Shoot to hurt, pol urges cops (Shoot to Wound - NY State)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/393992p-333984c.html

Sen. David Paterson is pushing a bill that would require cops to shoot to wound, rather than using deadly force - drawing outrage from officers.

The bill also would create a new provision for second-degree manslaughter that would be reserved specifically for an officer who "uses more than the minimal amount necessary" to stop a crime suspect.

Paterson, who is on Eliot Spitzer's ticket as lieutenant governor, has reintroduced the bill twice since first sponsoring it in 2001, refusing to let it die.

In a memo urging its passage, Paterson wrote: "There is no justification for terminating another's life when a less extreme measure may accomplish the same objective."

I'm not a cop, but I've done a lot of handgun shooting - this is DUMB IMHO. Wonder if Paterson has any experience with firearms?

[pocket]

1. all shooting is deadly force

either ditch guns or understand that all shooting is done to kill.

[Talismom]

2. I don't understand why. If you could aim for a leg and disable him so as

to buy time to overpower him, rather than aiming for the heart or head, why not do it? I've often wondered why it was so necessary to kill a perp--especially the ones who are fleeing!

[RamboLiberal]

9. Because the arm or leg is a small target

You shoot center mass cause that is the largest target. In these kind of situations there's a ton of stress, the target may be moving, etc. And if a cop is shooting the suspect is trying to do harm, that cop is shooting center mass to stop the suspect. People shot don't necessarily stop since they are also pumped full of adrenaline.

[MadMaddie]

21. I agree with you...

I would also like to add that many times suspects are on PCP or other drugs that keep their bodies going even though shot...If an officer were to get into a hand on hand combat it's not good....

Also, the police are expected to make split second decisons and that is going to determine if the officer goes home alive or to the morgue in a body bag....

Here are some statistics...
http://www.nleomf.com/TheMemorial/Facts/causes.htm

Another fact that many people overlook is that there are more guns per capita among the US population than any country in the world. I honestly think this has many officers on edge they don't know who isfriend or foe....

I am sure you will agree with me that there are officers out there that make bad decisions and kill someone- bottom line they committed a crime and should be protected...

After saying all of that...in most communites the police departments have ride alongs...civilians can ride with a police officer for a shift....I suggest that everyone do this....it will expose you to a police officers life...

[High Plains]

29. I'm sure this was just a Freudian slip:

"I am sure you will agree with me that there are officers out there that make bad decisions and kill someone- bottom line they committed a crime and should be protected..."

[MadMaddie]

66. Yup...I meant prosecuted to the full extent of the law...

Thanks for catching that!! :hi:

[tn-guy]

63. understanding for cop's situation

Over twenty years ago I was working as a technical contractor at a state police communication center. One day they let me go through a training simulation they use for cops on the street. Basically you watched various scenarios (taken from actual cases) being played out on a back-projected screen. At any time you had to make a split-second decision whether to shoot or not. Quite often my score was, "Congratulations you (or your partner) are dead." Other times I "shot" an innocent bystander.

I knew I was in a simulation environment and still my adrenalin was pumping. I can't imagine how it must be for actual cops on the beat. I don't think police officers should abuse their authority but I have great empathy for the stress they have and the sort of split-second life or death decisions they are forced to make. It makes me just a little less likely to immediately criticize a policeman when someone alleges excessive force or recklessness.

It amazes me that knuckleheads like Paterson want to make their job even harder and more dangerous.

[Xithras]

30. High stress also reduces blood flow to the extremeties.

When a human being (most animals, really) is panicked and/or injured and in shock, the body reacts by automatically constricting blood flow to the arms and legs. This was a biological response that allows injured animals to flee predators without pumping all of their blood out. What this means in humans, however, is that someone who is amped up and shot in the leg can stay active and fighting far longer than someone who's relaxed when they get shot.

There are literally thousands of documented cases of people continuing to fight or assault officers and victims, or fight during wartime, despite having numerous bullet holes in them. I think that too many people have a Hollywood image in their heads about what a shooting actually looks like. Unless you shoot them in the head to sever their spine, shooting victims do NOT just fall down, and with many injuries people can continue to function for quite some time before collapsing from blood loss.

