4 ms·
Yeah. Maybe the root cause here is how to interpret 'absolutely necessary'. It's clear, however, that the police interpretation is overly broad, and they cannot
by Pfhreak 6y ago
Yeah. Maybe the root cause here is how to interpret 'absolutely necessary'. It's clear, however, that the police interpretation is overly broad, and they cannot be trusted to deploy these in the emergencies that might warrant them.
- Zak 6y agoIt can be made easy: these are alternatives to use of a firearm. They should only be allowed where deadly force is legally justified, though policies could call for using them before firearms when possible, e.g. to incapacitate a person who is brandishing a weapon, but not actively hurting people with it.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago> They should only be allowed where deadly force is legally justified, though policies could call for using them before firearms when possible, e.g. to incapacitate a person who is brandishing These two proposed policies are contradictory.
- Zak 6y agoThey're not, because legal justification and department policy are different. If, for example, someone is threatening people with a knife and is close enough to use it, the law usually allows a police officer to shoot that person without taking any other actions. Department policy can require the use of specific tactics to maximize opportunities to resolve situations with minimal force. An example policy would be to attempt to separate the subject from bystanders, delay until backup arrives, negotiate verbally, then use less lethal weapons, only resorting to firearms if someone is about to be stabbed.
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoI see what you're saying now, I'd misread you.