Hacker News Reader

Comment by jandrese | Hacker News Reader

Wait to evaluate if the guy is a threat and he could have already shot you. Safer to shoot him first. This is what people are talking about when they complain about militarized police. Treating unknowns as threats that must be neutralized instead of something you need to observe closer is how you end up throwing grenades on sleeping babies and shooting innocent people. But the converse is that the suburban drug lord pulls out his AR15 and shoots down 3 cops before they have a chance to figure out what is happening.

View on HN

IMO it is the police's responsibility to die first. They are putting themselves out to protect the public from threats not to kill the public who might be a threat to them or a fellow police officer.

I am aware that currently legally it is the exact opposite and they have no responsibility to save or protect anyone only themselves.

> IMO it is the police's responsibility to die first.

And, pray tell, who in their right mind is going to take _that_ job?

Well most of the time they aren't dying and hopefully they are mostly helping people. Firefighters put their lives at risk in a similar way. The respect and honor earned by protecting your fellow people is a strong motivator.

Hopefully this would change the public's perception of police to some extent and improve public relations to the point that they would walk around being thanked like veterans.

In the military, they are not usually allowed to shoot someone just because the other person has a gun.

I've watched videos of police in other countries handling armed, definitely-a-threat suspects without using deadly force. Our police go to the gun first, period.

> But the converse is that the suburban drug lord pulls out his AR15 and shoots down 3 cops before they have a chance to figure out what is happening.

I've just gone through the information at https://www.odmp.org/ for the last 3 years and I can't find an example of anything like this.

Militarized police tactics work!

You are completely correct that it's largely a fantasy scenario, but who wants to take the chance?

But cops, especially highly trained SWAT officers answering a potentially very dangerous call are never just standing in the open - they were surely prepared for the situation, ducking behind their armored vehicles with automatic weapons drawn. I have trouble believing even the fastest criminal could get his gun out, while walking out the door and surrounded by highly trained SWAT officers in their protective gear, and manage to take one out. Or are you telling me that Hollywood movies are accurate? ;) Besides that, why not train officers to shoot for the legs instead? If they're so unsure of their accuracy, have a few people shoot... I imagine 5 gunshot wounds to the legs gives a slightly higher chance of survival than a head-shot.

Once the SWAT team is there you are heavily into militarized police tactics.

Gun training is if you shoot someone you shoot to kill. Wounding just gives them a chance to shoot you back. This is universal, ask any officer trained to use a gun and they'll tell you that shooting the gun out of someone's hand is Hollywood nonsense. Shooting to wound leads to accidental death (hit the femoral artery) and/or retaliation.

Or lawsuits.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com