The use of lethal force should always be considered a last resort when no other options that are available for the peace officer are sufficient to ensure the safety of the public, the officers and the perpetrator, if possible. When you use lethal force, you are consciously choosing to forgo the opportunity to question the perpetrator which can lead to motivations as well as physical evidence, accomplices and co-conspirators. If you kill a subject, you do not get to say I’m sorry and make it all better. You might have the opportunity to apologize to the decedent’s family, but that does not restore a dead man (or woman or child) to life.
If you must use lethal force to ensure public safety, be prepared to ride a desk for at least a week during which time you will be repeatedly questioned about your actions, the reasons for them and why you did not use less deadly alternatives. Even if your use of lethal force is considered a justified action by your superiors, you may still face criminal charges in court. So choose very carefully before you kill someone in the name of public safety.
Deoxy
on May 6, 2019 at 10:23 am
“in the name of public safety.”
That’s the part that makes it harder. And yet, even then, “It’s wrong, even when justified” is a just plain stupid thing to say.
When a madman is holding a bomb that will kill ten thousand people, you don’t worry about his life. NO amount of additional risk is acceptable to save his life – you do what is most likely to keep the bomb from going off.
Yes, that’s an extreme case, but that only makes the situation CLEAR, not “different”. A single hostage is worth more than the life of a single hostage-taker, and if you can save the hostage (the INNOCENT bystander) at the cost of the hostage-taker (the one morally culpable for the situation), that’s what you do.
And don’t get me started on self-defense. Morally, if you threaten me, I an justified in stopping your threat, and if that results in your death, that is YOUR fault. Full. Stop.
But, as I said at the beginning, the “in the name of public safety” part does throw a big monkey-wrench in things.
Just Sayin'
on May 6, 2019 at 4:07 pm
A clever line of wisdom, echoing the elders of the Warsaw Ghetto in July of 1942.
Hello, I do think your web site could be having browser compatibility issues. When I look at your site in Safari, it looks fine however, when opening in I.E., it has some overlapping issues. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other than that, great site!
The use of lethal force should always be considered a last resort when no other options that are available for the peace officer are sufficient to ensure the safety of the public, the officers and the perpetrator, if possible. When you use lethal force, you are consciously choosing to forgo the opportunity to question the perpetrator which can lead to motivations as well as physical evidence, accomplices and co-conspirators. If you kill a subject, you do not get to say I’m sorry and make it all better. You might have the opportunity to apologize to the decedent’s family, but that does not restore a dead man (or woman or child) to life.
If you must use lethal force to ensure public safety, be prepared to ride a desk for at least a week during which time you will be repeatedly questioned about your actions, the reasons for them and why you did not use less deadly alternatives. Even if your use of lethal force is considered a justified action by your superiors, you may still face criminal charges in court. So choose very carefully before you kill someone in the name of public safety.
“in the name of public safety.”
That’s the part that makes it harder. And yet, even then, “It’s wrong, even when justified” is a just plain stupid thing to say.
When a madman is holding a bomb that will kill ten thousand people, you don’t worry about his life. NO amount of additional risk is acceptable to save his life – you do what is most likely to keep the bomb from going off.
Yes, that’s an extreme case, but that only makes the situation CLEAR, not “different”. A single hostage is worth more than the life of a single hostage-taker, and if you can save the hostage (the INNOCENT bystander) at the cost of the hostage-taker (the one morally culpable for the situation), that’s what you do.
And don’t get me started on self-defense. Morally, if you threaten me, I an justified in stopping your threat, and if that results in your death, that is YOUR fault. Full. Stop.
But, as I said at the beginning, the “in the name of public safety” part does throw a big monkey-wrench in things.
A clever line of wisdom, echoing the elders of the Warsaw Ghetto in July of 1942.
Hello, I do think your web site could be having browser compatibility issues. When I look at your site in Safari, it looks fine however, when opening in I.E., it has some overlapping issues. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other than that, great site!