The fatal shooting of a man by police on Tuesday near St. Louis kept the spotlight on law enforcement's use of deadly force as protests continue in nearby Ferguson over the police shooting death of teenager Michael Brown.
The two shootings bear little resemblance. Brown was an unarmed teen who, according to eyewitnesses, was trying to surrender when a police officer shot him at least six times. The man killed on Tuesday, whose name hasn't been released, was wielding a knife, according to police. When he refused officers' orders to put down his weapon and walked toward them, they shot him to death, police said.
As tensions continue to flare over Brown's death, many question the circumstances under which the law justifies a police officer's use of deadly force. When faced with a perceived threat, why don't officers shoot to wound rather than shoot to kill?
The reason, according to law enforcement officials and experts on police accountability, is simple: Officers have long been trained to shoot to kill because that is the only way they say they can neutralize a threat. The idea of shooting someone in a limb is fiction.
"That's a Hollywood myth," John Firman, director of research, programs, and professional services at the International Association of Chiefs of Police, told The Huffington Post. "In all policy everywhere on force in any law enforcement agency in America, the bottom line statement should read: If you feel sufficiently threatened or if lives are threatened and you feel the need that you must use lethal force, then you must take out the suspect."
...
Connect With Us