[AGKISTRODON]

19. It is not this simple

The Cops are charged with defusing dangerous situations with minimal risk to innocent bystanders, and themselves. When only fractions of a second are available to respond, they will aim at the biggest target available. Forget all the cowboy "shoot the gun or knife out of his hand" stuff, it only works in the movies. Combat shooting is much more a matter of trained instinct, than deliberate aiming at a small, moving spot. Sure, this is unpleasant, but reality often is.
Most COPS have folks at home, who want to see them come home after work every day.
No, I'm not a cop, just can't figure out why I should ask them to volunteer for suicide.

[420inTN]

34. Batons, Tasers, Sprays == Disable. Guns == Kill

Forget this "shoot to wound" b.s. If the situation calls for disabling, that's why officers have batons, tasers, and sprays. If the situation calls for you to use a gun, you aim for center mass and shoot to kill. To aim for an arm or leg means that you are increasing your odds of missing, richochets, and hitting bystanders/innocents; or you wait until the target is an unsafe (for you) distance to you, and you still run the risk of mising, richochets, and hitting bystaners/innocents.

[LisaL]

36. Legs have arteries. Shots in the legs can be fatal.

Legs also make a small target. Geez. Why not have them aim into a pinkie?
This way the suspect will only loose a pinkie.

[tocqueville]

3. this is the rule in Europe since many years

"aim at the legs"...

the results show not more cops killed, not less criminals arrested and probably more on trial. Besides innocents can survive when panicking on planes or in similar situations...

[LynnTheDem]

7. Long time been the law in Canada, too. nt

[slackmaster]

15. I've never heard of that policy - Can you support it with a cite

Please?

[TX-RAT]

20. Link please

Peace officer for 22 years, never heard that.

[RamboLiberal]

23. I've never heard of this policy in Europe or Canada

and I found nada doing a quick google. I'd sure like to more info or is this myth?

[iverglas]

27. see my post 24 (n/t) oops, post 26

[tocqueville]

33. OK it's even a UN "law"

The UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1979, emphasizes the exceptional nature of the use of force, stating in Article 3 that force may be used "...only when strictly necessary and to the extent required for the performance of their duty". More detailed guidelines are set out in the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials adopted by the Eighth UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders on 7 September 1990. Principle 4 states that law enforcement officials "...shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms. They may use force and firearms only if other means remain ineffective or without any promise of achieving the intended result". Whenever the lawful use of force and firearms is unavoidable officials shall, under Principle 5:


"a) Exercise restraint in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved;
b) Minimize damage and injury, and respect and preserve human life;"

Principle 9 states that "...officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury" or to prevent "...a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger" and "only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives". The article continues: "In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable to protect life".

Amnesty International recognizes that in specific circumstances French law allows the use of force. However, it requires that, where force is used, the means should be in proportion to the severity of the threat or attack.

Article 122-5 of the French Penal Code lays down the circumstances in which injuries caused through defence of the person are lawful. This enshrines the jurisprudential principle of proportionality between the act of defence and the gravity of the attack. The second paragraph of this article deals with the defence of property; the scope allowed by the French law for the use of force to defend property is more restricted than to defend the person. A major consideration is that no act in defence of property, however serious the attack, can be considered lawful if it consists of the murder of the person responsible for the attack.

Article 122-7 of the French Penal Code refers to the state of necessity. This recognizes and systematizes different judicial decisions made over many years and establishes three criteria which, if met, mean that there is no penal responsibility:

• the existence of an actual or imminent danger threatening a person or property;
• the need to break the law in order to safeguard the person or property;
• that a proportion exists between the means used and the seriousness of the threat.

Finally, Article 9 of the Code of Deontology of the National Police states: "When lawfully authorised to use force and, in particular, to use weapons, the police officer must only do so when strictly necessary and in proportion to the objective to be achieved"(7).

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGEUR210042000?open&of=ENG-FRA

this article was written regarding a death shooting in France

It means that the police when threatened with a weapon must try to disarm the person by trying to disable him/her without killing. Killing can only occur in extreme situations, which practically means fire aimed to kill towards the police or taking hostage under threat.

in reality shit happens, but the laws are still there.

[LisaL]

37. That's all great. But WTF does it say they should be allowed

to shoot someone in the legs only?

