- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 11,005
- Reaction score
- 5,433
- Location
- Southeast Michigan
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
I think you got a wee bit too literal there.
I do believe the poster was speaking in terms of a reasonable level of force to be used at the discretion of the Officer.
You know, that guy or gal who is THERE at the time and whose responsibility it is to make a quick decision to safeguard the lives of the public, themselves, their fellow officers, and yes, even the suspect.
Personally I think this was just another lame attempt to make a jab at officers who act out of accordance with training and policy. Yes, Ikari, we get it, some guys act like complete douchebags..... Moving on....
How about you spending one week studying the definition of "civility", Goshin. Then spend another week thinking of what I wrote..... For my entire life(70 years) this business of kill or be killed has been going on....where has it gotten us??Spend one week patrolling with a police officer in an inner-city setting and you'll change your mind.
As it is you don't have a clue.
no! the amount of force used should be up to the discretion of the officer
You say that as if the police arent CONSTANTLY looking for better non-lethal solutions. However...the reality is SOMETIMES the other person isnt committed to civility and there IS only one response.How about you spending one week studying the definition of "civility", Goshin. Then spend another week thinking of what I wrote..... For my entire life(70 years) this business of kill or be killed has been going on....where has it gotten us??
Bigger, more lethal weapons and flack jackets?
More body bags?
Walls between nations?
What a waste!
I think we are intelligent beings, there must be a better solution.
Or, have we come to the limit of our intelligence and we must now revert to being animals?
BTW, my poll response was "other".
Whoever came up with this idea should be shot.
Agreed, but whoever's shooting them can only shoot to wound.
For my entire life(70 years) this business of kill or be killed has been going on....where has it gotten us??
I think we are intelligent beings, there must be a better solution.
Or, have we come to the limit of our intelligence and we must now revert to being animals?
BTW, my poll response was "other".
However...the reality is SOMETIMES the other person isnt committed to civility and there IS only one response.
As far as the specific case in this debate goes; the policeman should do what is most effective..be that kill or wound; I agree, of course, that to require that the police be required to wound rather than kill is absurd..You say that as if the police arent CONSTANTLY looking for better non-lethal solutions. However...the reality is SOMETIMES the other person isnt committed to civility and there IS only one response.
I dont see anyone advocating shooting people for jaywalking. I dont see anyone suggesting police should kill more often. The thread is simply If police NEED to shoot should they be REQUIRED to wound instead of kill...and anyone with ANY experience with firearms or combat knows how absolutely foolish that is.
We are alive, are we not? Look at the works of our civilization, and the great civilizations that have preceded ours, before you lament that our ways have given us nothing.
Yes, we are alive; Am I seeking to be more than alive?
And, during my lifetime, 100,000,000 or so people are not alive. These people, if not for their position, would beg to differ.....And the criminal or the criminal to be, if there was more civility and respect on our end, would this help?
Our violence, both our capacity for it and our inclination to it, has always been a part of us and to claim now that it makes us little more than the lesser animals whom we exercise our dominion over is to deny human history and human nature. It is to deny part of our humanity and part of what has made us great over the ten millennia of our history.
People seem to forget that civility only has value among those who share the same commitment to upholding it.
Personally, I think this was just another lame attempt to make a jab at me because you don't like my personal opinions. Like it or not, what I gave was a complete answer, so get over yourself already. If you can't handle complete answers, well I don't know what to really tell you. Should be well within the abilities of any human.
And if you weren't being so smarmy and trying to jump on my ass for nothing, as per usual. You would have noted that I said exactly as others have said. If someone threatens the life of an officer, pulls a gun or something like that, it is reasonable to react with deadly force. So try reading and comprehending instead of flying off the handle at all my posts.
ABSOLUTELY NOT
requiring an office to wound in a life threatening situation will only lead to the following
slower response/reaction time
hindrance of enforcing law and order
more law enforcement and victim deaths
more and braver criminals
more disorder
I did read that you agree with the TOPIC of the thread.
What is your reason for bringing up some asshat dirtbag of a cop beating a handcuffed subject when that is not the topic of debate?
Lets try to stay on topic then Ikari.
It's called an example. I assumed you were familiar with the term. Guess I was wrong.
An example that was off topic nonetheless.
Should police be required to shoot to wound suspects who threatening their lives?
SOME cops are trigger happy, with their guns and their tazers....a recent event in Utah had a cop tazing a mentally disturbed man who was unarmed, and either off his meds or having a bad reaction to them. The man died. His family was there and between family and cop they should have been able to tackle him.
If they have time to shoot to wound, they should make the first shot from a designated shooter to wound any perp with a non firearm weapon. Give that a few seconds, if the perp is still up and threatening, shoot to kill.....
I read a story about a cop shooting an armed suspect point blank with a .357 magnum, 3 rounds, and the perp turned and ran down an alley. Cop couldn't believe that he had missed. Turns out the perp was on PCP, didn't know he was dead. They found him down the alley, dead, still clutching his weapon. He could have killed the cop, but this time turned out good.
OTOH, some cops are over confident that they can take out a perp withoug killing him, and it goes bad, and a cop gets killed.
Nothing is simple in these kinds of situations...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?