Compare Isreali police with SF police:
*News item yesterday told of a nutcase in Jerusalem, a tourist running around with a knife. Isreali security shot him -- in the leg. He's in the hospital now.
*Meanwhile, in San Francisco, police shot a guy who came at them with a knife -- and killed him.
In SF, threatening police with a knife always results in a fatal shooting -- and no apologies. Police defend the practice of shooting to kill when threatened. Mind you, they don't say "He was right on top of me, I just shot at him as best I can" or "I tried to shoot him in the leg but I hit him in the heart by mistake." No, policy is, shoot to kill -- deadly force, period.
This isn't a problem because of sympathy for the attackers; this is a problem because so many of the attackers turn out to be troubled people, and so few incorrigible criminals. And so often somebody claims the dead guy doesn't have a knife on them after all. And sometimes it looks like they're right. And sometimes the City pays off the relatives of the now-victim (formerly criminal).
If the police had a policy, instead, of at least trying to shoot to disable the attacker, where practical, wouldn't that be better?
Maybe we need to hire some Isreali cops, who know how to shoot more accurately....