Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not sure how I missed that. But regardless, Newark is 12th out of 241 cities. Nothing to brag about.
This still by no means says Newark is safe or even average in terms of safety for cities its size.
Never said either, and trust: no bragging rights are being sought. I was merely challenging the 'most violent of all' language which I still wouldn't agree with.
We don't have the money or time to have every policeman to be a "trick" shooter. Not realistic.
Learning how to shoot at someone in a way other than aiming to kill them shouldn't be considered a "trick", imo, and it's something we should find the time and money for. I'd say it's fairly important.
While maybe that was the case, there are plenty of problems with crime statistics and their analysis . . . but that's a can of worms best left for another board probably.
not only for a selected few.........who allow their morals to run amock.
What is morally right in my view is to not disallow any consensual actions. I also feel it is morally recommendable to pursue pleasurable consensual actions, whatever those may be for you.
Meh , you can't even Spell Jerseyites right hahahahahs.j/k.....I won't leave this state till every Urban Area is fixed
A more immediate problem might be fixing something like the NJ Turnpike (or the highway system in general). Cripes was that a mess last night. I stayed on it for one exit then decided that traffic lights would be preferable for the remaining 50 miles.
What do you think his wife felt about that? How about the top execs at his company? There is every reason to believe this man panicked when the cop revealed himself.
We do not disagree about how they, and others around him, would probably feel and what they'd probably do. It's just that I have a problem with the way they'd react and you wouldn't. I find the ingrained mores there ridiculous. I agree that's subjective. I'm a subject who is giving my opinion, my view. Other subjects will give their own views, too. Most of them, unfortunately (in my opinion) will have very similar views on that stuff. If there were a wider variety of typical reactions, I'd probably just go back to my corner and do something else rather than voicing my opinion on it.
I also agree that that's probably why he panicked.
Learning how to shoot at someone in a way other than aiming to kill them shouldn't be considered a "trick", imo, and it's something we should find the time and money for. I'd say it's fairly important.
Ever try to hit a slowly moving target with a handgun?
Try a quickly moving target that not only wants to hurt you but also avoid being hurt.
Shoot to wound is unrealistic and still leaves the criminal the opportunity to try and kill an arresting officer.
Ever try to hit a slowly moving target with a handgun?
Try a quickly moving target that not only wants to hurt you but also avoid being hurt.
Shoot to wound is unrealistic and still leaves the criminal the opportunity to try and kill an arresting officer.
They don't deserve that opportunity.
There's not going to be anything that I'd take as a justification for not training officers to not always shoot to kill.
That's not to say that there wouldn't be situations where they'd have no choice. However in a situation like this, the officer should be able to use a stun gun, avoid getting tackled if someone is lunging at them, etc.
You think we shouldn't spend the time and money to train them in that way. I think we should. I doubt either of us will end up changing sides.
There's not going to be anything that I'd take as a justification for not training officers to not always shoot to kill.
That's not to say that there wouldn't be situations where they'd have no choice. However in a situation like this, the officer should be able to use a stun gun, avoid getting tackled if someone is lunging at them, etc.
You think we shouldn't spend the time and money to train them in that way. I think we should. I doubt either of us will end up changing sides.
Police are trained to use non-lethal methods. That is why they carry stun guns and pepper spray. Next option is shoot to kill. There is no in between.
And be realistic. "avoid getting tackled if someone lunges at them". Police are not superhuman fighting machines.
Police are trained to use non-lethal methods. That is why they carry stun guns and pepper spray. Next option is shoot to kill. There is no in between.
I don't know what their training is, but others in the thread said that they were not trained in non-lethal weapons, as well as not being trained to shoot to wound.
Quote:
And be realistic. "avoid getting tackled if someone lunges at them". Police are not superhuman fighting machines.
No need to be a "superhuman fighting machine", just require them to take martial arts for a few years, including akido (and some kung fu, judo, etc.)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
