dthmstr254
I'm a pig, a real pig.
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2005
- Messages
- 702
- Reaction score
- 0
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The bold portion above is where you messed up.
Nobody should EVER use deadly force as a "last resort". In a general sense, yes that is what is done, however, that is NOT how anyone should remember the use of a firearm. The phrase "last resort" implies that other methods must be used first, and that is NOT how an officer, or even a citizen defending themselves, should ever remember use of a firearm. Why? Because if someone continues to think of deadly force as "a last resort" then when in a situation they will attempt to apply this same principle of a graduated use of force, which will cost them their lives.
And then, there is the phrase you stated, "Unless absolutely necessary".
A situation in which deadly force is necessary to an officer WHO IS FACING THE THREAT, AT THAT MOMENT, and the review of such an incident by a person of the news media who are in a sense "monday morning quarterbacks" are two totally different perspectives.
As was stated earlier by someone in the thread, or another thread, there is absolutely NO WAY an officer can determine all the facts/history/motives of a person who is attacking them in a very short amount of time. They can only determine one thing... This person is coming after me and they have a knife/crowbar/broomstick, I must defend myself... OR... This person is holding a firearm and refuses to drop it, while continuing to size me up, I must react.
If you think I, or any other police officer are going to stand and wait for the suspect to try to blow our heads off or beat my head in or otherwise mortally wound me your dead wrong. We don't have to wait to become the victim before we can defend ourselves. Thats a BIG problem with the way the media and more liberal citizens seem to have with police use of force policies.
I could care less. Its impossible to weed out all assholes in any profession. There are always going to be some, and Im quite frankly sick of having to hear about the less than 1% of my profession who do wrong things every time law enforcement is mentioned.
[rant]
Seriously, does anyone like to constantly hear about less than 1% of their group every time they are mentioned?
Hell, some groups have the troublemakers of their groups in numbers much greater than 1% and I know they are probably tired of hearing about stuff.
Do you think legal hispanic folks like to constantly hear about illegal immigration?
Do you think blacks like to hear people talking about how blacks are always robbing, stealing, doing/selling drugs and other stupid shit?
No, they probably don't.
However, if you generalize all blacks as a bunch of thug criminal fucks, then you will rightfully get shouted down.
If you generalize all hispanic people as illegal immigrant non english speaking wetbacks, then you will rightfully get shouted down.
But apparently its okay to talk shit about law enforcement officers.
:roll:
[/rant]
Actually, I do get tired of it, as evidenced by me running people out when they started ranting about the police. That is why I kept it out only on option.
I would say the same about my chosen profession of interpreting for the Deaf, but the percent of people doing the stupid things in my profession is much higher because Deaf people are unfortunately a favorite target for hearing scam artists, as are the people too naive to confirm certification of the interpreters they hire because they come so cheap.
PS: One of my best friends is a police Captain in the Chattanooga PD. He said that Officer Krupinski should have gone for the Tazer, since the man wasn't heading for him, and nobody was in attack range. That just my personal rant. The reason for the title of the thread was simply because it would draw people in.