Why do cops have guns?

[Penguin]

If a cop yells "Freeze!" and the mofo runs off, why doesn't he just shoot him in the leg? Why have a gun? I mean, it is possible for a suspect to get away, especially if that cop is the first one on the scene.


Shoot him, damn it!




Yes, I'm watching one of those police chase shows.

[Vaevictis]

Because if the police officer shoots a man in the back, he and his department are going to get sued at the very least.

The gun is not there for apprehension purposes, it's for defense against armed criminals.

... and shooting someone in the leg can be just as fatal as shooting them in the head. The artery down there pumps more blood than any other in the body, IIRC, and you'll bleed out of it faster than any other.

[LoyalFan]

... and shooting someone in the leg can be just as fatal as shooting them in the head. The artery down there pumps more blood than any other in the body, IIRC, and you'll bleed out of it faster than any other.

I see no problem here. Anyone?

LF

[SoonerBorn68]

Nope.

[walkoffsooner]

They don't show drop gun on tv.Kind of like foot wedge in golf. Its a secret.

[White House Boy]

The artery down there pumps more blood than any other in the body, IIRC, and you'll bleed out of it faster than any other.


I believe the aorta holds that distinction... NOT the femoral artery.

I'm just sayin'.

[OKC Sooner]

I believe the aorta holds that distinction... NOT the femoral artery.

I'm just sayin'.

That's what they're saying... aorta shoot the bastages.

[White House Boy]

That's what they're saying... aorta shoot the bastages.

Who do you think you are? Jeff Foxworthy?

[SicEmBaylor]

I do absolutely agree. Why purposely let a suspect evade you when trying to make an arrest? If they're running then they're at least guilty of evading police and resisting arrest. I'd say shoot them. And it is possible to legislatively fix the problem of police departments being sued because they used all available means to apprehend a suspect.

[OKC Sooner]

They should issue tranquilizer guns to the cops. Mix the tranquilizer with a drug that causes immediate explosive diarrhea. Shouldn't be too hard to track em down after that.

[ouflak]

Here in England they don't have guns. But the British, even the criminals, seem to be a lot more polite. So if they are toldto 'freeze' (assuming they speak the language and their visa is valid), they probably will.


I do absolutely agree. Why purposely let a suspect evade you when trying to make an arrest? If they're running then they're at least guilty of evading police and resisting arrest. I'd say shoot them. And it is possible to legislatively fix the problem of police departments being sued because they used all available means to apprehend a suspect.

I'm not always sure if you guys are simply being glib as I'm not as much of a regular here on SO. But in case you guys are being serious about shooting suspects who are simply running away, please keep in mind that most police don't want to shoot, and especially kill, anybody. It's a very traumatic experience to go through and vast majority of law enforcement, if not all, certainly regard using their weapon as the last resort when needing to stop that person from immediately hurting/killing somebody; either themself (self-defense), fellow officers or any civilians. They aren't trained liked this just so the suspected criminals won't get hurt. They're trained like this because they're human.

[Okieflyer]

And a another thing, if you shot at someone, you don't aim for a leg. If your going to shot your taught to aim right for the middle of their body. I agree with ouflak about the reason you wouldn't want to do that unless you had no choice.

[jk the sooner fan]

The gun is not there for apprehension purposes,



the hell it isnt...

[Palermo10]

I do absolutely agree. Why purposely let a suspect evade you when trying to make an arrest? If they're running then they're at least guilty of evading police and resisting arrest. I'd say shoot them. And it is possible to legislatively fix the problem of police departments being sued because they used all available means to apprehend a suspect.


So you shoot and kill someone regardless of the crime?

Wow... no need for courts then eh?

[Sooner_Bob]

99.9% of cops . . .

[VeeJay]

Why do you hate criminals who are always arrested without their shirts on?

[LoyalFan]

So you shoot and kill someone regardless of the crime?

Wow... no need for courts then eh?

Wow! Just think of the savings in taxpayers' money and, best of all...
NO MORE NANCY GRACE! Yaaaaahewwww!

LF

[Vaevictis]

I believe the aorta holds that distinction... NOT the femoral artery.

I'm just sayin'.

Fair enough. I was thinking of arteries not sitting on top of the heart, but yeah, you're right :)

[Vaevictis]

the hell it isnt...

