5knights3maidens Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 http://entertainment.verizon.com/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9S281OO0%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1011 This made me cry. My ds is an "8th grader" at home. Why do police shoot to kill? Can't they shoot to stop and not kill? I know he was armed but I still don't understand why they couldn't have done it another way. Maybe I'm thinking wrongly... :confused: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Unlike what is show in the movies, shooting to "stop" someone is very difficult, and quite frankly needlessly risks the lives of the officers involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forget-Me-Not Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Because if they shoot to stop him, he's still armed and could fire back at them. I think the police acted appropriately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbkaren Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Shoot to kill, or else you don't point your weapon at it. If the subject must be stopped using a firearm, he/she must be killed. It's really an absolute rule; you're killing or not shooting. Subject may survive if you're a bad shot, but the intention always has to be to kill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jen in PA Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Unlike what is show in the movies, shooting to "stop" someone is very difficult, and quite frankly needlessly risks the lives of the officers involved. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 It is horribly sad that this young person felt no other option. But he made adult decisions and in doing so gave the officers very little choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jennsmile Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 How tragic at the same time I prefer this to Columbine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
********* Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Shoot to kill, or else you don't point your weapon at it. If the subject must be stopped using a firearm, he/she must be killed. It's really an absolute rule; you're killing or not shooting. Subject may survive if you're a bad shot, but the intention always has to be to kill. This is absolutely true, (and is why I am a pacificst, but that's another thread). Sorry OP, I know what you're saying, but when we're talking shooting weapons, one should always assume the intention is death, nothing else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiana Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 http://entertainment.verizon.com/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9S281OO0%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1011 This made me cry. My ds is an "8th grader" at home. Why do police shoot to kill? Can't they shoot to stop and not kill? I know he was armed but I still don't understand why they couldn't have done it another way. Maybe I'm thinking wrongly... :confused: They can't really shoot to 'stop' if the person is armed. I wish movies portrayed this more accurately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shellers Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Shoot to kill, or else you don't point your weapon at it. If the subject must be stopped using a firearm, he/she must be killed. It's really an absolute rule; you're killing or not shooting. Subject may survive if you're a bad shot, but the intention always has to be to kill. :iagree: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littleWMN Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 How tragic! But the police did the right thing! How much more tragic would it have been to have many other people (police, students, teachers) killed as well? I think if that were the case, people would be jumping all over the cops saying (rightfully, IMO), they didn't serve and protect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbkaren Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 ...one should always assume the intention is death, nothing else. Exactly…it’s dangerous to shoot “just to injureâ€. It indicates that in that case, deadly force isn’t necessary to begin with. If one is simply shooting to stop the other person, there’s a good chance they’ll die from their wounds. So the logical conclusion is, if you aim your weapon at a target, it MUST be only to kill. Sad, but there’s no way around it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KidsHappen Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 The rule is shoot to kill. A wounded and armed apponent is even more dangerous than one that is just armed. They really have nothing left to lose. You should never point a weapon at someone or something that you are not absolutely prepared to shoot to kill. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mazakaal Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 It's extremely sad that the officers had to shoot to kill, but with the number of school shootings that occur, it would have been foolish not to and then risk their own lives and the lives of innocent people at the school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5knights3maidens Posted January 4, 2012 Author Share Posted January 4, 2012 I know you are all correct in what your saying.:001_smile: This news still shook me, though. (Also, I never thought of the movies.);) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StaceyinLA Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 the number of kids who commit adult crimes. What is this world coming to? There is no innocence. None. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbkaren Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) the number of kids who commit adult crimes. What is this world coming to? There is no innocence. None. I don't have any statistics, but in my opinion, the destruction of the family unit and the lack of a consistent, strong, positive male role model is at least partly to blame for these types of things. There are so many fatherless kids out there, searching for leadership, finding the wrong kind. __________ Also, just noted on the map that Brownsville is on the Mexican border so who knows what else was at play. Gang activity, etc? Who knows... Edited January 4, 2012 by bbkaren Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cindy in the NH Woods Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I know you are all correct in what your saying.:001_smile: This news still shook me, though. (Also, I never thought of the movies.);) You have a compassionate heart, Margarete. :grouphug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jennsmile Posted January 5, 2012 Share Posted January 5, 2012 Have you all seen the upate? It was a pellet handgun but to the officer it looked real. They said he was give a chance to put down the weapon and refused. So sad, but I am glad nobody else was harmed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.