Why police and carriers keep shooting so many times

[Glaug-Eldare]

I often hear people wondering, "why did they have to shoot him so many times?" or "why didn't they shoot him in the legs?" or otherwise questioning why a (presumed) defender didn't use the least possible force to try and save a suspect/attacker's life. It's an understandable reaction, since very few of us are delighted with death, regardless of whose it is. The problem is that these questions reflect a misunderstanding of when, why, and how much a person can use deadly force.

First of, the when is important. For non-police, the rule is fairly simple: you must reasonably believe that a person is about to cause you or another person death or serious injury. Your state may require you to attempt retreat, or maybe not. (This is not legal advice.) For police, the rule is a little more complicated, but broadly speaking, police can fire to stop a threat against themselves or others, same as the rest of us, or additionally to prevent the escape of a person who presents a great threat to others, like a violent robber or knife-wielding maniac who may hurt people in their zeal to escape.

Next, the why is important. The reason why deadly force is accepted in these situations is the principle that if somebody is going to be hurt or killed, it should be the aggressor. This allows the innocent to protect themselves, the police to protect the public, and violent criminals to think twice about the danger they put themselves in.

Finally, the question of how much. When people ask why a person was shot so many times - why they killed them instead of just hurting them - they're missing the point of a defensive shooting, and the when/why. When the situation is so grave that deadly force is necessary, saving the life of the aggressor is no longer the goal. It'll be wonderful if they live, but it is not the goal, it's not a priority, it's not even a consideration in the amount of force used. If you start shooting at somebody in self-defense, your body is under extreme stress, and you're not going to make a trick shot to their thigh or shoot the knife out of their hands. You shoot at them as long as it takes for them to fall down (and for your finger to stop squeezing out of expectation that they're still coming), and you don't stop to ask them if they can still hurt you.

It sounds harsh because it is, but it's important to understand that it's extremely dangerous to try and carefully meter the amount of force you use when you've already been compelled to use deadly force.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. And yet I've known of cases where someone shot an aggressor several times

and the court ruled that the first shot was self-defense but subsequent rounds were unjustified because the person ceased to be a threat after being shot once.

[Lurks Often]

2. You'll need to be more specific about the cases you are referring to

the only two that spring mind: the shooting sometime ago involving a pharmacist who shot someone in self-defense and then after they were already on the ground shot the person several more times and the homeowner who laid a trap for the two people breaking into his home and shot them on the ground when they were no longer a threat. In both of those cases they were correctly charged with murder.

You have to stop shooting when they would no longer be considered a threat by the average or "reasonable" person.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. The cases I was specifically thinking of are very old, probably pre-Internet.

They would be difficult to find now, but they made an impression on me at the time.

I don't doubt that the mores of the situation have changed since then.

[blueridge3210]

3. Every situation is unique.

If I'm approaching you with a tire iron and you shoot me once and I drop and am no longer approaching any further use of force would likely be determined to be excessive. If I'm approaching and you shoot 5 or 6 times before I stop it would *probably* be ruled differently based on the totality of the circumstances.

[safeinOhio]

5. compelled to use deadly force is the problem

If police riddle a person because they think his wallet or cell phone was a gun, they made a mistake. To me that equals homicide. Two years in jail mandatory. If they guess it's life or death and kill another human and it turns out it wasn't, that was their choice and a wrong one. Pay up.

[Glaug-Eldare]

6. I'm just trying to clear up the conventional situation,

but murder (and assault, rape, theft, perjury, &c...) by LEOs is a whole 'nother issue worthy of discussion

[upaloopa]

7. Because they live in fear!

Almost no one carries a gun or feels the need to. Those that do are different in some way. I think it is irrational fear and paranoia. I think it is close to being a mental disease. They talk about it all the time yet the chance of it happening are very low. So low in fact that most people don't give it a thought.

[Glaug-Eldare]

8. Not quite. Did you read the OP? (nt)

[upaloopa]

9. What read a gunner OP?

Why would that change anything I said?
Do you know in Vietnam they rationed the rounds we got and we accounted for them?

[Glaug-Eldare]

11. I'm sorry you don't want to read it,

because I absolutely want to reduce the number of overall shootings. I'd love to see better training on use of force for police and carriers, and better economic and social conditions that reduce violent crime. The OP is just an explanation of why, when somebody shoots another in legitimate defense, the amount of force can seem excessive. I hope you change your mind and give it a look.

[upaloopa]

15. I read it. It's because shooting another person

is taken so lightly.
You really want to reduce shootings? Reduce the obnoxious number of guns!

[Glaug-Eldare]

18. I don't think we're entirely at cross-purposes, at least.

I would like to see higher standards for carry in most places, for both police and everybody else. Not every officer is fit to carry a gun, and not every citizen is fit to carry a gun. I support rigorous training and education standards, as long as they are objective, accessible, and affordable. I suspect a lot of yahoos and cowboys would not get an easy renewal. If it means fewer guns being carried overall, that's fine with me.

[ileus]

10. When lives are on the line one doesn't take time to evaluate the every single impact

like you may at the range.

We carry because each of us has decided that life is worth protecting. If you're packing something that will afford you some extra trigger squeezes us them. Remember you're trying to save the lives of your loved ones or yourself, a few more bullets to help affirm that won't hurt.

[Glaug-Eldare]

12. As long as the shots are responsible, sure.

I have nothing but contempt and hatred for "you look alright, here's another."

[Starboard Tack]

14. What a load of crap

We carry because each of us has decided that life is worth protecting. If you're packing something that will afford you some extra trigger squeezes us them. Remember you're trying to save the lives of your loved ones or yourself, a few more bullets to help affirm that won't hurt.

You carry (if you really do) because you are afraid of others who carry. There is no other reason to carry, unless you actually want to kill.

[Downwinder]

13. Dead men don't talk.

[DrewFlorida]

16. So you've schooled us on defensive shootings, what about murder by police?

[Glaug-Eldare]

17. Very tough to fight. I've got a couple ideas, though.

1. An end to the War on Drugs that has encouraged aggressive and violent policing that assumes that any given person is probably hiding drugs and should be suitably harassed until they're found.

2. Mandatory body cameras that officers can't turn off, and serious criminal penalties (not just administrative) for deliberately tampering with them or attempting to reduce their effectiveness (e.g., turning them around or damaging the microphone). The stored footage should be the responsibility of a separate agency that does not answer to the Sheriff or Police Chief.

3. Stronger training on use of force, with far greater emphasis on weapons like tasers, OC spray, and batons for subduing suspects. (A little side note: I remember playing a video game called Police Quest back in the 90's, and at one point you're menacingly approached by an entire biker gang in a bar. If you use your gun, it's a game over for excessive use of force, because you're supposed to use your baton.)

4. When I'm feeling really ambitious, I advocate either limiting the issue of guns to particularly stringently-qualified officers, or simply keeping them locked in the patrol vehicle unless there's a reason to suspect it will be necessary. More of a speed bump than a roadblock, but it might encourage officers to think, "is this really necessary?"

I'm sure PDs and SOs would flip their lids at at least three of these, but abuse of police authority is so widespread, I really don't care. I want Toody and Muldoon back.