|
Of course, it is possible for this use of a "shoot to kill" policy to have been misguided or misapplied without necessarily invalidating the concept as a whole.
Any situation in which authority is invested with the option of using fatal force is still going to involve some level of uncertainty. For example, I think most people would agree that police are justified in shooting and killing someone who is about to commit a murder. Say a person pulls a gun, points it at a stranger passing on the street and gives all appearances he is about to shoot this person.
The police have to make a decision to act before they know with 100% certainty that he will in shoot fire the gun or that the gun is even loaded. In this situation a shoot-to-kill policy would not, I don't think, be voided simply because one time the gun was not loaded.
So, I don't think it is so much a question of whether "shoot-to-kill" is an absolutely good or absolutely bad idea. It will always involve a tradeoff between safety and certainty. The problem with using this case to invalidate this specific shoot-to-kill policy is that it apparently did not meet the criteria for the policy in the first place. The police did not have a reasonably credible reason to believe this guy to be a bomber.
Not knowing exactly how "credible suicide bombing threat" is defined, I can't say as to whether I think the general policy is wrong. But I certainly think that this incident could not have met any reasonably scoped definition and the police deserve to be shamed, humiliated, and reprimanded institutionally and financially (perhaps not criminally since it is likely that each policeman thought they were doing their job as they did it).
I can still think of countless situations in which I would say a pre-emptive shoot-to-kill policy is warranted.
|