Quote Originally Posted by Oneironaut View Post
I suppose. But - like the guy in the tank - many of the people that do these things are mentally ill. I understand that it's a "preserve the innocent over the offender" paradigm, but still...

I guess I just have a problem with wanton use of maximum force, in the face of so many alternatives. Again, using the man in the tank as an example, the fact that "he's a perp" should not play a hand in whether the person lives or dies. I would say that would be better left to the actual lack of any alternative. My point is just that there are far too many situations where it's just not necessary to kill someone, and I believe that the "shoot to kill first, sort it all out later" approach leads to the loss of too many (even innocent) lives. And of course, I fully understand that things are probably so much different, while actually in the situations, so I'm not pretending to assume how I would react in such distress. I'm just saying that there are situations where it is clearly not necessary to take someone's life - especially given the high probability that the offender is simply mentally disturbed - and I think the police should be taught to better assess alternatives to just shooting to kill.
Well what do you suggest? Policemen are already supposed to only use their guns in the most dire of circumstances. The kinds of circumstances where any hesitation on their part would be neglecting to fulfill their mandate to protect the innocent. I think that most police departments would rather kill any number of perps than have even a single innocent person die because they hesitated. That some of the perps are mentally ill is regrettable, but it doesn't make them any less dangerous.