[tocqueville]

39. what's left when you want to disarm somebod y ?

the regulations imply that you shoot low, mainly at legs. THe regulation cannot specify body parts, it would be preposterous. But the PRACTICAL result is shooting at legs in many situations.

[slackmaster]

50. You mean they have to shoot of the suspect's arms and head first?

:freak:

[northzax]

57. major difference

that is worth pointing out. The US cops in question are, for the most part, dealing with handguns. While the european cops with guns tend to be talking about assault rifles. give me an H&K, and I'll take someone's legs out and be pretty sure it will take them down quickly. Same with a shotgun. But a 9mm handgun? not going to do a lot of damage to someone's legs.

[LynnTheDem]

4. Sounds great...

Cops in the US do tend to use full lethal force as a first resort and that needs to stop. Or not, as long as America remains #1 for jailing its own citizens and continues turning into a police state.

[atreides1]

5. Why is it Dumb????

Now I can understand using deadly force on a suspect who is pointing or firing a gun at you, but do you really think that Abner Diamallo deserved to be murdered by the NYPD?

Police are trained, surely they can be trained to shoot to wound a suspect who is not a threat? Or are some people just too stupid to understand the concept?

In the army they taught us to shoot for center of mass, but they also told us that if you wound the enemy it'll take at least one of his buddies to carry him out of the line of fire, thereby removing 2
soldiers instead of just one. But the police aren't the military!!!

[phantom power]

11. Well, there's a general rule of gun safety...

never point your gun at anything you don't intend to kill. TV and movies aside, it's very difficult to "shoot to wound." The most reliable target on a human being is the chest/torso area. Aiming for anything else is asking to miss.

[slackmaster]

13. Not quite the way I have always been taught...

Never point a gun at anything you are not willing to destroy.

[phantom power]

16. true, that is the more correct wording

[Bonobo]

41. self-delete

[saigon68]

45. Tell that to cheney

he is an ass-clown

[Book Lover]

6. For those Du'ers who do not have hand- or other kinds of gun experience

can you please explain why this is a dumb idea?

[LynnTheDem]

10. It's more difficult, takes more skill to hit to wound.

But imo, you're a cop, you legally carry firearms, bloody well get the skill.

Or get a desk job.

[RamboLiberal]

14. It's not like on TV - I shoot weekly and won a state Championship

in tactical handgun so I have more training than most cops but I couldn't do that level of shooting. I know a very few men/women who are master shooters that could. You'd have to hire NFL level cops and have them train, train, train, train. Ain't gonna happen.

Shooting is a fine motor skill involving coordination between eyes, hands, arm, finger, etc. In a stress situation with poor lighting, moving targets, need to shoot quickly, etc, you can't aim that fine unless you're one helluva shooter.

[TX-RAT]

25. Add to that

Real bullets coming back at ya, real attempt at trying to stick a knife in your guts.
You just can't train for that.
This Bill is ridiculous.

[slackmaster]

12. Police shootings often involve moving targets, poor lighting, etc.

The purpose of shooting is to make someone STOP what they are doing. If they happen to die, that is unfortunate and death should never be the intention of someone who shoots in defense (which includes police). If you as the shooter have killing on your mind, you are morally (and sometimes legally) committing murder rather than a legitimate act of self-defense.

Trying to finesse a shot and hit a leg or some other less lethal area of the body is likely as not to result in a miss. A missed shot may put the officer or others in greater danger.

Shooters are trained to shoot for the center of mass. That is most likely to achieve the desired result, which is making the shootee STOP whatever they are doing.

[Book Lover]

18. Thanks

Personally, I have had only limited hunting (ie, shotgun) experience; I had always imagined, based on that, that using a handgun would let you be practically surgical.

[RamboLiberal]

24. You probably can be more surgical with the rifle

especially if you have a scope. The handguns cops carry with "iron sights" aren't meant for fine shooting.

Now a skilled USPSA shooter with a finely-tuned handgun, tested barrels, red-dot scope, handloaded ammo could do this kind of shooting but you're not going to give those kind of weapons to police. A top level USPSA shooter has thousands of dollars and time invested in their handgun.

[Pavulon]

40. A scoped rifle

is actually harder to use properly than one with iron sights at a range most shootings occur. As many posters have pointed out any time you shoot someone it is lethal force.

