Reading this story about a police chief in LaGrange, Georgia (of all places) who has instituted a "shot to stop" policy, I was struck by the response. Basically, shooting someone in the legs or pelvis is more likely to stop them than shooting them in the chest - the current preferred placement for a shot when an officer feels threatened. It is also less likely to kill them.
The response from police organizations? Look at this passage:
A neighboring police department posted a link there to its own recruiting video and told officers it was hiring: “Come to an agency where you are appreciated, valued, respected, and are able to do your job.”
How can you read that and not take away from that that "doing your job" basically means being able to use lethal force when it might not be necessary?
If you hire people who think that the best part of their job is unloading a clip into someone's chest, then you are going to have the sort of policing we have in too many parts of this country.
No comments:
Post a Comment