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.
When it comes to guns, it does not matter if he's mentally ill. HeHe's a threat to himself, the police, and the publicpublic.he already pointed the gun AT officers.there is little time to waste
It's kind of amazing that the rest of the world can manage to not kill people who are threatening suicide w/ a dangerous weapon. Is this the American Exceptionalism we're supposed to believe in?
It's kind of amazing that the rest of the world can manage to not kill people who are threatening suicide w/ a dangerous weapon. Is this the American Exceptionalism we're supposed to believe in?
Police all over the world shoot suicidal persons with weapons. Again, this is a GUN. A gun that only takes 5 lbs, to pull the trigger.
What if instead of the police showing up, the fire department did and took him out of action with a fire hose. Or if not that, less than lethal rounds but let us say the fire hose.
An 84 year old man, hit with the blast from a fire hose, would probably fall down and there would be a decent chance of breaking bones to put him on a walker if not more for the rest of his life....but at least he would be alive, right?
Odds are, though, then we would have all these arm chair quarterbacks saying "Well, why didn't they do this, instead?".
Someone getting to jump off a building, you can clear the area under them. Someone waving a gun around, well, that's really not a one person at risk situation, is it?
Recently a paranoid schizophrenic was mad and disruptive. Police called. The psychotic was not threating police, or himself, he was just mad. At least until he jumped into a local pond and drowned. The police could have saved him by tazeing but because he didn't threaten them, it wasn't warranted.
It's mind boggling that so many of you think this is part of what law enforcement should be doing. NOWHERE ELSE in the rest of the world has cops shooting people who are threatening to shoot themselves. What kind of warped sense of entitlement do you need to have to justify killing someone who you were specifically called to prevent from shooting themselves?
Hmmm yes maybe he thought he was doing this guy a favour...... It seemed like he wanted to die......
It's mind boggling that so many of you think this is part of what law enforcement should be doing. NOWHERE ELSE in the rest of the world has cops shooting people who are threatening to shoot themselves. What kind of warped sense of entitlement do you need to have to justify killing someone who you were specifically called to prevent from shooting themselves?
A guy with a gun is dangerous. These LEOs did not know if the man might shoot them, someone else or him. Sine they were called because he was threatening suicide, that could mean he was planning to die suicide by cop or maybe he was waiting to take an officer or two with him. I'm not sure what you expected the LEOs to do.
It's mind boggling that so many of you think this is part of what law enforcement should be doing. NOWHERE ELSE in the rest of the world has cops shooting people who are threatening to shoot themselves. What kind of warped sense of entitlement do you need to have to justify killing someone who you were specifically called to prevent from shooting themselves?
Well, look at it from this way, in the words of Robert Heinlein in his book "The Number of the Beast" ....... "where the most popular form of suicide is to take a rifle atop a tower and let the Riot Squad settle it.".
That is the world we live in where people are going off to a place with a gun and they don't intend to come back.
So you're the dispatcher; how do you know, how do you tell that the person threatening to shoot themselves are only intending to shoot themselves?
It's mind boggling that so many of you think this is part of what law enforcement should be doing. NOWHERE ELSE in the rest of the world has cops shooting people who are threatening to shoot themselves. What kind of warped sense of entitlement do you need to have to justify killing someone who you were specifically called to prevent from shooting themselves?
The Police in the US vary in terms of firearms training, and there are so many law enforcement agencies including very small sheriffs departments, so it's a lottery.
Even some larger police departments only require very basic training as part of initial entry training, whilst officers are rarely prosecuted, whilst the police generally look after and protect fellow officers.
In terms of the UK officers must pass training and probation traning amounting to two years, and we are bringing in degrees for all officers. Only after this training can an officer apply to be an Authorised Firearms Officer (AFO), you must complete a 12 week training program.
This is an extremely rigorous and demanding course, the candidates undertake weekly assessments and qualification shoots and can be binned at any stage for a fail indeed the failure rate is high. The emphasis is always on containment and not about using the gun.
As well as the initial course, AFO’s re-qualify every 3 months and must pass the mandatory fitness test. If an AFO fails either, they have their firearms ticket pulled until they pass.
This is the basic level of firearms training, the more advanced courses are in relation to full time firearms officers who constantly train in their speciality.
Last edited by Brave New World; 03-21-2018 at 05:47 AM..
A lot of armchair quarterbacking here. None of you were there.
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.