That's the problem right there. In most cases you can neutralize an unarmed target with just one hit to the torso or the limb.
[...]
Let's get it straight. Unless someone is off his rocker on meth or PCP or some other x-men shit, shooting them one or twice is enough to stop them and sometimes enough to kill them. Four or six shots, esp at point blank range, it's a death sentence right there. I might be wrong here, but that is my understanding.
This is not correct. Handgun rounds are not capable of inducing enough damage to be a laser beam of destruction. There are only three ways to stop someone:
1) Psychological - "holy shit I've been shot" is a pretty powerful psychological weapon, even though the person may be able to physically continue the fight. There was a story last week or so about a guy that got shot by a stray bullet and didn't realize it for several days.
2) Central nervous system - the only way to produce a one-shot-stop. Think brain (headshot) or spinal cord (most handgun rounds don't penetrate deep enough to hit it).
3) Blood loss - self-explanatory; takes time.
No prob, he deserved it full stop, then. Can we move on?
Things like this are important to point out because the entire BLM movement is based on lies and misinformation. Just like Alton Sterling's very recent demise - the guy was resisting arrest and reaching for a gun!
You're taking things out of context. If you were attacked, it's not ok. If you were the attacker and got overpowered, then it's 'ok' in my book. Anyway, imagine living in a country where you're not allowed to carry firearms. Are you going to kill a man with your bare hands or what? People have learnt to deal with it without mercilessly killing each other. So should the US citizens.
If I'm "attacked and overpowered", all bets are off - my life is at stake and, quite frankly, I no longer give a damn about my attacker's life.
Okay, I understand that you can't neutralize all targets with a tazer gun. But why approach a regular traffic stop with your pistol? The person might be dangerous, but statistically speaking there is an overwhelming chance that they are not.
Let's say you are a cop and you pull over someone for a busted tail light (like this most recent example), not a hit-and-run, not excessive speeding. First thing you do is you run the plates - no warrants, you see the name of the person who the car is registered to, they have no record or warrants either. Why would you go in with the assumption that the driver is a dangerous criminal, and why would you reach for the pistol first? Try the tazer gun first. Based on the circumstances of the situation, and statistically speaking, the tazer will be enough in the unlikely event that the driver has to be neutralized.
Being a cop is a dangerous profession with a great element of risk, but if a cop approaches a regular traffic stop with the mindset that the driver is dangerous, that officer should not be on active duty.
And most officers are not like that - I've been pulled over, and I have interacted with officers. They have always been calm, respectful, and professional. That's the majority. But the minority of renegade cops can no longer be ignored - there has to be accountability, better training, and frequent performance/psychological checks.
If you're specifically referring to the incident with Philandro Castile, then please, let's not speculate - we don't yet know why the officer had his gun out. I can tell you with some confidence that cops don't normally walk up to cars with guns drawn.
Actually majority of police in the US never draw their weapon in the line of duty. I'm not disputing that abuse of power happens, or that bad decisions are made for bad reasons only that your idea of "try non-lethal first" isn't always feasible.
Most US cops never practice. They do like 50 rounds a year for quals and that's it.
Killing of an unarmed man who is not wanted for any serious offence is viewed as a very bad situation for everyone, including the police officer(s) involved.
"Unarmed" is a silly CNN term and has little to do with justified use of lethal force. I'm 5'10" and 175lbs - if I am attacked by someone who is 6'5" and 270lbs, I am legally justified to defend myself with a firearm because there is a discrepancy of force at play. Same thing if I have prior knowledge that my attacker is a martial artist. Same thing if I am outnumbered. Same thing if someone pulls out a plastic knife that looks real. Etc etc etc
Most of the time warning shots are fired first, an it's a rule.
Warning shots are a bad idea because a) you have no idea where that round is going to go, and b) if you have time to fire warning shots, you probably shouldn't have pulled out a gun to begin with. In many, if not most, states, warning shots can land you in handcuffs.
What I can not understand is why a gun is seen as a shoot-to-kill weapon only. If you have your pistol drawn for whatever reason, you don't have time to use the taser or the spray or anything else. Basically, as I understand it, what you're saying is norm is that if you have your gun pointed at a suspect and something he does threatens you (or at least you think it threatens you, which might not be the case at all), then you kill the person with no other options. Even if the person is not armed. That sounds plain wrong.
A gun is a measure of absolute last resort. You use it only when there is an imminent (and credible and serious etc) threat of serious bodily injury or death to you or someone else. Essentially, if you pulled out a gun and, to use your previous example, fired a warning shot, then clearly you weren't in fear for your life and shouldn't have pulled out a gun - if you were, you wouldn't shot them. Also, if you do have to shoot, you shoot to stop the threat, not to kill the threat - the most effective way to stop someone is to shoot center mass. If you were trying to "kill" them, you'd go for the head, yet no one ever does that.