yes they are support to hold fire they are not aloud to fire unless being fired at unless someone comes at then with a knife putting this new bill C-21 out isn’t gonna change anything but take jobs from thousands of people and take away a great hobby and sport

There is never enough training for anyone who carries a firearm, whether it is a soldier, law enforcement officer, or a private citizen. Unfortunately, with municipal budgets being what they are, and state funds to supplement those being stretched to cover too many programs, LEO training suffers. Couple that with the increased cost of ammunition caused by excessive federal purchases drying up the available supply, and the recipe for accidents by LEO’s is created.

HOWEVER -no soldier or law enforcement officer is ever trained to shoot “once to disable”. All defenders are taught, ad nauseum, to only draw a weapon when prepared to shoot to kill in defense of their life or someone else who is imminent mortal danger . Not only would that level of accuracy (shoot-to-disable-or-wound) be an issue for most when discharging their weapon in the heat of passion, but due to the risk of civil liabilities (both by the intended target, his/her family, or the person not adequately defended because the LEO did not eliminate the threat). Firearm carriers are trained to shoot to kill and to do so by pulling the trigger unless or until the threat is eliminated.

With that being said, if a law enforcement officer tells someone to drop or otherwise relieve themselves of a weapon, and that person chooses not only not to do so, but to advance on the officer or others in a threatening manner, it is incumbent on the officer to eliminate the threat.

Although there are many instances where use of deadly force has gone too far, perhaps instead of berating the police in this particular instance, one should realize that the officer reacted as he was trained, but the unfortunate victim did not obey the officers commands – or use the common sense to drop a weapon when ordered to by someone with the authority to do so and in possession of a superior weapon himself.

Well Steve, yes why? More training and sanctions. Prosecute those officers who abuse their power and responsibility or, at least, fire those who make (or often make) bad judgements. What, you say. That will reduce the number of both duty officers and recruits. Well so be it. We need a high standard of intellect and judgement for that job. Hey they’re paid enough! What, you say, we can’t fire anybody. Yeah, I know, the union thing. But long term we can improve things.

Rex- Makes me wonder if you were the smartest pup in the litter. –
You made Rex cry 😉

For me in the final analysis the operative phrase is: “better to be tried by 9 than carried by 6”.

This means that if I have the means and ability to defend my life against some fat loser cop who is living out his fantasies of being a navy SEAL, then I will do so. Unto death. I will not curl into a fetal position and take it, ’cause I’m gonna get killed anyway.

If there is any intelligent life left on copworld, they must realize that increasingly their extremism is leading to conditions that will endanger their cherished ‘officer safety’ (oxymoron). Everyone loses….

Of course the cops are to blame. They voluntarily pull the trigger and carry out the act itself. No one forced them to do it.

We prosecuted thousands at the Nuremberg trials and through other judicial channels who were ‘just following orders’ from the command level. Using your logic, they were not to blame.

In fact, the allied nations are still prosecuting 90 year old men who worked at the gulags and Nazi concentration camps for ‘following orders’ over 70 year later!

When you make an excuse one link in the chain we start down that slippery slope again.