How come Police Officers have to kill suspects?
921562
In training, you are taught to shoot for center of the mass. If your target still poses an immediate threat to your life or others, you keep shooting (within reason) in order to neutralize that threat. Handguns are not as light as they may appear, and not as powerful as TV and movies make them out to be. They are heavy, hard to aim, and also do not have alot of "stopping" power, and as such sometimes require multiple shots to render a suspect disabled.\n\n99.9999999999% of the time an officer will fire his weapon in order to save his life or that of someone else; they are trained to do so, and only do it within the confines of the law and their use of force policy. Yes, suspects die in the process. What you have to remember is that individual was part of a situation in which an event or series of events took place culminating in the end of their life, and that is ultimately what counts. Whether they had a story doesn't usually matter at that point; they already took it to a level where deadly force was necessary.
526073
There are none.  The idea of pre-emptive strike is totally illogical.  If I thought that a police officer was going to engage in unjust brutality against me, should I be allowed to preemptively shoot him to prevent this?\n\nSimilarly, war based on nothing more that a hunch is foolish.
1009293
Police officers are taught to use their baton, or any force for that matter, as part of an overall escalation of force.  First and foremost\n\n1. Verbal.  Any cop who doesn't know how to diffuse most problems with his command presence should turn in his badge and get a job at Home Depot.\n\n2. Weaponless defense. (this is why I think all police officers need more training in the martial arts - or just be stronger than most of the general public.  (it would cut down on the use of higher level weapons.\n\n3. Mace, pepper spray or equiv.\n\n4. Baton.  A flex baton works the best.\n\n5. If all else fails, and the person is committing a felony and their is imminent danger which could result in death or great bodily injury to the officer or someone else, then the use of firearms is usually appropriate.
591877
no, but then the police get away with a lot of things they shouldn't. There are good cops and bad cops!
1152895
I don't know the statistics of how many innocent people actually get killed or hurt by law enforcement. But look at it this way, everyone makes mistakes. Law enforcement officers are just put in a position where a small mistake may cause a life. Just like doctors. They have so much training, yet sometimes things happen and there is nothing you can do about it. And I'm sure the effects on the heart and the conscience of the officer from their mistake weighs more on them than you will ever know.
976068
I guess I am qualified to answer this.  I was a police officer in London for 30 years and am somewhat unique in that I was both shot and stabbed.  I was trained to use a firearm for over 20 years.\n\nThere are several different issues here, one of which is that we select police officers based on certain criteria, none of which is their ability to use a firearm.  It therefore goes without saying that many serving officers, if not most, will not have the skills (either practical or emotional) to be armed.  We do NOT recruit people into our police forces in order for them to kill our fellow countrymen.\n\n(As far as one of the other contributors to this answer is concerned, just about the only "accidental" shooting was of Charles de Menezes, and we all know WHY he was shot.  I think everyone in the police understands that that was a terrible mistake, but the mistake was not made by the firearms officer, who acted (a) in good faith and (b) in the belief that he was protecting the lives of many other Londoners when he fired his shots.  There are several other controversial ones, but unfortunately all you ever read are headlines without knowing the full substance behind the stories.\n\nHowever, the most pressing argument against officers being routinely armed is this:  at present officers attend many incidents where physical contact is involved; pub fights, domestic arguments, theft, assault; whatever you can possibly think of where, ultimately, the police officer and the alleged criminal come into physical contact.\n\nAt present, in the vast majority of instances, such physical contact results in a peaceful arrest or solution to the dispute.  In a few it involves a scuffle or worse.  Rarely, if ever, does it involve a confrontation by the officer with a lethal weapon, for the very simple reason that most people do not carry such weapons.\n\nHowever, arm EVERY police officer and the difference is apparent.  Every single time a member of the public comes into contact with a police officer he or she has the opportunity to become an armed criminal by the very simple expedient of overpowering the officer.\n\nMany of our new breed of officers are of very slight build - the smallest I ever saw (I left in 1998) was a 4'10" girl at Brixton, who was the same size as a 12-year-old girl.  It takes very little imagination to see how just about anyone could get her gun off her.\n\nThus, with every officer armed, every single incident they ever attend has the potential to become an armed incident.  This would require a profound change of policing practice which would be only of benefit to the police officers, who would be duty bound to protect themselves, and of no benefit whatsoever to the public who they serve.  Officers would have to become very aloof and distant.  That is the total antithesis of what we expect in a British police officer.\n\nWhat we DO need is an armed response that is available at very short notice - it was always my view that the system that I left was nowhere near good enough.  I understand that armed officers are more readily available nowadays.\n\nThe other measure that could be taken to protect society (including police officers) from armed criminals is a robust sentencing policy (which we aren't going to see).  In my view, anyone arrested for carrying a knife unlawfully should go to court in the first instance.  If convicted they should receive a custodial sentence of 12 months without remission.\n\nSimilarly, anyone convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm should receive an immediate custodial sentence of 14 years imprisonment.\n\nFinally, in your example of the house where the shooting took place, the decision not to enter was nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not the officers were armed.  It was a very poor management decision by a senior officer.\n\nUnfortunately, in these days of liberal academic senior officers, many of whom are selected to fill some sort of quota, such poor dec
411290
They have good reason. Look at the condition of our country. Now, that's not saying that I agree with rogue cops who like to use their badge as power.\n\nBut think about it, if you were a cop and you were approaching a car (stopped for violation) or breaking up a brawl somewhere, wouldn't you be wanting to pull your gun too. Just about everyone, it seems, carries a gun. Sadly, many are minors..but anyway...a cop has to protect themselves and anyone (civilians, fellow officers, etc.) around them.\n\nBelieve me, cops see much more than what we see...they are lied too, they are attacked, they have guns pulled on them, etc. They see the violence on a day to day basis and I don't think you'd ever get used to that. It'd make you leary and cynical and frankly, I'd imagine, scared. It makes them very skeptical about entering any situation without their hands on their guns. AND you said trigger happy...but drawing a gun, doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to pull the trigger.
