This Is Why Police Shoot Runners

[Djanco]

i seriously dont understand how this thread is supposed to encourage civil discourse or how it hasn't been locked yet.

[DoopDeDoo]

ROE for law enforcement should be at the same standard or higher that our military personnel are held to on foreign soil- as it stands now foreigners get more doubt and patience than US citizens. If you can't perform your job because you're constantly in fear- you shouldn't be a cop. It's far from the most dangerous job in the US, and honestly with requirements and training being so varied there's a plethora of incompetence in their ranks.

Now this case here? Things would have turned out better if the perp' was shot from the get go- but that shouldn't be our go-to policy.
2/10, Not even a good try OP Edgelord, not even a good try.

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?

[Ghostpanther]

Stuff like this will give even more people the reason to run from the police. They tend to get a little trigger happy; why take that chance?

Huh? Lol! I think it would give them even more reason not to run.

[Djanco]

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

[Ghostpanther]

So a cop is able to freely shoot you based solely off what the cop thinks ? You cannot prove or disprove what they are thinking in a moment, so you're basically giving anyone with a badge license to kill.

Again, an anecdote I've used before is where a cop had a vendetta against my friend's father and hassled him at his house for no other reason than he could and disliked him. When my friend's father left him, the cop shot at him (and missed). My friend's father shot back at him and hit.

The cop not only didn't get charged with ANYTHING, he continued to keep his job on "administrative duties". He lied on official reports and the police lost a civil lawsuit about the accusations those reports made against witnesses. He lost his job due to "budget cutbacks" based off that... but was immediately hired by a neighboring cities' police force with a raise and promotion.

How many jobs do you know of where you can shoot at someone in their own home simply because you don't like them and get promoted ?

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.

[Deleted]

Soldiers understand that unless someone is actually shooting at them they are not supposed to murder them. Why can't the police?

[Zelk]

maybe they should just shoot everyone in case they have a gun

[taliey]

We have a huge contingent of posters who think law enforcement should also serve as judge, jury, and executioner.

[Wyrt]

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!

[zEmini]

Huh? Lol! I think it would give them even more reason not to run.

Not when you have incidences of cops shooting people (mainly brown people) for very little cause. If putting your hands up and getting on the ground is enough to get shot to death, why not take your chances and run the fuck away?

[Deleted]

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.

By running the criminal sort of makes it look like he has done something far worse than just stealing a bike.

[Devilyaki]

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.

[Ghostpanther]

Not when you have incidences of cops shooting people (mainly brown people) for very little cause. If putting your hands up and getting on the ground is enough to get shot to death, why not take your chances and run the fuck away?

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.

[Deleted]

By running the criminal sort of makes it look like he has done something far worse than just stealing a bike.

It is not the job of the police to determine the suspects guilt, that is for a court of law to decide.

[Dug]

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.

[Deleted]

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.

I disagree. They should shoot when fired upon or when the suspect points a weapon at them. We can't have ordinary people (police officers) walking around deciding who is and who isn't a threat based on feelings.

[ipaq]

There is constant crying on these forums and from liberals about police shooting fleeing suspects. Well, now you see why they do it. This guy fled when the cops showed up, they went after him (without showering him in a hail of gunfire the instant he turned to run as they should have) he ran into some bushes to hide, so they got dogs. He got a good firing position, shot the dog, shot the dog handler, and shot 3 additional cops before being shot himself. So, there you go. That is why cops need to shoot fleeing suspects. Moral of the story: People who run are guilty and should be shot. If you aren't guilty, don't run. If you are guilty, and want to run, better hope you are quick and good at dodging bullets. Here is the story: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/01/16...-carolina.html A non Fox News link for the liberals: https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/n...469512453.html

Sorry bro but there is a lot of keystone cops in the US. They need better training.

[Ghostpanther]

I disagree. They should shoot when fired upon or when the suspect points a weapon at them. We can't have ordinary people (police officers) walking around deciding who is and who isn't a threat based on feelings.

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.

[Deleted]

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.

[Ghostpanther]

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.

Do you understand how fast a person can raise their weapon and shoot you? Or how fast one can close the distance between you and them and use a knife? You might be surprised.