Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Should police officers be required by law to shoot only to wound?

By Howard B. Owens
JT Hunt

here is a real life senario - here in Cincy, a man decided to attack his lady with a claw hammer. that's right, not a ball peen, but a CLAW hammer. anyways, the lady was screaming bloody mercy. the cincy cops were called, heard her dying, entered the home. they told that crack head to drop the hammer. he then decided to hit her AGAIN, then the cop pumped ONE hot piece of lead into that loser's head. thankfully, the lady is recovering in ICU and the cop was put on paid leave. we now have one less piece of crap criminal's state trial and prison stay to pay for. AMEN. you get caught trying to kill someone, the cops should be allowed to make you into swiss cheese.

May 26, 2010, 9:36am Permalink
Bob Harker

An officer only draws his/her weapon if his life, or that of another, is in immediate danger. Hitting a moving target with a handgun is difficult at best. Restrictions on hitting an arm or a leg would only endanger the life of the officer and others.

Do we think the armed criminal is only aiming to wound?

A ridiculous notion.

May 26, 2010, 9:58am Permalink
william tapp

police officers need to protect them self s my all means .
but some one has a gun knife or what ever drop it or die there choice . our police need to do what ever they have to do to protect them self and to public , that what we pay them for.

May 26, 2010, 10:35am Permalink
Chris Charvella

Anyone who has ever been trained to shoot knows that you aim at center mass. This legislation was obviously written by someone who knows absolutely nothing about shooting...or law enforcement...or where to place their head when it's not shoved straight up their rectum.

May 26, 2010, 11:14am Permalink
Gabor Deutsch

I wanted to post this video for all the people that voted yes to this poll.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lqvFAoKK0lE&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lqvFAoKK0lE&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

May 26, 2010, 12:20pm Permalink
JoAnne Rock

How would you wound someone that is wearing body armour?

Maybe the folks that have proposed this legislation own stock in companies that produce body armour.

Coming soon to a fashion runway near you...the new Fall "Wound Free" Collection by Gangstawear Inc.

May 26, 2010, 1:53pm Permalink
Chris Charvella

This is an example of 'shoot from the hip' legislation. It's a nonsense solution to an actual problem and, in my opinion, does a disservice to the reality of every day law enforcement.

I read the story about the incident that spurred this bill on and there is definitely a problem with cops putting 50 rounds into a car filled with unarmed suspects. That being said, we have to place our trust and faith in the police officers who do this work every day. They had reason to believe that there were three armed men in the car and they made a judgment based on the situation; that's what they get paid to do.

Bottom line is we can't handcuff our police force, with rules that require them to shoot like Annie Oakley and we most certainly cannot start charging them with manslaughter if they kill a suspect in the line of duty. There are review boards already in place for this sort of thing and that should be enough. If legislators want to pass laws requiring more threat assessment training for cops then I could live with that, but this law is just as silly as it seems.

Disclaimer: All puns intended, no puns were harmed in the writing of this post.

May 26, 2010, 4:03pm Permalink
terry paine

I wonder if he should have shot this guy in the leg. The officer did get a month of paid time off for it though.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5FFlWGeb_aw&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5FFlWGeb_aw&hl=en_US&fs=1&&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

May 26, 2010, 10:55pm Permalink
JT Hunt

here is another crazy cincy news story, but off topic. yesterday, a lady died when a deer jumped off a an I-275 overpass ONTO her car and THRU her windshield on I-71. her car then went another 1/4 mile and she rolled on the right shoulder. good god. it's raining deer! what an odd way to get taken out eh...:/

May 28, 2010, 9:02am Permalink
jonathan bell

this is amazing. While i was in afghanistan under NATO control we were giving the very same order "shoot to wound first" if someone is trying to kill you or someone else and you only "wound" them whats to say that person cant then still shoot at you? I can tell you a dozen different stories of people being shot and still returning fire. its not like the movies where you get shot and the gun goes flying and you hit the ground most the times with your blood bumpin you dont even know your shot

May 28, 2010, 11:14am Permalink

Authentically Local