i seriously dont understand how this thread is supposed to encourage civil discourse or how it hasn't been locked yet.
i seriously dont understand how this thread is supposed to encourage civil discourse or how it hasn't been locked yet.
wat
The hell you say? You realize they have to interact with individuals in high stress situations? Individuals who they do not know. Individuals who can act in a variety of ways - irrational, violent, emotional, etc. Individuals whom can be a danger to themselves and to others. Every day.
If that doesn't male the most dangerous job in the US list, Christ, what does?
here's literally the first thing that pops up if you google it: http://time.com/5074471/most-dangerous-jobs/
try googling before being so quick to lick boots
I did not say freely like he does not like your hair style. :P He has to show he has reasonable reasons to feel you are a threat. As a gun carrier, with a license to conceal/carry, I know what my responsibilities are under my state law. One of the most important ones is to obey a lawful order of the police.
For example, in Ohio, if I am pulled over by the police, I have to, by law, inform them I have a loaded firearm in my car. After that is done, I need to follow the officer's instructions in how he wants me to handle the position of the firearm. Failure to do that, can result in the officer arresting me and securing my firearm. If I physically resist his orders, he can legally consider me a deadly threat since I already told him I have a loaded firearm.
Last edited by Ghostpanther; 2018-01-16 at 10:59 PM.
Soldiers understand that unless someone is actually shooting at them they are not supposed to murder them. Why can't the police?
maybe they should just shoot everyone in case they have a gun
We have a huge contingent of posters who think law enforcement should also serve as judge, jury, and executioner.
Whoever loves let him flourish. / Let him perish who knows not love. / Let him perish twice who forbids love. - Pompeii
Ah, yes, shoot them in case they have a gun. That should just be standard police procedure. Pull someone over? Better shoot them in case they have a gun. Someone walking their dog at 1 AM? Better shoot them, they might have a gun. Guy drinking in public? Got to shoot them, could have a gun!
Brilliant! You solved all the police problems!
I am on the cops side 99% of the time, they do not need to shoot ever runner. They can use their judgement on which pose the threat. But that has to do with how they are trained.
Na. In the great majority of the cases, people get shot because they are demonstrating they are a threat. Sure there are isolated cases where the police have gone too far. Like the one case of the officer in SC, where he shot a fleeing suspect, who was unarmed, he will serve some time in prison. Maybe for the rest of his life. Which he should.
Be me, a person who grew up in a family full of law enforcement and have first hand experience with them and the things they go through and respect their job.
Also be me, not a cop boot licker who finds no faults with them what so ever.
If a suspect has a firearm or even a knife and does not follow the officer's orders to drop it, I can pretty much guarantee you the odds are he is going to get shot and the law will be on the officer's side. The moment he has clearly shown he has a deadly weapon and is not willing to follow the police orders, he becomes a deadly threat.
In America maybe. In the civilized world that is not always the case, as it should be. Cops aren't supposed to be executioners. A suspect merely refusing to drop a weapon should NOT be cause to execute him but the law should err on the side of the police officers if lethal forced is used. A suspect pointing a weapon at the police or lunging at them IS cause though.