Shilowar I guess you've seen this??

Ricci Wright

https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2017/03/31/police-group-wants-cops-fire-warning-shots/

Mr. Perfect

That's dumber than a plastic bag full of college professors.

shilowar

First I've heard of it, and truly ignorant. Our policy expressly prohibits warning shots.

bpost

It truly worries me when people can actually be this stupid and show up to vote and also work in Law Enforcement.

When an officer has reason to discharge his firearm, I want it discharged TWICE, both shots direct center mass hits.

capgun

A lot of variables involved. If firing a warning shot, prohibited in every agency I know of, the officer better be absolutely certain of his backstop and it must be a situation where he is justified in using deadly force. Just because an officer is justified in using deadly force does not mean he has to kill the assailant. We had a case where a mentally deranged guy on a sidewalk was waving a knife and threatening to kill people. When an officer arrived the guy slowly advanced on the officer waving the knife. The officer backed up, but the guy still kept advancing toward him with the knife. The officer would have been justified in using deadly force. Instead, the officer fired a round into a telephone pole next to the guy, the guy dropped the knife and gave up. Under the right circumstances I may fire a warning shot. I would have to feel certain the outcome would have a good chance of succeeding. Having been involved in shootings, I know any plan B that may keep you from having to kill someone is worth a try under the right circumstances. And to the general, very critical public, if you did fire a warning shot and then still had to kill the assailant, it would give the appearance that you did everything possible, went the extra mile, to try to avoid killing the subject. That can be very important when the anti-police people are trying to label you a wanton murderer.

remingtonoaks

This is got to be an April fool's joke!

serf

quote:Originally posted by bpost


It truly worries me when people can actually be this stupid and show up to vote and also work in Law Enforcement.

When an officer has reason to discharge his firearm, I want it discharged TWICE, both shots direct center mass hits.


Hell in England The regular police don't even carry guns! It's the NWO mentality for police,don't you know? You better start worrying some more.

serf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/18/5-countries-where-police-officers-do-not-carry-firearms-and-it-works-well/?utm_term=.5e255c24ed38

Wright also thinks that the powerful standing of women in Iceland's politics, as well as within the police force, has helped to maintain low crime rates. Both Oddsson and Wright agree that low inequality and a strong welfare system have contributed to Iceland's success in sustaining its unarmed police.

JamesRK

Makes almost as much sense as "shoot the gun out of his hand.

In one of my Virginia deadly force classes we were told that many moons ago the North Carolina Department of Corrections policy was "shoot to wound".

An inmate got outside of a correctional facility and was running across an open field. The officer in the tower drew a bead on him and shot him in the leg, then put the rifle back in the rack. The inmate got up a limped off to freedom.

The corrections officer was fired for allowing an inmate to escape. He hired a lawyer and went to court to get his job back. After the lawyer convinced the judge the officer did everything required by DOC policy, DOC was forced to rehire the CO with back pay.

NCDOC changed their policy from "shoot to wound" to "shoot to stop". As far as I know that is the policy of all law enforcement organizations everywhere now.