|
On February 17 2013 14:15 FallDownMarigold wrote:
But what would you say about the cop's decision if it turned out that he genuinely interpreted the actions of the guy along with all the factors of the situation and other guys present as being a lethal threat? What would you criticize him for then, if it turned out he had good reason to act that way?
I'm really not bringing this up because I think I know exactly what happened. I'm just raising the question because it seems possible yet no one wants to approach it that way. It seems the more common assumption is that the officer truly felt no threat, and only fired because he was acting out of line in a murderous fashion.
It may be true that he did not fire because he felt he had to -- but it may also be true that he evaluated the situation to the best of his ability and came to that conclusion, in which case it seems like the worst he deserves is to be relieved of duty rather than prosecuted as a murderer.
It doesn't matter if he felt a threat. The problem is that these cops "feel" a threat when they're pissed off, when it's a minority kid that he doesn't like, when they're tired, or for any other BS reason that gets people killed unnecessarily. If you are legally allowed to carry a gun and use deadly force on citizens, you have the responsibility to be competently - actually, excellently trained in analyzing a situation and deciding when to use deadly force. Again, when you are legally allowed to use deadly force like this, you shouldn't get leniency; the expectations are necessarily high because you have a legal pass to use physical (possibly deadly) force on a citizen. The logic simply doesn't add up; if he was running like he was in the video, he shouldn't be any threat to the cop, and even after that, when he's down with a bullet to the back, the cop could've done a number of other things besides firing multiple kill-shots to the back, but he didn't. This is why this is a problem.
|
I'm more worried about the fact that they 'found' a gun with no prints on it. If it was planted (a reasonable assumption, if the claim about no prints is true), he didn't just make a mistake, he, and probably some of his collegues covered it up.
You can't defend that by saying the victim shouldn't have run.
|
Perhaps some cops feel a threat merely because they're pissed off or racist. I suppose that's a possibility. But what if this cop was a normal cop, and at worst made a poor judgement with regard to what he wrongly perceived as lethal threat? I think in that case it is reasonable to question whether it's right to assume he was a wild, racist, or pissed off cop. He may have been an honest cop who evaluated a situation and concluded he was in lethal danger, whether or not it was an accurate conclusion.
To us it may seem that the threat was not lethal. But we were not there in his position, considering all the factors from his perspective, so we cannot know with certainty that he was not actually perceiving a genuine lethal threat.
Again, I'm not saying this because I am a cop lover or apologist. I just think it's fair.
|
On February 17 2013 14:23 hypercube wrote:
I'm more worried about the fact that they 'found' a gun with no prints on it. If it was planted (a reasonable assumption, if the claim about no prints is true), he didn't just make a mistake, he, and probably some of his collegues covered it up.
You can't defend that by saying the victim shouldn't have run.
Then why did one of the witnesses on scene claim that he knew the suspect had a gun beforehand AND hear him yell to the officer that he had a weapon?
|
Man watching someone die. I can never get used to that. Why shoot a man who's running away from you?
|
On February 17 2013 14:25 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Perhaps some cops feel a threat merely because they're pissed off or racist. I suppose that's a possibility. But what if this cop was a normal cop, and at worst made a poor judgement with regard to what he wrongly perceived as lethal threat? I think in that case it is reasonable to question whether it's right to assume he was a wild, racist, or pissed off cop. He may have been an honest cop who evaluated a situation and concluded he was in lethal danger, whether or not it was an accurate conclusion.
To us it may seem that the threat was not lethal. But we were not there in his position, considering all the factors from his perspective, so we cannot know with certainty that he was not actually perceiving a genuine lethal threat.
Again, I'm not saying this because I am a cop lover or apologist. I just think it's fair.
Then he should still be punished in a proper manner. A mistake is a mistake and we don't burn people at the stake for making them, but at the same time, you have the legal leeway to use deadly force on citizens; (assuming that the cop did genuinely feel threatened but was not actually in a threatening situation) this cop took a kid's life. You don't get do-overs or "you're just learning" with this kind of power. If you fuck up, you need to be held responsible.
|
On February 17 2013 14:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 14:25 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Perhaps some cops feel a threat merely because they're pissed off or racist. I suppose that's a possibility. But what if this cop was a normal cop, and at worst made a poor judgement with regard to what he wrongly perceived as lethal threat? I think in that case it is reasonable to question whether it's right to assume he was a wild, racist, or pissed off cop. He may have been an honest cop who evaluated a situation and concluded he was in lethal danger, whether or not it was an accurate conclusion.
To us it may seem that the threat was not lethal. But we were not there in his position, considering all the factors from his perspective, so we cannot know with certainty that he was not actually perceiving a genuine lethal threat.
Again, I'm not saying this because I am a cop lover or apologist. I just think it's fair. Then he should still be punished in a proper manner. A mistake is a mistake and we don't burn people at the stake for making them, but at the same time, you have the legal leeway to use deadly force on citizens; (assuming that the cop did genuinely feel threatened but was not actually in a threatening situation) this cop took a kid's life. You don't get do-overs or "you're just learning" with this kind of power. If you fuck up, you need to be held responsible.
I agree in the case that he made a mistake in his evaluation that he should be punished accordingly (e.g. relieved from duty or something -- perhaps a fine to his department). I don't know for certain whether or not he did make a mistake, so that's the difficulty in coming to a final judgement on him. Evidently the court/system found him to not be mistaken, but I suppose it is possible that they are incompetent or colluding against the victim.
On February 17 2013 14:28 KingAce wrote:
Man watching someone die. I can never get used to that. Why shoot a man who's running away from you?