It's not. C'mon, you f'in hillbillies. I haven't fired a gun since I was 7, but I still remember that you never shoot (or even point the gun at!) something you don't intend to kill.

Cops aren't allowed to kill suspects if they don't present an immediate danger. You know that.

[jk the sooner fan]

It's not. C'mon, you f'in hillbillies. I haven't fired a gun since I was 7, but I still remember that you never shoot (or even point the gun at!) something you don't intend to kill.

Cops aren't allowed to kill suspects if they don't present an immediate danger. You know that.

you said it wasnt there for apprehension purposes

i say it definitely is......i carried one for 15 years, trust me on this.

[leftfield]

They don't show drop gun on tv.Kind of like foot wedge in golf. Its a secret.

:D

[Vaevictis]

you said it wasnt there for apprehension purposes

i say it definitely is......i carried one for 15 years, trust me on this.

Were you allowed to shoot someone if they non-violently resisted arrest? If not, then it's not for apprehension purposes.

[jk the sooner fan]

i think you're missing the point

but whatever

[Vaevictis]

If you want to say the intimidation factor is there for apprehension purposes, I would buy that.

But firing the gun at random suspects (as the OP stated) for apprehension purposes?

[Vaevictis]

Another reason not to shoot a non-threatening fleeing suspect:

Scenario: You're a criminal. You're guilty. If you get caught, you're going to jail. Going to jail is unacceptable to you. You are packing. You see the cop first, but he WILL see you momentarily. You know that the cop is likely to shoot you in the back if you just run.

Do you:

1. Run, and probably get shot in the back.
2. Try to shoot the cop before he notices you, then run.

I don't know about you, but in the scenario, if the cop isn't going to shoot me, then I try to run. If he is, I'm going to shoot him first.

[usmc-sooner]

... and shooting someone in the leg can be just as fatal as shooting them in the head. The artery down there pumps more blood than any other in the body, IIRC, and you'll bleed out of it faster than any other.


I'd much rather take a shot in the leg than a shot to the head.

I've heard 2 in the head and one in the chest but I've never heard 2 in the chest and one in the leg.

[usmc-sooner]

Another reason not to shoot a non-threatening fleeing suspect:

Scenario: You're a criminal. You're guilty. If you get caught, you're going to jail. Going to jail is unacceptable to you. You are packing. You see the cop first, but he WILL see you momentarily. You know that the cop is likely to shoot you in the back if you just run.

Do you:

1. Run, and probably get shot in the back.
2. Try to shoot the cop before he notices you, then run.

I don't know about you, but in the scenario, if the cop isn't going to shoot me, then I try to run. If he is, I'm going to shoot him first.

what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[SicEmBaylor]

So you shoot and kill someone regardless of the crime?

Wow... no need for courts then eh?

I didn't say you shoot someone as soon as the Police think they committed a crime. I said to shoot them if they run and there is no other way to apprehend them.

And no, I'm really not kidding just because this is the SO. I'm honestly not a fan of the Cops just letting a suspect go that they're otherwise unable to apprehend simply becuase they're unwilling to use potentially lethal force.

[jk the sooner fan]

And no, I'm really not kidding just because this is the SO. I'm honestly not a fan of the Cops just letting a suspect go that they're otherwise unable to apprehend simply becuase they're unwilling to use potentially lethal force.

there are a "few" problems here

1. shooting non dangerous criminals is probably not where we, as a society, ought to be headed

2. when you shoot a person, bullets have a tendency, or ability, to leave that persons body, and enter another (possibly innocent) person

3. police are equipped with several "use of force" levels.....most of them non-lethal......since police arent the judge, jury and executioner, perhaps we should resort to the lethal level of force as a last resort


and you dont "shoot to wound"....shooters are taught to aim "center mass" on what they can visualize.....sometimes thats the head, sometimes its the chest...neither of which are conducive to a 'shoot to wound' policy

[usmc-sooner]

come on guys, we all know cops only shoot people if they're black, maybe an occasional Latino every now and then. :D

[SicEmBaylor]

there are a "few" problems here

1. shooting non dangerous criminals is probably not where we, as a society, ought to be headed

2. when you shoot a person, bullets have a tendency, or ability, to leave that persons body, and enter another (possibly innocent) person

3. police are equipped with several "use of force" levels.....most of them non-lethal......since police arent the judge, jury and executioner, perhaps we should resort to the lethal level of force as a last resort


and you dont "shoot to wound"....shooters are taught to aim "center mass" on what they can visualize.....sometimes thats the head, sometimes its the chest...neither of which are conducive to a 'shoot to wound' policy

I can accept 2) and 3) as explanations, but not one. If a person is running from the Police, in the heat of the moment the cop probably doesn't know exactly how dangerous that suspect is or can be. And isn't it true that suspects often committ other crimes, sometimes resulting in injury or death to civillians as a result of trying to avoid capture?

