Where did I say in posting that the police MUST use deadly force? If you read my posting carefully, you would see that my argument is stated in terms of probability not necessity, cf.
> From that point of
> view, the main risk of a police taking whatever action it takes to stop a
> criminal is, in essence, a violation of a few legal technicalities and
> perhaps the criminal receiving a somewhat harsher treatment that he would
> have, had he been apprehended, tried, and sentenced by a court of law.
That
> risk is minuscule comparing to the potential loss caused by his criminal
> activity, which may entail the loss of innocent life, people loosing their
> life's savings, sustaining grave bodily and emotional injuries, etc.
Stated differently, I argue for minimizing the risk by using whatever means necessary, even if it includes using deadly force. I do not see how that can be interpreted as maximizing public risk in order to use deadly force - as you seem to be implying. This is essentially consistent with Jordan's observation that the risk assessment of various alternatives is already the policy of law enforcement.
I may also add that your position that proposes the imperative of NOT using a deadly force under any circumstances because of the potential risk actually carries the danger of greater risk, e.g. is the only way to prevent public harm is to kill the perp.
One more comment - I do not see the police as a foreign force acting against society - I see them as public servants acting to protect public interests. That is why I have no problems in empowering them to carry that mission most effectively. And if some abuse their power - that is the issue of proper oversight and law enforcement - which should be aggressively exercised to root out any abuse and enforce professional conduct. Stripping the police of their powers to protect public order because some of those powers may be abused is as irrational as, say, confiscating all cars because someone may fail to obey traffic rules and kill a pedestrian.
Wojtek