headshots,

That's a pretty good point, though the head is harder to hit than a leg or arm, I'd think. I'm content to debate what they should do instead of trying it out in a real situation Again, I think a cop should have a choice to try the legs first shot if it seems like a good alternative at the time. I don't fault them being trained or instructed otherwise, and in the same circumstances I'd probably go with instinct over a sense of needing to not kill the villain.

Thinking more, this kind of reminds me of 6 hours of training for my first skydive. We went over the drill to deploy the emergency shoot for hours, along with all kinds of other mundane movements. Only after I jumped out of the plane was I glad to have been so programmed with near automatic responses!

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Delgar

That's a pretty good point, though the head is harder to hit than a leg or arm, I'd think.

The head is wider and less mobile, I would imagine it would be easier than legs or arms.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

The head is wider and less mobile, I would imagine it would be easier than legs or arms.

Maybe.....

NSFW!

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Delgar

While I don't know that this cop's actions were optimal they appear to be justified.

But my question is different and from comments in this thread and many previous.

I have always heard that cops are taught that if they are justified to shoot, they should shoot to kill, and also to always shoot at least twice.

I can see that hitting the torso is easier than hitting the leg, and thus less risky to the officer who is being threatened, but still, shouldn't the officer make the call? If someone brought a knife to a gun fight, I'd think a few shots to the legs should be enough to end the confrontation.

And to add to the debate, I think the taser is too unreliable to be used as a defensive weapon in a potentially fatal situation for the officer.

I think it's all about training.

If you only have a few seconds, or less to figure out what the most appropriate level of force is, and apply that force so you will no longer be in danger, the more effective you are the better. Obviously, the most effective way to disable a person using a firearm is to shoot a bullet at them, and hit them with that bullet. The largest chance of hitting someone with a bullet is shooting center mass. I really don't think killing the person is the primary goal at all, like some have mentioned in this thread.

By taking the thought process away by removing the option of where to shoot, how many times to shoot, etc, you can let the officer spend as much time as possible deciding on the most important thing of all, if they should be shooting.

That's just my opinion though, so I might be out to lunch.

[CaptainCrunch]

A head looks fairly tiny in a pistol site even when the person is 10 feet away from you. Combine that with your arm maybe shaking a bit, the person running towards you so the head moves, and your own breathing and its pretty tough to hit.

Hollywood always show these amazing headshots, but in real life, really tough to do.

When I was in the army we were all issued a pistol as well as a rifle, but we all felt that pistols were fairly useless in distances of 5 to 10 yards.

When you aim a pistol at center mass from that kid of distance it gets tougher to miss because that center mass fills the sights and beyond.

Plus you hit the center of the center mass and you're going to rip apart major organs and the person is definitely going down in one big hurry.

[Trojan97]

It's a tragedy that a 17 kid is so screwed up and broken that he leaves our world attempting to attack a cop with a weapon. His parents should be completely ashamed of themselves.

Kudos to the officer for doing what needed to be done.

[Cheerio]

I think that in situations like this one, the cop should be given the benefit of the doubt 10 times out of 10

[hockeycop]

Originally Posted by jar_e

Cops don't shoot to kill, cops shoot to stop the threat. However, usually in a situation like that, it may result in the officer killing the subject. Training is to always shoot in the centre of mass, being the torso or the back. Pretty much the largest body mass presented to you.

Shooting legs/arms are nearly impossible in high stress situations and simply are a waste of time due to the small chance of effectiveness.

This.

Also, a big part of the reason to shoot for centre mass is because the police can't really be 100% sure of the background in a dynamic situation. If a PO is shooting at arms and legs, they will have missed shots that go past the subject and they could cause serious injury or death to someone else.