Why purposely allow an individual to escape back into the general population and run the risk of the suspect committing all sorts of additional crimes (and I'm guessing they will) many of which are potentially violent? Mind you I'm not advocating the Police shoot a suspect as soon as they start running; it should be used as an absolute last resort. But, I certainly wouldn't rule out using potentially deadly force out simply because society may be a bit squmish and want to coddle its criminals.

[jk the sooner fan]

some of them do, but not all

so you're advocating a universal death sentence for any type of repeat offender, regardless of what type crime they commit?

[Vaevictis]

what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Now that you've read your own post, you can add it to the list.

It's very simple, but now that I know that you are even more simple, I shall break it down for you. Hopefully you get it this time, because it cannot be made more simple than this:

If you think someone is going to try to kill you, try to kill them first. (*)

Cmon, even the designated dumb guy in a marine squad should be able to grok that. Or maybe you're an example the dangerous fool who gets recommended for promotion just to get him the f*ck out of the unit? Or maybe you were/are frag-bait for the same reason? If not one of those, then it's a sign of doomsday, because when the Marines -- you know, the few, the proud -- drop their standards so low as to find you acceptable, then you know our nation is in decline.

(so, are we done flaming yet? Can we try to have a reasonable discussion without resorting to such foolishness? It's fun, yes, but ultimately as pointless as a Marine who can't grok (*) )

If you make it acceptable for the police to shoot a non-violent fleeing suspect in the back, then the suspects will think the cops are trying to kill them. Apply the statement above (*), and it logically follows that such a policy is likely to induce some otherwise non-violent criminals to take shots they wouldn't otherwise take.

[usmc-sooner]

Now that you've read your own post, you can add it to the list.

It's very simple, but now that I know that you are even more simple, I shall break it down for you. Hopefully you get it this time, because it cannot be made more simple than this:

If you think someone is going to try to kill you, try to kill them first. (*)

Cmon, even the designated dumb guy in a marine squad should be able to grok that. Or maybe you're an example the dangerous fool who gets recommended for promotion just to get him the f*ck out of the unit? Or maybe you were/are frag-bait for the same reason? If not one of those, then it's a sign of doomsday, because when the Marines -- you know, the few, the proud -- drop their standards so low as to find you acceptable, then you know our nation is in decline.

(so, are we done flaming yet? Can we try to have a reasonable discussion without resorting to such foolishness? It's fun, yes, but ultimately as pointless as a Marine who can't grok (*) )

If you make it acceptable for the police to shoot a non-violent fleeing suspect in the back, then the suspects will think the cops are trying to kill them. Apply the statement above (*), and it logically follows that such a policy is likely to induce some otherwise non-violent criminals to take shots they wouldn't otherwise take.

OMG that was funny

even funnier was the fact that it went right over your head but I'll let you try and get it.

[SicEmBaylor]

some of them do, but not all

so you're advocating a universal death sentence for any type of repeat offender, regardless of what type crime they commit?

Not at all; I don't care if they're a repeat offender or not.
Nor do I want to shoot anyone who committs a crime.

My only concern is with the criminal who is going to such huge lengths to avoid Police that every other tool in law enforcement's arsenal for apprehending them has been exhausted. The point at which only two additional options remains. 1)Let them go or 2)Use potentially deadly means.

Honestly, how many suspects out there are going to run and be so good at it that the Police are totally unable to capture them in any other way? My guess is pretty damned few.

[jk the sooner fan]

once a suspect runs, how is the officer supposed to know whether they'll be able to catch them later?

sorry, but i'm trying to apply your logic and ideals to my work experience, and i just dont get it....

[Vaevictis]

once a suspect runs, how is the officer supposed to know whether they'll be able to catch them later?

Sadly, you can't.

On the other hand, do you always know that the suspect is dangerous enough to warrant using deadly force when they've got their back turned to you? I think it's fair to shoot the suspect in the back if he's already taken a shot at you, or if you have good reason to believe he's a danger to you or the public...

