As the risk of sounding like a smart-ass, what about the doctors who administer lethal injections in official executions? Presumably they must need some sort of special permission to end a healthy criminal’s life…
They can use deadly force to prevent or stop proliferation. But that still isn’t quite the indiscriminate License to Kill.
Doctors don’t administer lethal injections. Hippocratic oath and all that. I asked a question on this board a while back about the drugs they use for execution and apparently they have to use drugs available without a prescription because no doctor would write a prescription for drugs used to kill someone (Jack Kavorkian excepted).
Then who administers the actual injection. Don’t you at least need a trained medical proffessional to insert the needle correctly and set up the tubes or whatever? Wouldn’t you need a doctor to make sure the drugs are the right ones and that they’re at the correct quantity?
I also was trained to target on centre of mass because like someone else mentioned, trying to zero in on a leg, or hand is normally something you only see Mel Gibson do on TV.
Also too, when time and circumstances permit, a warning shit shall be fired.
Normally it’s 1) Warning shot, then 2) fire on your target, although it’s not always in that order.
So how exactly do you aim one of those?
Very carefully. Or I wouldn’t want to be your partner.
Where the hell is firing a warning shot (or shit) legal? If it is not illegal everywhere it is still a very bad idea. An officer is responsible for every bullet he fires. If he doesn’t know where the bullet is going then he shouldn’t pull the trigger. A gun should not be fired unless it is a situation where deadly force is necessary. If there is time to fire a shot into the air then you haven’t reached that point. A *very * bad idea.
The whole shoot to wound thing drives me nuts too.
I’m going to step back, put my “lawyer” goggles on (I’m not a lawyer, but I play one on T.V.), and say this:
The law cannot predict the outcome of a shooting. It can, however, set up the specific justified instances where a shooting would be justified: i.e. as most states would determine, a direct “threat to life, limb, or eyesight” [sub]I’m paraphrasing, of course[/sub] That being said, the law cannot accurately predict how well you can aim, how well you squeeze the trigger, and how well you can double-tap the one-armed, machete-wielding man who breaks into your house and bludgeons your wife to death. [sub]My apologies to Sam Stone and Harrison Ford[/sub].
As such, the drawing, aiming, and firing of a firearm is the ultimate expression of self defense. Unfortunately, some people are irresponsible and abuse this, or are confused or frightened enough that they don’t actually adhere to the letter of the law, which puts them in a grey area and subject to lawsuit. (I damn near typed “lawshit”. Thanks a lot, Gus! ).
So, I can stretch this to show that as an Airman, I’ve been taught the levels of ‘reasonable force’–“show, shout, shove, and shoot”–to know that the last thing you want to do is throw lethal force downrange if you have the ability to avoid it.
To put it otherwise to some of the other posters, not everyone will fire a “warning shot”. I may be optimistic, but in ‘my world’, when you pull a gun, you mean business. The intrinsic threat of a gun is the next to last resort. . . at least in my mind.
Holy crap, I’m getting off my soapbox now.
Tripler
Wow. On preview, I gave thought to posting this or not. Now I figure, yeah, I ought to add my two cents.
That is attempting to prove a negative and it is logically impossible. The president probably did know in Castro’s case but I doubt that is true for every set of shennigans that every intelligence agency gets itself into. There is serious risk for elected officials to know the details of every covert operation so they may just get to know the overall picture and then let them run outside and play.
Where were you trained to shoot a warning shot?? I’m going to go with Loach on this one and say that there is no law enforcement agency in the country teaching such a thing.
The military, on the other hand, does teach the use of warning shots when appropriate. Military police will also carry their pistol with no round in the chamber and the weapon on SAFE. Whereas, every civilian agency I know of trains to have a round in the chamber and the safety off.
I even know of an officer (police officer, I mean) who was fired for repeatedly not having a round in her chamber on duty.
What about Employees of Area 51 ?
Oh, but that place doesn’t exist.
One time I was a State Security Gd, somewhere between a rent-a-cop and real police (at that time we had limited police powers but only at our location). I fired off a warning shot after a fleeing felon. When the Police sgt came by to interview me, he asked "Was that you who capped off the warning shot? (“yes”) “why’d you miss?”. The fleeing felon has several outstanding violent felony warrents and two prior convictions. Now, it likely would not be right to shoot at all, but the circumstances are a bit blurry.
But yes, Police now almost never fire warning shots. I have seen it done once (on a newscast) to get dudes attention when a riot was brewing, but I have no idea whether or not it was policy.
Actually, the Gummint has all but admitted to the existence of Area 51 since 1995, when President Clinton issued an executive order exempting “the military location near Groom Lake” from certain EPA regulations in response to a lawsuit from former workers at the site.
But there’s a big difference between “license to kill,” which implies permission to kill anybody in order to achieve some objective, and “shoot to kill” orders, which is a reactionary order for a specific situation: Bad guy attempts to break into Area 51 – shoot to kill.
(When people do snoop around, the security forces usually just call the local sheriff to arrest them for tresspassing. Nobody’s ever been shot at Area 51. At least, nobody you know of! 
)
I’ll just chime in and say that “shooting to wound” isn’t quite at the “I didn’t know it was loaded” level of stupidity, but it’s damn close.
Military use of force:
If you Google images for [use of deadly force authorized], you will find many pix of US military standard warning signs. Many of these pix are from Area 51 nutcase sites, but these same exact signs are posted on the perimeter fence around every Air Force base, Army post or US Navy installation worldwide.
Does that constitute license for the sentry to execute you on sight? No. But it does mean they can escalate the violence that far if needed to stop you and your buddies from doing whatever mischief you’re up to.
you have a good point. That is why, as I understand it, no doctor in the US will perform an execution nor assist in any way. At least not without endangering his/her license. Techs of various skill levels perform the necessary duties.
I was told by an ex-AF guy that they had orders to shoot anyone who crossed the yellow circle that was painted around aircraft that were on alert, presumably with nuclear weapons on board.
I’ve seen these circles at several Air Force bases, complete with markings that say “use of deadly force is authorized”.
A television documentary on SAC mentioned that Gen. LeMay issued orders that everyone on the flight line was to be armed, even maintenance personnel.
Actually Alexander Fleming based 007s “License to Kill” on the actual MI6 policy that (That became a written law in 1994) that agents operating abroad cannot be punished for any crimes they commit.
But back to the OP. We do not know practically nothing about the regulations governing this matter. Executive Order 12333 is still in place, what has changed matters is the classified post-9/11 “Intelligence Findings”. From the SF Chronicle: