When Is Deadly Force Warranted

  This is why you don't use deadly force to respond to the "possibility" of an armed individual.

  For the use of deadly force to be justified you must not only believe that you or others are in danger of severe injury or death, you must be able to articulate why you believed this. This articulation must present a reasonable belief others would share given the same circumstances.

  I shuddered when I read this article as I vividly remember the exact same scenario playing out again and again in academy training with the Norman Police Department. The only difference was the character playing the citizen always had a gun and always attempted to use it. The only variation was how long you waited before you used deadly force to end the threat.

  We were taught, and it was hammered into our heads that everybody was an enemy that wanted to kill you until they showed you they weren't an enemy. This is the exact opposite of how we need to treat the citizens we work for.

  While as officers we need to be able to fluidly move back and forth between roles as a guardian and a warrior, this movement should be a mental move and appear seamless to the citizens we are in contact with.

  If we as officers are truly going to embrace the community policing ideology we need to accept there are often better and even safer methods to neutralize a perceived threat without strong arm tactics or escalation of the situation.

  I am not going to arm chair quarterback the tactics the officers in Arizona took which resulted in at least two lives ruined or ended, but I strongly beg everybody to think about the situation and alternate tactics that could possibly have resulted in a different outcome.
Read the Arizona story, here: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/unarmed-man-killed-by-arizona-cop-cried-begged-for-life/ar-BBra9EY