712492
As long as the guns aren't stolen. But if you use them to murder police officers, they won't be living long.
779690
This is a very peculiar question but much to the point why do they have so much hate as well. The testosterones fly so high with them at times. But I think it becomes the catch 22 theory. the community is to blame as well, for many of them feel immune because they go through their lives playing innocent to blame and yet they are not, but they are the first persons to tell on some other neighbor. But lo and behold if they saw a person being mugged they would be to afraid to call because they dont want to get involved, so in turn the cops know this and they feel that the public just does not care about anyone but themselves. Seriously people have to interact in their own communities to keep them happy and safe or they will be subject to abuse from many areas. Police have a need to be a boss psychologically, and to enforce what they consider is law, (obviously if they go by the book, it should be the law they enforce) but many times they stretch it as well as the common citizen. It seems there has been a wedge put between the people and the law enforcement officials and I blame it all on the cliques that infiltrate our communities and run our local governments. The door only swings one way in these cases. The criteria and purpose to hire a police person is to make sure they are servants of the public who pays their salaries. But no most of them are hired by those at the top of the food chain and they only want obediant dogs to protect their jobs in politics against the people who would vote them out, or cause them to be fired. That is why there has always been corruption in policing and politics. They are like insects, the ants are the cops and the praying mantis are the politicians. They work hand in hand. Being a police person should only be a job, but unfortunately it becomes their whole being(life). That is too much to impose upon anyone they are bound to be phony and hated. Halloween is over they need to take the mask off, and no one is perfect. Try playing musical chairs with your local politicians and unseat them in their positions. Police your own areas, (police means " to clean")
664913
The answer depends on the state, but they are usually given the same powers (arrest, immunity, etc.) as police officers,
1102226
That's not something just anybody can do. Police and government agents can do it. But even then I think they need a warrant.
417945
I don't know why they think the police are so above reproach.Like you said, there is a small number of people in every police dept. who use the badge to brutalize people, and do illegal things under the guise of authority.
78682
The principle here is not that they are able to kill people but for what reason. The execution of a known felon who has him/herself murdered countless lives has forfeited his/her right to live under the eyes of the law. If he/she were to be set free and thus cause more deaths on the population it is justified to take his life for the general good. They are against violence, random and senseless violence that is. Sanctioned killings whereby a person has commited crimes deemed irreconcievable in the eyes of the community is not a crime nor hyprocracy but justified and necessary. As for war it depends on the reason, to the defence of life and country it is a noble cause, for an outster of a regime not friendly to a country that is selfcentered hyprocracy for a nation that cherishes life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
189191
There are alot of laws that give a police officer the power to arrest you. Those laws are mainly there for peolple that get out of control. It is up to the officer to decide if ones actions warrant arrest depending on the situation and that persons attitude. I was lighting fireworks with my kids the day after 4th of july because their cousins missed my fireworks show the night of the 4th. The police showed up, wanted to know why I was lighting fireworks and asked me to stop. Fireworks (at leat the ones I was shooting off) was illegal. I could have been arrested without them asking me for a explanation and certainly been arrested had I not complied.
781113
I agree. This has happened in my town twice in the last 8 months, and both times they killed the men. One of them was my husband( I am not in any way joking). He was   the most wonderful man I have ever met in my life, and would never hurt anybody. He was following orders when he was shot, but the cops weren't communicating with each other very well, so within 10 seconds (literally)  my husband was gone. All thanks to a  jumpy, cop high on adrenaline. My husband was not armed, and he did not try to attack. I honestly don't know how they are getting away with it either, if  it was anybody else, they wouldn't. I'm sorry, but I just don't think that having a badge and a gun entitles ANYONE to take the life of someone else.
257653
thanks to our society! cops are just more important i guess. Yes they put their lives on the line everyday to protect and yes if you kill a cop you should get death no questions asked.  i also believe a sex offender should be put to death too no if ands or buts about it!!!!!!!  Or cut off their genitals as punishment, no no they let them back out on the streets to repeat again and again!
878738
All across the country huh?  Every cop is violent and aggressive over a poor little marijuan user?  Right!!!  I guess the cops are going to always be able to deal with vilolent criminals with words like please and thankyou!!!  That will work 100% of the time!!  NOT.  \n\n"Pretty please, with a freaking cherry on top, drop the gun!  OK, you can shoot me once before I shoot back, that is only fair.!!"  Is this what the cops should say?\n\n\nCriminals have no regard for the law or the people who uphold it.  Criminals don't respect the rules society has put in place, however, cry like little freaking sissys when they get caught.  They love to cry foul play and play innocent and make out like a victim.  That is because they are worthless and incapable of doing anything else with their life other than try to figure out ways to get away with crime.  The fact of the matter is cops are expected to play by the rules, and idiots, I mean criminals, don't.