This Is Why Police Shoot Runners

[Cruor]

Running means you're either guilty of something, or you're too stupid to stay put to prove you're innocent.

Yes thank you. Why can't you all see this simple fact?

[Krigaren]

While I agree that no cop should ever shot a fleeing criminal in the back, if said criminal has a firearm or a knife and is a death threat to the police officer or other civilians, then shoot them. A person with a knife can close a gap between you and himself, fairly fast.

If the cops can identify - for certain - that a fleeing suspect has a weapon, then yes. They are a threat, or will become a threat to themselves, to the police, or to an innocent in the populace.

But to have a policy of shooting anyone that flees regardless of the situation? Absolutely wrong. Absolutely no. Absolutely intolerable.

[Stardrift]

If you left this line out, you'd have hit a home run with me. But this particular line is quite off. Not all offenses deserve the death sentence. If it was a non-violent offense, such as stealing someone's bike, I don't think (even if they ran) they should be shot and killed.

It's all about law enforcement. Keyword being enforcement. Shows others what will happen if you try to break the law and run away from it.

[Ghostpanther]

Wrong. I got an in fraction, look back on like page 3. I got infracted for saying I believe criminals should be shot if they run. I did not directly insult, flame or troll anyone at any time in this thread. At the same time, the guys who say I should die for thinking this way DON"T get infracted. You do not get infracted because you do not have right leaning view points. Someone got in a huff over the thread and got one of the left leaning mods to help them out because their feelings were hurt.

A mod edited your post and said it was for trolling. You should take it up them. But I stand by my statement. It is easy to avoid infractions.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not a privilege in the first place. That's sort of the entire point of the 2nd Amendment.

You are correct. But you lose that right under certain circumstances. Such as committing a crime while in possession of a loaded firearm. Which is a felon.

[helebelemon]

I'm more surprised that a man hanging such a flag with pride and joy would shoot the police. Scratch that, I'm more surprised Fox News would report this.

[Ealyssa]

But if you don't run they shoot you for reasons.

The only true solution is likely to be fucking police training.

[Karnige]

Do you really think this case is an excuse to shoot running people in the back? Cops should be able to defend themselves, but people running are no immediate danger. Do you really support proactively killing people because they MIGHT become a threat later? That's laughable.

dont run then. cops shouldn't be babysitting and sadly america feels this is the need now. no thanks not my country to live in

[Elegiac]

But if you don't run they shoot you for reasons.

The only true solution is likely to be fucking police training.

Hey now, incompetence is a reason.

[Ehrenpanzer]

They're paid to take that risk.



They have murdered people who don't have guns for defending themselves against attack dogs.

The point your making is that they should shoot people on the basis they might somehow run off and get a gun but they themselves present a present threat to the public. Should the public then respond the same way to them?

True. Now imagine this same scenario played out, except when he shot at the cops he missed and killed 3 kids riding home from school on the bus. Can you imagine the outrage from the fickle morons of the world about why they didnt shoot when they had the chance?

[Ghostpanther]

Any time a gun is used in a crime it is related to gun control as that’s what gives the people the right to have the firearm in the first place.

The mods have a different opinion. Once a thread becomes a debate back and forth about gun control, they will close the thread and direct us to the Gun Control thread. Seen it happen several times. And no, felons do not have the right to keep and bear arms. There are other circumstances and conditions besides a felon which would warrant them losing that right.

[Atreyes]

That or you start working on the gun problem in the US.
That way, in time no one needs to get shot.

How? Theres so many guns in the US now that criminals will have them no matter what, all you do is deny law abiding citizens the chance to defend theirselves.

How hard is it just NOT to run?

[Endus]

I agree we probably shouldn't shoot runners in the back but those jobs you listed while more "dangerous" are more dangerous because of accidents and not the dangers of walking up to someone on the job and getting attacked.

I don't see how that's an important distinction.

The point is that being a police officer is not a particularly dangerous profession, and thus there's no real justification for giving them broad powers to step up lethality to defend themselves proactively, rather than reactively to an identified lethal threat.

You are correct. But you lose that right under certain circumstances. Such as committing a crime while in possession of a loaded firearm. Which is a felon.

