- Joined
- Jan 20, 2014
- Messages
- 51,768
- Reaction score
- 14,180
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
I want to get a sense as to when people believe police use of deadly force should be authorized, there's been a lot of discussion about this in the last year, I am interested to see what other people actually think about the topic versus what the law says.
you may select multiple answers.
Where is the "when they are a minority and the cop is white" option?
None of your options cover the current principles that apply in most jurisdictions; The officer needs to have a reasonable belief that the target poses an immediate threat of harm to them or others and that deadly force is the only option available to prevent that.I want to get a sense as to when people believe police use of deadly force should be authorized, there's been a lot of discussion about this in the last year, I am interested to see what other people actually think about the topic versus what the law says.
you may select multiple answers.
It took only two posts to go there....
I want to get a sense as to when people believe police use of deadly force should be authorized, there's been a lot of discussion about this in the last year, I am interested to see what other people actually think about the topic versus what the law says.
you may select multiple answers.
I want to get a sense as to when people believe police use of deadly force should be authorized, there's been a lot of discussion about this in the last year, I am interested to see what other people actually think about the topic versus what the law says.
you may select multiple answers.
I want to get a sense as to when people believe police use of deadly force should be authorized, there's been a lot of discussion about this in the last year, I am interested to see what other people actually think about the topic versus what the law says.
you may select multiple answers.
First, the Police are trained to deal with the criminal element and should not scare as easily as the average citizen, ergo should never shoot because they feel frightened when no weapon is present.
Second, Police are trained marksmen, ergo should shoot to injure when a suspect flees.
Third, shooting is not a discretionary option.
Fourth, if a suspects actions present the actual threat to the lives of citizens, driving a car into a crowd, chain sawing a tree onto citizens, etc. That is a good time to shoot. To injure if the car is stopped. To injure if the chain saw is not actually cutting a tree. etc.
Fifth, Police shoot center mass and ergo are not sued by survivors because there are seldom survivors. The dead don't speak.
Sixth, if you give Police too much power and firepower, you will get a Police State.
I want to get a sense as to when people believe police use of deadly force should be authorized, there's been a lot of discussion about this in the last year, I am interested to see what other people actually think about the topic versus what the law says.
you may select multiple answers.
There is no appropriate shoot to injure"! :dohFirst, the Police are trained to deal with the criminal element and should not scare as easily as the average citizen, ergo should never shoot because they feel frightened when no weapon is present.
Second, Police are trained marksmen, ergo should shoot to injure when a suspect flees.
Third, shooting is not a discretionary option.
Fourth, if a suspects actions present the actual threat to the lives of citizens, driving a car into a crowd, chain sawing a tree onto citizens, etc. That is a good time to shoot. To injure if the car is stopped. To injure if the chain saw is not actually cutting a tree. etc.
Fifth, Police shoot center mass and ergo are not sued by survivors because there are seldom survivors. The dead don't speak.
Sixth, if you give Police too much power and firepower, you will get a Police State.
My words exactly; you beat me to it!Simple. If the suspect reasonably presents an imminent threat of causing death or great bodily harm to the officer or someone else in the immediate vicinity.
I want to get a sense as to when people believe police use of deadly force should be authorized, there's been a lot of discussion about this in the last year, I am interested to see what other people actually think about the topic versus what the law says.
you may select multiple answers.
I want to get a sense as to when people believe police use of deadly force should be authorized, there's been a lot of discussion about this in the last year, I am interested to see what other people actually think about the topic versus what the law says.
you may select multiple answers.
I want to get a sense as to when people believe police use of deadly force should be authorized, there's been a lot of discussion about this in the last year, I am interested to see what other people actually think about the topic versus what the law says.
you may select multiple answers.
From my time at the Academy, long ago:
If you know the subject has committed a violent or armed felony
if you reasonably believe the subject's escape will seriously endanger the public
if the subject is armed and dangerous or has just attempted murder/rape/assault with a deadly weapon
As best I recall... and my instructor concluded with "and if you do it, you'd BETTER be right..."
This was over 20 years ago now.
Yeah there they are, I was just talking about these rules but I didn't know them, thanks!
I'm probably not quoting them word-for-word correctly, but that was the gist. The wonder is I can remember much of anything from over 20 years ago...
At common law, the fleeing felon rule permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight. Force may be used by the victim, bystanders, or police officers. According to David Caplan "Immediate stopping of the fleeing felon, whether actually or presumably dangerous, was deemed absolutely necessary for the security of the people in a free state, and for maintaining the "public security." ... " Indeed, it has been said that the social policy of the common law in this matter was not only to threaten dangerous felons and hence deter them, but was also to induce them to "surrender peaceably" if they dared commit inherently dangerous felonies, rather than allow them to "escape trial for their crimes."
If you knew anything about the use of weapons you would realize just how silly most of those ideas of yours are.First, the Police are trained to deal with the criminal element and should not scare as easily as the average citizen, ergo should never shoot because they feel frightened when no weapon is present.
Second, Police are trained marksmen, ergo should shoot to injure when a suspect flees.
Third, shooting is not a discretionary option.
Fourth, if a suspects actions present the actual threat to the lives of citizens, driving a car into a crowd, chain sawing a tree onto citizens, etc. That is a good time to shoot. To injure if the car is stopped. To injure if the chain saw is not actually cutting a tree. etc.
Fifth, Police shoot center mass and ergo are not sued by survivors because there are seldom survivors. The dead don't speak.
Sixth, if you give Police too much power and firepower, you will get a Police State.
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?