[jb92563]

Originally Posted by Chuck W.

Your statement is incorrect on several levels, and the police don't shot to kill. If the use of deadly force is warranted police shoot with the understanding that their actions may result in death. They don't shot to kill.

I guess maybe its just my perception then, plus if police decide to shoot, they will likely hit what they are aiming for and I assume its the upper torso and will keep shooting till the threat is subdued? (Mortally wounded due to good aim=dead?).

We have all seen the 3rd party videos of police shooting perps and the result is nearly always the same for the perp.

Shoot to kill may not be the politically correct terminology, but if an officer draws his weapon its because he intends to shoot and use deadly force and he is usually successful.

I would never run from police or try to resist as it only takes the hint of intent to give sufficient cause for police to draw weapons, and I'm good with that, so those that do try to resist perhaps have a death wish
Anyways, I respect the job police do, feel bad they put themselves in harms way far too often and am glad that they hit what they aim for.

I'm still torn as a citizen on what degree of defense/offense strategy is best as the police cannot protect us in a timely manner and we do have to be prepared to defend our family and home without assistance.

Just a month ago and several weeks after the San Bernardino Terrorist shootings we had an incident at my work with a customer making a bill payment and things did not go well. The angry citizen apparently threatened to get a bomb and return, the security guards had no weapons to deter or repel this person who did actually return, and when the police where called they said their ETA was 2 hours due to another incident they were dealing with.

So ultimately we are all on our own for defense and even terror threats. Sobbering!