Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh
SeemED. The whole point of shooting was to change that.
Also, I would like to remind that not all countries even supply their patrols with lethal firearms at all. Just saying this to show a counter-example.
|
Just because the justification for deadly force is no longer present does not exclude a person from being handcuffed, wounded or otherwise. If I, as the arresting officer, know that handcuffing the suspect will cause him/her further harm, then I might be persuaded to just watch them until the ambulance arrives and it becomes somebody else's problem. But as I said before, if not handcuffing the suspect somehow compromises my safety, they get cuffed. Any police officer will tell you same thing, it's not worth dying over something as stupid as not handcuffing a suspect, especially one stupid enough to provoke the use of deadly force. Obviously I can only speak for American police, but I can't imagine a law enforcement agency anywhere that would allow the safety of suspect who provoked deadly force to take precedence over the safety of one of their officers.