Let me know when you find a Use of Force manual that includes a “shoot to wound” section.
Let me spell it out for you. A gun is a deadly weapon. If you use it, you’d better be sure that lethal use of force is justified and necessary or you are engaged in an illegal use of force.
“Shoot to wound” is by definition an illegal use of force as well as an immoral one. You either shoot to kill or you do not shoot.
Putz.
““Shoot to wound” is by definition an illegal use of force as well as an immoral one. You either shoot to kill or you do not shoot.
Putz.”
Again, thanks Officer Expert. Your desire to shoot first and always typifies precisely “why” we have too many Barney Fifes wearing a badge ... and not enough peace officers.
Looks like people should take care of psychotic loved ones themselves vice calling the police then. As normal people understand how to use weapons that can be lethal like, baseball bats and guns, in less than lethal ways.
Following your logic to its natural end, shouldn't police officers walk up and deliver a head shot after every shooting, just to ensure that they haven't "illegally shot someone"?
A reasonable person might conclude that although a psychotic man with a knife might justify lethal force, the situation by definition does not require it, and that lethal weapons do not require lethal use.
Answer me this. Let's say that one of your family loved ones has a psychotic incident and is wielding a machete at the neighbor kids. If a policeman is driving by and stops, would you want that your psychotic relative be have their legs shot or that the officer shoot them in the head? Lethal force is justified, but is it required. Your assertion that it must be both or neither is not at all logical.