A rifle or shotgun hit are much more likely to cause death than a handgun. Something like 80 percent or more of handgun shootings are non lethal.

While rifle are shotgun hits are the exact opposite.

[Mind_your_head]

8. This bill is probably ill-conceived (as already stated in the article)

BUT, Senator Paterson probably had his "heart-in-the-right-place" in that he doesn't want police using un-due or unnecessary force and if they do, Senator Paterson believes there should be 'consequences'.

<snip>

While Spitzer already has the endorsement of the New York City Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, that group's Albany lobbyist, John Poklemba, said, "This bill is very ill conceived. I can't imagine any police agencies not being opposed to it."

Paterson told The News last night that his bill would safeguard the public. He explained that he wrote the bill in response to the acquittal of four NYPD officers charged in the 1999 shooting death of the unarmed Amadou Diallo in the Bronx.

"Many people were surprised the officers weren't guilty of something, criminally negligent homicide or something that involved some negligence," he said. "I thought I was writing the bill that really mirrored what the department rules are."

<snip>

[LisaL]

38. If his heart is in the right place, WTF is his head?

That is a stupid bill.

[TX-RAT]

17. Must be the "Lets see how many officers we can get Killed" Bill.

A wounded individual can still cut,stab,club or return fire.
This is insane.

[crankybubba]

22. being in a lethal force scenario

is not like on tv. you are usually winded, scared and the Adrenalin is pumping. that makes it difficult at best to hit what you are aiming at much less a smaller target such as an arm or leg. If the officer misses and hit and kills the suspect then he is charged??? ridiculous law by someone with no knowledge of law enforcement.

[iverglas]

26. so what are current laws?

Paterson told The News last night that his bill would safeguard the public. He explained that he wrote the bill in response to the acquittal of four NYPD officers charged in the 1999 shooting death of the unarmed Amadou Diallo in the Bronx.

"Many people were surprised the officers weren't guilty of something, criminally negligent homicide or something that involved some negligence," he said. "I thought I was writing the bill that really mirrored what the department rules are."

The references to European/Canadian law in the thread seem to refer to the fact that police are generally governed by the same laws as everyone else. In Canada, ordinarily, the intent, when using force to stop an assault against one's self that is likely to cause death or serious injury, may never be to kill. The intent must be to stop the assault; if death results, the homicide may be excused as self-defence if the force used was reasonable.

That seems to be what Paterson had in mind:

In a memo urging its passage, Paterson wrote: "There is no justification for terminating another's life when a less extreme measure may accomplish the same objective."

For police in particular, however, Canadian law says:

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec25.html

25. (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

(a) as a private person,

(b) as a peace officer or public officer,

(c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

(d) by virtue of his office,

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

... (3) Subject to subsections (4) and (5), a person is not justified for the purposes of subsection (1) in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm unless the person believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary for the self-preservation of the person or the preservation of any one under that person's protection from death or grievous bodily harm.

(4) A peace officer, and every person lawfully assisting the peace officer, is justified in using force that is intended or is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to a person to be arrested, if

(a) the peace officer is proceeding lawfully to arrest, with or without warrant, the person to be arrested;

(b) the offence for which the person is to be arrested is one for which that person may be arrested without warrant;

(c) the person to be arrested takes flight to avoid arrest;

(d) the peace officer or other person using the force believes on reasonable grounds that the force is necessary for the purpose of protecting the peace officer, the person lawfully assisting the peace officer or any other person from imminent or future death or grievous bodily harm; and

(e) the flight cannot be prevented by reasonable means in a less violent manner.

Police ("peace officers") are given more latitude, it seems (and I actually hadn't looked into this before), because of their duty to protect the public, and in order to ensure that they are able to carry it out. They do still have a duty, however, to use force intended or likely to kill only where they "believe on reasonable grounds" that it is "necessary" in order to carry out that duty or protect themselves.

Certainly cops may have different considerations in mind than people acting in self-defence -- like the need to protect other people, not just defend themselves. In the Diallo case, that consideration, protecting other people, wasn't present, as I understand it.

Were the cops in that case given the benefit of some exemption from the necessary-force-only rule that would govern other people? Or did the jury just find that they did use only the necessary force, or refuse to find that they used unnecessary force even if they apparently did?

