If cops feel that they can shoot without killing, will they?

What I mean (and I'm not being rhetorical or sarcastic...I have always wondered) is, if the cop could have shot this kid in a non-lethal way without endangering her partner, would she have done that?

If a cop falls in the forest does it make a sound?

I'm sure these cops are trained for lethal and non-lethal firearms discharge, my guess is that they are trained to "shoot to kill" if they are being physically attacked.

It seems pretty sad that the cops only response is to shoot someone dead.

Don't they have nightsticks? Could they not defend themselves without lethal force?

Maybe not, but they don't ever really seem to try the nonlethal alternatives to shooting people in the neck.

cops should definately be trained to fight first, shoot second. especially when it's two on one, the one being unarmed. and even then, shoot in the foot, or leg first.

no doubt the kid was off his rocker and responsible for the incident, but still. cops can do better. as a civilian woman currently in fight training, I'm not impressed by the choices of the officers. it seems cowardly, a panic response. I don't feel the officers should be disciplined for this, but it does make me think police training needs drastic improvement.

So I wanted to find an answer to this question. I work in NYC politics and discussed it with my boss. She only knows about NYPD and said their policy is that cops are only to use their guns if the situation calls for lethal force, at which point they do, in fact, shoot to kill. Because cops here do not receive the quality and intensity of training that sharp-shooters do, their accuracy is not good enough to aim for a non-lethal target (such as an arm or a foot) and there is too much a chance of them missing and killing or maiming the person anyway. Which I don't exactly have a problem with (the maiming) if the alternative is death...but I suppose they could then be charged with police brutality. I don't know. It's an imperfect system, for sure.