Police officers do not have that authority, and by no means should have such. Police officers do not decide what your rights are or are not. The courts do. All police officers are entitled to do is ensure your appointment with said courts.

What you're talking about is essentially an officer passing sentence on a free citizen without any form of trial, which is directly opposed to the concept of a free society and specifically banned by the Constitution of the USA.

[Aggrophobic]

How? Theres so many guns in the US now that criminals will have them no matter what, all you do is deny law abiding citizens the chance to defend theirselves.

How hard is it just NOT to run?

You have to start somewhere. Arming everyone is obviously not working very well for you.
I mean, your president is scared of terrorists when it's more likely that his neibourghs toddler is going to shot him with a handgun. It's a rather silly situation you're in.

People are also getting shot by the police while face down on the floor so, you know. The gun-scare is real.

[judgementofantonidas]

Do you really think this case is an excuse to shoot running people in the back? Cops should be able to defend themselves, but people running are no immediate danger. Do you really support proactively killing people because they MIGHT become a threat later? That's laughable.

No. But if someone is so disrespectful of a police officer's right to detain and question you as to force them to pursue you they absolutely should be authorized to shoot to disable with no legal battle afterwards.

By being a citizen you agree to submit to their authority. Just like you agree to submit to taxes.

[Padyx]

As an LEO myself, I always find it funny how people break down these situations. It's comparable to how people break down why xyz athlete didn't do abc instead of 123.

Just remember people, at the end of the day I am making sure everyone I work with is going home to their family. Are there bad cops? Sure. There are bad people in every profession. Unfortunately given the authority bestowed upon a LEO, their flaws and bad decision making are elevated to a level above.

To place a blanket on "you shouldn't shoot someone running" is far too black and white. There are very few decisions in Law Enforcement that are black and white.

Suspect driving a car, failing to maintain lane, driving under the speed limit, hitting curbs, with a smell of an alcoholic beverage, and multiple indications of intoxication on SFSTs - Black and white.

Suspect with a fire arm, on foot, running away - Not black and white. What is the nature of the offense? What time of day? Where are we located? What is close by? Where is he running to? How far is the shot? What is my backdrop?

[Mindark]

Well, I'm done. I expressed my views already. Apparently not valuing the lives of criminals is "trolling" by the views of the leftist mods here so I am just going to keep getting infracted for expressing my view points.

Maybe you should just follow the rules. At least you weren't killed..

[DrStiglit]

The mods have a different opinion. Once a thread becomes a debate back and forth about gun control, they will close the thread and direct us to the Gun Control thread. Seen it happen several times. And no, felons do not have the right to keep and bear arms. There are other circumstances and conditions besides a felon which would warrant them losing that right.

For the sake of the thread I’ll say no more! I also get and understand your point here and anything else I could say would just be taking it down a slippery slope.

[LaserChild9]

Moral of the story: People who run are guilty and should be shot. If you aren't guilty, don't run.

And here are some links to illustrate why shooting runners is wrong:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Walter_Scott
http://www.phillyvoice.com/philly-po...-wanted-honda/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...olice-shooting

That's 2 mins of searching, seems to me they get it wrong more often than they get it right. Fact is, those were innocent people, if the police would lay off the donuts and get some exercise they might be able to actually do their jobs and chase down people, lethal force should be a last resort, not something you turn to coz you are too fucking lazy to run.

My brother was in the forces and he was taught by them that every bullet you shoot has to be justified and if someone is running away, regardless of previous actions, they are no longer a big enough threat to justify lethal force.

[Ashnazg]

In a country where everyone has a gun you should respect that the cops value their life too and have to play 100% safe to return to their family after their work day. Thats the price for having such a gun culture. Work safety of cops > some innocents shot imho (lets be real most who run arent "innocent").

You sure you don't want to live in NK with that logic?

Cops get paid for taking risks, end of story. They get paid to jeopardize their lives to protect civilians ("To protect and serve", right?), not to protect their own lives and gun down innocent civilians.

[Daymanmb]

If the officer for a second believes the suspect is armed, shoot.

So an Officer can shoot anyone they believe is armed? Thats insane.