More common than it should be and the justification for using lethal force is vague:
"Officers have long been trained to shoot to kill because that is the only way they say they can neutralize a threat. The idea of shooting someone in a limb is fiction."
"In all policy everywhere on force in any law enforcement agency in America, the bottom line statement should read: If you feel sufficiently threatened or if lives are threatened and you feel the need that you must use lethal force, then you must take out the suspect."
Firman said shooting to wound is impractical because "the likelihood of success is low." The officer may miss the target, leaving both the police and the public at risk, he said.
Officers are trained to assess the risk before firing, Firman said, but often a situation escalates quickly. A guide from his association on officer-involved shootings states that deadly force is legally justified "to protect the officer or others from what is reasonably believed to be a threat of death or serious bodily harm; and to prevent the escape of a fleeing violent felon who the officer has probable cause to believe will pose a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
Full Article:
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/19/police-deadly-force_n_5693020.html[/url]
And police are free to bring the hammer down on any group of people the moment them deem it to be a "riot"... another vague definition awaits!
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/can-the-police-really-do-that-105437241.html[/url]
Apparently the 'Land of the free' turns into a 'police state' at the drop of a hat.