There seems to be some genuine concern that Paterson's bill is meant to address. It may be a concern that can only be reasonably and effectively addressed by ensuring that the jury pool understands and is willing to apply the existing law.

[Xithras]

28. There's no such thing. Even leg shots are easily fatal.

Sever the femoral artery and the suspect may be dead in as little as 15 seconds. Plus, bullets bounce. It's not uncommon for a bullet to enter an arm or a leg and ricochet off bone into another part of the body. There's no "safe" place to shoot someone.

All shooting is considered lethal force. If the officer doesn't see the need to kill the person, he shouldn't be shooting AT ALL in the first place. When an officer DOES have need to shoot someone, it should always be to kill. If killing isn't called for, his weapon should never leave the holster.

[crankybubba]

32. that sums it up nicely ,thanks n/t

[Che_Nuevara]

31. Even if you -do- hit him in the leg,

if he's got a gun, and he's not dead, he can shoot back. Or he can shoot a bystander. If you don't completely down him, you're dead.

[LisaL]

35. Considering you can shoot someone in the leg and still kill

them-sorry, HTF does this guy think it is going to work? Shoot to hurt? LOL.
He might as well try to pass a bill that won't allow policemen to shoot anyone under any circumstances.

[Bonobo]

42. Good. It's the 21st C. equivalent of "putting phasers on stun"!

Good. It's the 21st C. equivalent of "putting phasers on stun"!

Anf don't give me that stuff about "needing to aim for body-mass" or you are asking to miss stuff cause I ain't buying -although I know it is the position most commonly presented by gun advocates.

Fact is, it presumes that the need for force is an "either/or" proposition when in fact it should be by degrees. A slow, fat man holding a knife but surrounded by police is not the same as a one-on-one fight with a man holding an uzi.

Now, to Captain Kirk and gang... when those guys put their phasers on stun, they didn't know if it would have any effect. After trying it and finding it ineffective, though, they would simply escalate their application of force by setting them to kill. THEY NEVER STARTED IN KILL! End of argument.

WWJKD
(What Would James Kirk Do?)

[crankybubba]

43. give me a star trek phaser

and i will be happy to use it. (hint)they don't really exist. It's only a television show.

and no...tasers are NOT the same thing.

[Bonobo]

46. Not real?? Wh...what!!?

Ever heard of humor? Metaphor?

[iverglas]

47. watch out

Guns is no joking matter. The sacred taboos must be observed.

http://www.jumpstation.ca/recroom/trek/kirk.html

"The more complex the mind, the greater the need for the simplicity of play."

Or, of you prefer ...

"No more blah, blah, blah!"

Denny Crane.

[crankybubba]

52. mmmmmm kay.

you are slipping. "guns is no joking matter." branching out into stream of thought writing?

[iverglas]

55. slipping?

Never heard of "appropriating voice"?

Dost thou truly imagine that MOI would say guns are no laughing matter?

Not my sacred taboo, it ain't.

Anyhoo, I guess you done answered that there question:

Ever heard of humor?

Eh?!

[crankybubba]

56. forgive me

ah es jest an egnrent sevedge. ah's dent knew ahll abet the fency telk. yes jest ere pecking on es egnerent pepples. we uns ere net es guud es yu.


(your unusually poor choise of words) not the whole sentence. geeze

[iverglas]

59. my big words fail me

(your unusually poor choise of words)

I know there's a word for a thing that contains the illustration of itself within it, but damned if I can ever think of what it is. Kinda like how I can watch Coronation Street every day and still never remember what the names of half the characters are, I guess.

"Poor choiSe of words". Hahaha! Good one.

As fer the rest, you seem to have got the gist.

[crankybubba]

60. fair enough...have a great day n/t

[Texacrat]

44. Spitzer needs to tell his lieutentant to STFU

I doubt this Paterson guy has ever had his life actually threatened. Cops don't have the luxury to shoot to wound when they're in the line of fire.

[Boo Boo]

48. This is lame. They need to provide police with another tool for that job.

Shooting somebody with a gun as a non-lethal measure is crazy. What you're going to get is major lawsuits, and deservedly so. You roll some guy into court in a wheel chair with some horrible disfiguring injury, and it's a done deal. If the situation didn't merit the use of deadly force, then how can one justify maiming somebody?

