12 ms·

> the ideal scenario is for police minimize death (of criminals and police officers) at all costs Do you really believe this in all situations? I don't. In a s

> the ideal scenario is for police minimize death (of criminals and police officers) at all costs Do you really believe this in all situations? I don't. In a standoff between 5 cops and 15 criminals I'd rather see the cops kill them all than vice versa, since the cops didn't create the bad situation in the first place. We all weight lives based on their moral value and culpability in the situation. Maybe that's an extreme example, but the way it happens more often is that a suspect pulls a gun, points it at a single cop, and the cop has to decide whether to kill the suspect or die him/herself. I'd always argue that in such a situation the cop should shoot. Are you suggesting that shoot to wound is a better policy?

vidarh 9y ago
If there is a standoff and the police does not have a significant advantage of numbers, they've already messed up. Maybe using their guns will be the right response at that point, but where they failed at minimizing death was when their response was so crazily inadequate in the first place that they got pinned down by superior numbers (if they're not pinned down, and there aren't civilians at immediate risk, they can/should wait for reinforcements). In the UK for example, police is more likely to respond with a factor of 4x-5x more officers than suspected criminals, and will avoid approaching until they know they have numerical and tactical superiority. Of course, sometimes that fails - you can't predict every possible situation, but it's rare.