This Is Why Police Shoot Runners

[Mormolyce]

Maybe you should consider gun control.

#345,023

[Deleted]

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

Would you rather have them let criminals get away?

[Polyxo]

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.

[Deleted]

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.

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 - - -

Would you rather have them let criminals get away?

Rather than shoot them? Yes that would be a preferable outcome.

[Dr Assbandit]

Would you rather have them let criminals get away?

Are you seriously suggesting that just because a criminal or two might possibly get away (slim chance) that it's perfectly fine to kill innocents just to make sure?

[Ghostpanther]

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.

So you do understand. Police officers also have the right to self defense.

What if they escape and then later murder someone?

Keep in mind, I am not for the police to shoot a unarmed criminal just because they are running away.

[Dr Assbandit]

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.

If there is anything I have learned from these forums it's that institutionalized racism doesn't exist unless it's against white people .

[Endus]

No I did not. I was responding to your false assumption the right to keep and bare arms is a unconditional right. It isn't.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Flame6]

I nearly always side with the cops in these situations, but I don't think they should be able to shoot a fleeing suspect unless he's confirmed to have a weapon.

[Ghostpanther]

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.

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.

[Speaknoevil]

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.

[Endus]

But you did make the statement the police can not deny a person their Constitutional rights, which is why a person would have a firearm 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.

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.

[Ghostpanther]

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.

I would be for that if the criminal has no deadly weapon. They do and they get to fire off a round at you, their projectile is going to be deadly. :P

[Speaknoevil]

I would be for that if the criminal has no deadly weapon. They do and they get to fire off a round at you, their projectile is going to be deadly. :P

Someone spasming and then unconscious is less of a threat than someone who has a gsw to the chest and wants to kill you.

I am a gun owner btw.

[Ghostpanther]

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.

[Aleastor]

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.

[Ghostpanther]

Someone spasming and then unconscious is less of a threat than someone who has a gsw to the chest and wants to kill you.

I am a gun owner btw.

I am all for non lethal uses. Does not negate my concerns for my own safety however, if I was a police officer. The item would have to prove how reliable it is.

[announced]

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.

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.

[Deleted]

1> Shooting a small, moving target on an evading suspect with a handgun is basically a fool's errand unless you're a competition-level professional marksman, and cops aren't. Unless your police officers are hitting and downing one target for every bullet fired, they aren't performing at a level where this would be feasible.
2> Shooting someone in the arm or leg can clip a major artery and cause the target to bleed out anyway.
3> Shooting said small, more-mobile target and missing puts bystanders at greater risk.
4> Using a handgun or rifle is lethal force. If you don't intend to kill your target, you have no business using the weapon in the first place.

Pick any of the above, though the real answer is all of that and possibly more I'm overlooking.

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.

[Blamblam41]

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.