The constitution limits the use of gun force by the police. According to police laws, a law enforcer is only allowed to use shoot his firearm under two circumstances. The first is when the officer is protecting his life and the other is when the officer is protecting the life of another innocent party. In the second instance, the officer has to be sure that the life of the innocent party is really in danger before firing bullets. These laws have been put to not only bring order but to also restrict too much shooting as a lot of violence activities do not require for them to be sorted out using guns. In the event that the officer has to use his gun, he is advised not to shoot to kill. What if police officers were allowed to shoot to kill at the first sight of violence?
As discussed above, there are violent situations that do not warrant the need for guns to be involved. Most cases, such as attempted robbery, do not involve firearms. The number of police killings will drastically increase. Also, some situations may be confused for violence and the police may end up shooting innocent civilians. In my opinion, the order for the police to shoot at the first sight of violence would not be deterrent but would only cause more chaos. As seen, innocent civilians may be inherently affected and this may cause other civilians to protest against gun violence by police. Since protests may be confused with riots, the protesting civilians will definitely also be wounded and this will give rise to more protests. This will cause a cyclic trend that will definitely do more harm than good. The current laws that limit the use of firearms by police are, therefore, adequate.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