Shooting somebody is always deadly force. Period. If the situation doesn't call for deadly force then use some other method. Police are using deadly force more and more often in unjustifiable situations, IMO, and they should be held accountable for that---not told that as long as they just blow somebody's leg off they won't be punished.

This guy is a perfect example of today's weasel politician: thinks police are using unjustifiable deadly force, but doesn't want to look soft on crime. What to do? Keep shooting them, just don't kill 'em!

Great "solution." :eyes:

I've got an idea: You know how every once in a while you'll see some reporter, or perhaps an officer, submit to a stun gun demonstration in order to show how harmless it is? I've seen this a number of times on local news and so forth. Well, somebody ought to tell this asshole that if he will submit himself to a demonstration of this "non-lethal" method, then maybe it will be considered for adoption.

[trogdor]

49. I wonder if Patterson was ever a cop.

Or knew any cops. This should be called the Internal Affairs Department Expansion Act. Who is he trying to impress with this? I can see it now. Trial attorneys sharpening their knives in anticipation of the numerous lawsuits enabled by this act. I can see the TV ads now, as if we don't have enough ambulance chasers on TV.

Want to do something about needless fatalities in arrest situations? Give the police better non-lethal means of subduing perps. Still, don't be surprised when that crazy guy on PCP continues to come after you after being Tazered nine or ten times.

[slackmaster]

51. I think this law would create a serious liability issue for the police

Won't they be prone to getting sued or charged with murder in cases where an attempt to shoot to wound results in death? Even a grazing wound to a limb can be fatal due to shock, infection, embolisms, etc.

[anotherdrew]

53. LET'S SEE THE BILL BEFORE JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS BASED ON MEDIA REPORTS!

I think it may well be sensible, if we actually looked at the wording. I can find any sign of it tho...

[THUNDER HANDS]

54. good, this make sense

there's no reason that if a bunch of cops are surrounding a guy holding a knife that they have to shoot to kill when aiming for his legs would take him out just as well.

The gun nuts don't understand that this bill isn't for ALL circumstances of gun use by cops, just in situations where shooting at the chest or head is not required.

[crankybubba]

58. cops are not paid to get killed

contrary to opinion of some here. use of force continuum allows an officer to meet potential deadly force with deadly force. are you willing to get killed on your job? probably not.(most wouldn't be)
Current law gives cops a wide berth to use deadly force when a suspect presents a danger to another person's life.

Paterson (D-Harlem) wrote that a police officer, under his legislation, "would have to try to shoot a suspect in the arm or the leg."

where does it say this..."this bill isn't for ALL circumstances of gun use by cops" do you have the bill handy I would love to read the text.

the fact is you are willing to allow some police casualties to avoid injury to an armed suspect. That is one of the most ludicrous things in this thread. monday morning quarterbacking is easy being in a deadly force situation is not.

this is not about gun rights. it's about common sense. this bill has none.

[crankybubba]

61. another article a little more info

http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=28869

[BoneDaddy]

62. Obviously some people have never been in a life threatening...

situation before with the need to kill.

Look I am not here to defend abusive police brutality because I am one of the biggest critics of racist, corrupt police.

But to pass a law that requires a cop to aim for extremities is simply ridiculous.

[Zhade]

64. Good idea.

Less wiggle room for those cops eager to exact a little 'street justice'.

[crankybubba]

65. this is not about gun rights. it's about common sense. this bill has none.

apparently some of the posters here do not either.

[Zhade]

67. Who said anything about gun rights? I sure didn't.

Your post does not appear to have anything to do with mine.

[crankybubba]

69. it has everything to do with common sense.

which was lacking in your post.

[sandnsea]

68. That's the way it used to be

That's the way it was in a court case in Montana in the 80's. The cop shouldn't have shot because the suspect was just a robbery suspect, and at that, he chose a more lethal weapon than the circumstances required, leaving the suspect paralyzed. The suspect won. Necessary force used to apply to cops, same as it did to everybody else. Much better world to live in.

[crankybubba]

70. just curious do you have a cite on that?? n/t

[sandnsea]

71. No, it was 20 years ago

Sorry.

[Texacrat]

72. That was when cops were allowed to shoot a fleeing suspect

just for fleeing. Essentially, cops could shoot you to get you to stop.

SCOTUS ruled that unconstitutional. But that's not the issue in this case.