Maybe you should consider gun control.
#345,023
What OP and others don't realize is that, if you're in a certain place, and you're not white, if the police decide "you're it", and you don't run, you're going to jail, whether you were involved in any crime or not.
Well i know how fast a trigger pull is and i've had paramilitary groups pointing AK's at me. Still didn't feel a need to kill them even though it is likely they could have shot and killed a couple of us before we had time to respond.
- - - Updated - - -
Rather than shoot them? Yes that would be a preferable outcome.
"It's time to kick ass and chew bubblegum... and I'm all outta ass."
I'm a British gay Muslim Pakistani American citizen, ask me how that works! (terribly)
Last edited by Dr Assbandit; 2018-01-16 at 11:55 PM.
"It's time to kick ass and chew bubblegum... and I'm all outta ass."
I'm a British gay Muslim Pakistani American citizen, ask me how that works! (terribly)
That's an argument I never made.
Again, the point is that police officers have no authority to deny you your rights. Their authority requires that they respect your rights. Which means not going apeshit and shooting you just because you're armed.
If you're posing a threat, or they're trying to secure a location, that gives them authority to ask you to disarm, but that's a temporary measure. Unless they detain you, they have to give you back your weapon and let you go. They do not have any authority to change that. Only the courts do.
This is both A> completely fucking ridiculous and demonstrates a pretty immense failure to properly train police in basic threat assessment measures, and B> isn't about your rights in the first place.If someone invades your home and you kill the invader and call 911, you better not have in your hand your firearm when they arrive. They will consider you a armed threat. So at that moment, you do not have the right to possess that firearm until the police can determine you are the home owner and not the intruder. Our Constitutional right to keep and bare arms do have limits and the police, in a law enforcing role, can temporary keep you from exercising it.
Because you're entirely entitled to have and use that weapon, and while they can ask you to disarm, you have done nothing wrong at that point. You were acting within your rights. That's what this all means.
But you did make the statement the police can not deny a person their Constitutional rights, This is what you said " Even that's not acceptable, given the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to be armed. You can't shoot someone for exerting their legal rights, or it isn't a "right" in the first place.
But in the same breath now, say they can temporary. If they ask you drop a weapon and you do not, guess what, they can treat you as a deadly threat and shoot you and be justified. Here. But odds are you would be a crook anyway and thus not allowed by law to possess a firearm.
While you are in jail or in the back seat of a cruiser with the cuffs on, you can not exercise that right. They have for all practical applications, have on a temporarily bases, stopped your Constitutional right to keep and bare a firearm. Of course it is going to be up to the courts to have the final say on if that right will be permanent or for a certain time suspended.
Last edited by Ghostpanther; 2018-01-17 at 02:41 AM.
Did you know technology has been created where you shoot someone with a projectile that embeds in the top layer of flesh and shocks them into unconsciousness.
If one isn't enough you can use more.
I am fine with police having lethal weapons, but instant incapacitation weapons are not deployed as standard issue why? Not cost effective.
That's not an inconsistency.
You're conflating two different things. It's the same way a police can prevent homeowners from entering a crime scene in their home. It doesn't negate their property rights to that property, it just limits their capacity to express that right temporarily due to exigent circumstances. The moment those circumstances end, your right is still there, unchanged.
I agree with that. If a person is running away from the police with a weapon clearly seen on them by the police, it more than likely means the person would not have the right to lawfully posses a firearm anyway. The Second Amendment applies to a lawful citizen's right. Which is how the states can get by with limited that right concerning criminals. The smart thing to do is not run away or break the law by carrying unlawfully a weapon.
Honestly, this does not sound like an issue of shooting fleeing suspects to me. It sounds like another valid example of why we should have better gun control laws and reduce the access people have to firearms.
so all cops should be psychics so they can know ahead of time if a suspect that runs off has a conceealed weapon on him? that'll work out perfectly.
People that run should be treated as a potential threat, however cops shouldn't aim to kill them but we cant blame cops when things get out of hand like having a potentially armed suspect running away from you then pulling out a gun.
1> somehow police in the Netherlands are able to do this.
2> how does this matter? Shooting center mass always has more chance of a fatality.
3> Again, how is it that in Europe this is common practice and it is very rare for bystanders to get hurt.
4> Its not really lethal force if someone is shot in the leg. Can be, but most of the time its not.
Last edited by mmoc4a3002ee3c; 2018-01-17 at 10:33 AM.
I like how the usual suspects of pro-cop outrage seemingly try so hard to bait liberals and progressives out. The insecurity is so real.
OT: I mean. Better training could have prevented him fleeing into the bushes? I'm not sure what point you're trying to prove with this, I'll be honest. Sounds like the guy was ready to take life regardless if he fled or not. The difference being I'd rather not the first instinct of my police to be 'shoot to thrill' as soon as someone turns their back.
But hey, I guess that thought is lost on people who care more about blunt effectiveness no matter the cost.
Last edited by Blamblam41; 2018-01-17 at 09:57 AM.
There is absolutely no basis for individual rights to firearms or self defense under any contextual interpretation of the second amendment of the United States Constitution. It defines clearly a militia of which is regulated of the people and arms, for the expressed purpose of protection of the free state. Unwillingness to take in even the most basic and whole context of these laws is exactly the road to anarchy.