No it's not, as the cop explained you are missing the wording. If someone pulled a knife on me and I shot him, that would be using excessive force, excessive meaning NOT reasonable. The way they see it, if you have a gun you have other options then just flat out shooting him dead.
This isn't my personal opinion, this is what a police officer has told me. So really I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying that a police officer himself said this.(also you seem to have misread the example, the example criminal PULLED a knife on you. Not attacked you and tried to kill you with it). The example the cop used was that he only pulled it on you and demanded money for example. If he actually began attacking you then what you said is true from what I understand(though I'm not sure), but assuming he doesn't flat out attack you, then shooting him is not " reasonable force " and you will most likely be charged.
It's all well and good you have some training with reasonable force response, but first off does that apply to everyone in any situation? Or are you an actual RCMP officer? 2nd regardless of the answer to the first, you aren’t a lawyer from what I understand. Something that is deemed reasonable force is really up for the courts to decide in the case of a death, not the police or the RCMP(from what I understand).
My experience with the Police in this matter differs from yours.
10 years ago a tenant in a building I was supervising (The York Hotel downtown) pulled a machete on me and drove the blade into the floor by my feet before slamming and locking his door. A witness to the event called the Police and by the time I reached the main floor I saw 4 members of the TAC team run into our building. They apprehended the perpetrator and an Officer interviewed me and took my statement.
I tried to play it off as no big deal and he interrupted me and explained that as an officer they are trained that a knife has a 'kill zone' of about 15 feet and that they are trained to shoot anyone threatening them with a blade who is within that distance.
Certainly if the guy has a knife 100 yards away they can't nail him Dirty Harry style, but close enough... fire away.
Does anyone know the outcome of the case in point?
A little birdie (well, a big fat one, if you are reading this, birdie ) told me that there will be no repercussions for the guy who defended himself...
My experience with the Police in this matter differs from yours.
10 years ago a tenant in a building I was supervising (The York Hotel downtown) pulled a machete on me and drove the blade into the floor by my feet before slamming and locking his door. A witness to the event called the Police and by the time I reached the main floor I saw 4 members of the TAC team run into our building. They apprehended the perpetrator and an Officer interviewed me and took my statement.
I tried to play it off as no big deal and he interrupted me and explained that as an officer they are trained that a knife has a 'kill zone' of about 15 feet and that they are trained to shoot anyone threatening them with a blade who is within that distance.
Certainly if the guy has a knife 100 yards away they can't nail him Dirty Harry style, but close enough... fire away.
~firebug
Again though, that's a different situation. For one him slamming the machete into the floor by your feet(with a witness to boot) could be seen as attacking too. Also this is a different situation because you didn't attack him back, so the case really has no bearing on the conversation as there was no self defence involved.
Also like I said above(but am not sure of), I do believe police officers because of the nature of their job have a different set of " rules " they follow. An officer is trained and experienced how to handle such a situation, as well as the fact their JOB is enforcing the law.
It gets a lot more shaded if some random person shoots another random person for pulling a knife on them. Also if that quote of what the officer said is accurate, he said nothing about shooting said victim dead, just shooting them. He easily could have meant shoot them in the leg/arm to stop them. He didn't really say in the least you can shoot AND KILL someone with a knife. The real issue here is KILLING someone in self defence, not hurting them in self defence. The officer I spoke with was strictly speaking in the case you shot AND KILLED said person.
Again though, that's a different situation. For one him slamming the machete into the floor by your feet(with a witness to boot) could be seen as attacking too. Also this is a different situation because you didn't attack him back, so the case really has no bearing on the conversation as there was no self defence involved.
Also like I said above(but am not sure of), I do believe police officers because of the nature of their job have a different set of " rules " they follow. An officer is trained and experienced how to handle such a situation, as well as the fact their JOB is enforcing the law.
It gets a lot more shaded if some random person shoots another random person for pulling a knife on them. Also if that quote of what the officer said is accurate, he said nothing about shooting said victim dead, just shooting them. He easily could have meant shoot them in the leg/arm to stop them. He didn't really say in the least you can shoot AND KILL someone with a knife. The real issue here is KILLING someone in self defence, not hurting them in self defence. The officer I spoke with was strictly speaking in the case you shot AND KILLED said person.
Essentially, what the Officer was saying was that if he was in my shoes, he would have shot the guy (and been justified in doing so as a knife that close is a lethal threat). Why would the knife be any less of a lethal threat to me, or any other civilian?
Plus, the Police only know one way to shoot, aim for the center of mass and pull the trigger twice. If it still is a threat, repeat.
No, the law says if someone comes at you with a knife, you cannot use a gun to shoot him. Equal force dictates that you much retreat and locate a knife to ensure the battle is fair.
As all the sane people have pointed out, its all about being reasonable. Lethal attacks warrant lethal responses.
Essentially, what the Officer was saying was that if he was in my shoes, he would have shot the guy (and been justified in doing so as a knife that close is a lethal threat). Why would the knife be any less of a lethal threat to me, or any other civilian?
It's not that it's less lethal, it's that it's not your job to deal with a criminal however you see fit. Where as a police officer it IS his job to deal with it. What do you think would happen if some random person saw a mugging, and shot the mugger dead himself without calling police ect. He would probably get in trouble because that's called being a vigilante(I believe) and it's not his job to stop the mugger. Where stopping the mugger isn't illegal, I’m pretty sure killing him is(seeing as you are in no danger yourself and you just flat out shot the guy dead when you had so many other options).
Quote:
Originally Posted by firebug
Plus, the Police only know one way to shoot, aim for the center of mass and pull the trigger twice. If it still is a threat, repeat.
They don't aim for arms or legs or weapons.
~firebug
Ya but really that's just your understanding of what he was saying. Again if that was word for word what he said, it doesn't say to me you are welcome to kill someone. Also, only shoot to kill? Do you not watch TV? There have got to be like 4X more NON FATAL police shootings(guess, not fact) then fatal ones due to the fact their first resort is almost ALWAYS shoot to injure/stop. Failing that, they will shoot to kill(of course that depends on the situation; like if the suspect had a gun also and was returning fire). Saying police only know one way to shoot(shoot to kill) is just flat out wrong and untrue. They are trained to double tap to the chest, but if you ask any real officer this is a last resort when they deem there to be an immediate threat. They very much know how to shoot a leg or arm to injure if that's what the situation calls for.
"If peace officers were truly trained to "shoot to kill", then wouldn't they continue to shoot even after the suspect was stopped - and lying on the ground?? ...so, then, wouldn't every suspect who was *shot* by law enforcement be *killed* in **every** officer-involved shooting?" They are trained to shoot to stop(not kill), there is a big difference. So again, the officer saying he would have shot said person is VERY different then the officer saying he would have KILLED said person.
) told me that there will be no repercussions for the guy who defended himself...
