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.
This is 100% spot on. If I'm on a jury and LE fired upon a suspect due to them stealing a weapon while being placed under arrest, there's no way I hit that officer with murder charges. Suspect has a weapon and I have 1 second to figure out what to do before I find out what the suspect's going to do with their weapon. Shoot to kill. This is not the same as Minneapolis. LE is in the right here.
Tasers are a good alternative for the police to use. They should keep them. The worst of the police would love nothing more than to ditch the tasers and bring back their nightsticks.
You do know that the prosecutor would not want you on the jury the same way that a BLM protester wouldn't be wanted by the defense attorney. Right?
I asked this before and ask again.
Why they do not shoot legs? Buttocks?
I don't know the answer, but perhaps it has to do with liability? If a citizen gets wounded, would they be able to sue a police department for even more money?
I asked this before and ask again.
Why they do not shoot legs? Buttocks?
Because the purpose of shooting a belligerent detainee when deadly force is warranted isn't for them to say "ow that hurts." The purpose is to neutralize the threat they pose. The quickest and surest way to do that is to aim for center mass.
They fired him and charged him because of public lynch mob. He'll be free and will be rewarded handsomely by the taxpayers when it goes to trial because any legal expert will tell you that what he did was completely by the book. When you are a trained officer you can be penalized for allowing a criminal to use your firearm. It is a higher duty to protect your firearm from a civilian and when a civilian crosses that line they are automatically within reason to be fired at.
So your reasoning does not align with the guidelines and training that officers must adhere to. It just sucks that he has to sick in jail awaiting for trial but he'll be free because it was on video and his bodycam.
The min anyone takes a weapon from a cop and points back, they will 9/10 times be fired at by a trained officer. In training they go through situations like that and in order to graduate cadet school they have to master subduing a suspect who points a weapon of any sort back.
So it wasn't very smart of the suspect to point a weapon back and any criminal knows if you dare to point back at a cop you had better be a professional shooter.
A taser is not a firearm. And the officer's defense wasn't that he was trying to prevent a civilian from using the officer's weapon. It was that he feared for his life. That's a lie. He probably said it, because everyone knows, that's what protects you from a murder rap, IF you're faced with a lethal weapon. But he wasn't faced with such a weapon. But it was the first thing that popped into his head, because that's how cops think; it was an automatic response. It just didn't fit the situation.
Last edited by Ruth4Truth; 06-19-2020 at 06:04 PM..
I asked this before and ask again.
Why they do not shoot legs? Buttocks?
This would make sense in some situations, but the answer I was given on another thread some time ago, was that it's too easy to miss. lol. That depends on how close you are, and how much target practice you've done. But anyway, that's how they're trained, and that's generally how people who buy guns for home defense are trained, as well.
I don't know the answer, but perhaps it has to do with liability? If a citizen gets wounded, would they be able to sue a police department for even more money?
If a civilian is killed, his family can sue. So what's the difference, except that one choice has a higher chance of killing, the other in most cases only wounds or temporarily disables?
It's the 'dont bring a knife to a gun fight'.
Neither a taser or a bullet are anyones 'choice' to be harmed or hindered by.
So let's get that mindset off the table.
Incapacitating a perpetrator in the mist of a crime.....try a lasso. A net. Pepper spray. The reality is for every 'weapon' out there folks will give ten excuses why terminating them was the 'only' option.
I can't imagine having to fend off a violent criminal. I'd have to cook up a quick meal and serve it mighty quick. My ex said my meals were a bit deadly..
But it isn't being discussed seriously. Anyone who thinks a person other than an armed police officer should respond to a domestic violence call can't be serious.
Unfortunately, they ARE being serious. They're just woefully naïve.
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.