But someone who runs just because you tried to detain them... they might just be a shoplifter -- or just someone who's paranoid or mentally ill -- and that doesn't warrant lethal force by any stretch of the imagination.

The question at that point is, is it better to shoot someone who you think might be guilty of something -- not even knowing what it is -- or to try to take them by non-lethal means, and risk them getting away?

[Sooner_Bob]

i think you're missing the point

but whatever


Stop or I'll shoot . . .

http://www.onenationnews.com/images/pointing%20finger.jpg

[SicEmBaylor]

once a suspect runs, how is the officer supposed to know whether they'll be able to catch them later?

sorry, but i'm trying to apply your logic and ideals to my work experience, and i just dont get it....

Well that's a very tough question actually. Having never been a cop, it's hard to say what is appropriate in every instance. However, I would imagine there is some point when the suspect initially takes off that the officer will have a pretty good idea of the amount of resources he can bring to bear in order to assist him in apprehending the suspect. In other words, if he knows he can call on another unit to cut the guy off a few blocks up the street then there would obviously be no need to shoot the guy.

But if it simply isn't possible to immediatley bring those resources to bear, and the cop knows there is no way to stop this guy then yes shooting would be appropriate.

When you say "in the future" are you referring to the immediate future during the same phase to apprehend the suspect, or are you saying the police may be able to track him down in a few days, weeks, months, etc?

[jk the sooner fan]

see, this is the problem with a "blanket policy"

you cant do it.....there are too many moving parts to every situation, i dont think we have the bandwidth to thoroughly address your scenarios and rhetorical questions.

personally its a bad bad thought process......no offense

[SicEmBaylor]

see, this is the problem with a "blanket policy"

you cant do it.....there are too many moving parts to every situation, i dont think we have the bandwidth to thoroughly address your scenarios and rhetorical questions.

personally its a bad bad thought process......no offense

Well, I don't think there is a need for a blanket policy though. And I'd agree you couldn't apply one anyway. But I wouldn't completely outrule the possibility of using deadly force as a last resort, nor would I take that discretion away from the Police.

But yeah I agree with you that it's pointless to sit here and try to hash out a policy based on a thousand possible situations that Police could find themselves in. Even more reason to at least give them the option if they need it. :D

[jk the sooner fan]

every police force has a policy for use of force, and officers have to apply that policy to each situation individually......there ARE times when an officer can shoot a fleeing suspect, but they have to be a FELON, and pose a danger to their immediate surroundings......that last one is very subjective

[soonerboomer93]

what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

ymssr...

[1stTimeCaller]

.... because they have small penises? :D:D:D

[SicEmBaylor]

every police force has a policy for use of force, and officers have to apply that policy to each situation individually......there ARE times when an officer can shoot a fleeing suspect, but they have to be a FELON, and pose a danger to their immediate surroundings......that last one is very subjective

Well, then I have a question. How does a cop know if the guy is a felon or not (and if he is running from police doesn't that technically make him one anyway?)

I mean if he had time to run the guy's name then fine, but otherwise how do you know? And there are plenty of non-violent felonies, does this rule only apply if a violent crime was committed in the act of the felony?

[walkoffsooner]

I live in a very small town they will call you by name then shoot you in the here.

[jk the sooner fan]

well it doesnt happen very often that a cop has reason to chase a suspect unless they know what crime they are chasing them for

so if Officer Friendly happens upon a homicide and Killer Badguy starts running, thats a felon.....or suspected felon, but is he a threat to the community? thats a tough question to answer at times

if you're talking about a guy running because of a traffic stop, then again, a number of scenarios are possibly

[SicEmBaylor]

well it doesnt happen very often that a cop has reason to chase a suspect unless they know what crime they are chasing them for

so if Officer Friendly happens upon a homicide and Killer Badguy starts running, thats a felon.....or suspected felon, but is he a threat to the community? thats a tough question to answer at times

if you're talking about a guy running because of a traffic stop, then again, a number of scenarios are possibly


Well, after thinking about it for awhile I guess the previously stated policy of using deadly force on violent felons is probably best. People do a lot of stupid crap sometimes, and some kid running from the cops becuase he has a bag of pot in his pocket isn't worth shooting him over.

I just have a hard time with the idea of not doing absolutely everything possible to stop someone from fleeing the cops.