Quote Originally Posted by Oneironaut View Post
I understand the rule. What I'm asking is whether or not it's right to use the shoot to kill parameter as the immediate successor to threat of use of force.

Let me give a hypothetical example, using the man with the knife:

You're a cop and you approach a scene where a man is threatening a woman with a knife. You are at too great a distance to simply run up and grab the man, and the man has the woman cornered, waving the knife around and threatening to stab her. You have him held at gunpoint, demanding that he lower the weapon. The belligerent man ignores your command and moves closer to the woman. It appears he plans on actually doing her harm.

What do you do? Do you shoot him in the head/heart, or do you aim for something less lethal (a leg or shoulder, perhaps)?

In my experiences (or in the stories/videos I have seen/heard), the officers' first action above threat of force is to shoot to kill. The rationale is that it eliminates the possibility that a non-lethal hit will not completely neutralize the threat - and, in all fairness, I can understand that. But what I'm asking is whether or not that sort of escalation is right, or should "neutralization" be taught to be more situation specific.
When cops shoot at a person, they shoot to kill, always. They shoot to kill only when deadly force is being used. When you advance upon another person who has done nothing to you with a knife with the intent of doing that person harm, your life is forfeit.

Quote Originally Posted by Oneironaut View Post
Well, when a clip can be emptied in less than ten seconds, don't you think that raises the chance that a cop can make a non-lethal shot?
In the heat of the moment, it is not always easy to make accurate shots. If the person is wielding a deadly weapon and advancing, they need to be taken down immediately and with the smallest margin for error possible.