I think in most cases you would not choose to shoot a person running away from you. However if you are in contact with a perceived lethal threat, it may be necessary to ensure that the threat is eliminated when, for example, you believe that the threat remains as it is fleeing or will remain after finding cover in a retreat.
I suppose that a clear sign of the threat being eliminated would be when the person surrendered the weapon or when the person stopped fleeing and displayed open hands away from the body in order to verify no possibility for further lethal action.
I don't know what the situation was here -- perhaps the cop really was just out for blood -- but that seems to be one reason one might opt to shoot a fleeing individual.
|
On February 17 2013 14:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 14:25 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Perhaps some cops feel a threat merely because they're pissed off or racist. I suppose that's a possibility. But what if this cop was a normal cop, and at worst made a poor judgement with regard to what he wrongly perceived as lethal threat? I think in that case it is reasonable to question whether it's right to assume he was a wild, racist, or pissed off cop. He may have been an honest cop who evaluated a situation and concluded he was in lethal danger, whether or not it was an accurate conclusion.
To us it may seem that the threat was not lethal. But we were not there in his position, considering all the factors from his perspective, so we cannot know with certainty that he was not actually perceiving a genuine lethal threat.
Again, I'm not saying this because I am a cop lover or apologist. I just think it's fair. Then he should still be punished in a proper manner. A mistake is a mistake and we don't burn people at the stake for making them, but at the same time, you have the legal leeway to use deadly force on citizens; (assuming that the cop did genuinely feel threatened but was not actually in a threatening situation) this cop took a kid's life. You don't get do-overs or "you're just learning" with this kind of power. If you fuck up, you need to be held responsible.
if he did something wrong he would have been punished, thats how the system works... he was found innocent after investigation. Did you not read the thread? Why are you still posting here? Are you arguing some other theoretical situation that didn't happen here?
|
On February 17 2013 14:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 14:11 HackBenjamin wrote:
I think police should not be allowed to have guns. Maybe some kind of weapon to incapacitate their victims rather than something that can end a life. We have these wonderful things called rubber bullets, why don't they get used instead of lead? ...But dis is 'Murrrica, and they're our guns!!! Seriously, with the amount of guns in this country, the police would be handicapped without them. On a side note, it speaks volumes about the state of this country that police officers need guns just to properly enforce the law, whereas in other developed countries, they don't need them at all.
This simply isn't true. The police would not be handicapped without them, at least patrolmen wouldn't.
http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2011-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-and-assaulted
Only 72 cops were killed in action in 2011, and of them, only ~50 were shot. If you include non-fatal shootings, around 2000 were shot/shot at. That might sound like a lot, but remember, there's around 800,000 police officers in the US,(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_police_officers) so it's still exceedingly rare.
|
On February 17 2013 14:26 Reedjr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 14:23 hypercube wrote:
I'm more worried about the fact that they 'found' a gun with no prints on it. If it was planted (a reasonable assumption, if the claim about no prints is true), he didn't just make a mistake, he, and probably some of his collegues covered it up.
You can't defend that by saying the victim shouldn't have run. Then why did one of the witnesses on scene claim that he knew the suspect had a gun beforehand AND hear him yell to the officer that he had a weapon?
I guess it's possible but you gotta ask why the DA's report has no mention of the victim's prints or lack thereof. Also, having a gun is no reason to run, unless you had used it kill someone, for example.
|
On February 17 2013 14:40 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 14:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 17 2013 14:11 HackBenjamin wrote:
I think police should not be allowed to have guns. Maybe some kind of weapon to incapacitate their victims rather than something that can end a life. We have these wonderful things called rubber bullets, why don't they get used instead of lead? ...But dis is 'Murrrica, and they're our guns!!! Seriously, with the amount of guns in this country, the police would be handicapped without them. On a side note, it speaks volumes about the state of this country that police officers need guns just to properly enforce the law, whereas in other developed countries, they don't need them at all. This simply isn't true. The police would not be handicapped without them, at least patrolmen wouldn't. http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2011-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-and-assaultedOnly 72 cops were killed in action in 2011, and of them, only ~50 were shot. If you include non-fatal shootings, around 2000 were shot/shot at. That might sound like a lot, but remember, there's around 800,000 police officers in the US,(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_police_officers) so it's still exceedingly rare.
2000 events occurred where people were bold enough to fire at armed police and you for some reason believe this number would be lower if police were equipped with high-fives and peace signs? Now you're just being delusional.
|
On February 17 2013 14:40 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 14:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 17 2013 14:11 HackBenjamin wrote:
I think police should not be allowed to have guns. Maybe some kind of weapon to incapacitate their victims rather than something that can end a life. We have these wonderful things called rubber bullets, why don't they get used instead of lead? ...But dis is 'Murrrica, and they're our guns!!! Seriously, with the amount of guns in this country, the police would be handicapped without them. On a side note, it speaks volumes about the state of this country that police officers need guns just to properly enforce the law, whereas in other developed countries, they don't need them at all. This simply isn't true. The police would not be handicapped without them, at least patrolmen wouldn't. http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2011-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-and-assaultedOnly 72 cops were killed in action in 2011, and of them, only ~50 were shot. If you include non-fatal shootings, around 2000 were shot/shot at. That might sound like a lot, but remember, there's around 800,000 police officers in the US,(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_police_officers) so it's still exceedingly rare.
I'm not sure how that stat is pertinent. You have no idea what would have happened in the same period if people knew cops weren't armed.
|
On February 17 2013 14:40 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 14:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 17 2013 14:11 HackBenjamin wrote:
I think police should not be allowed to have guns. Maybe some kind of weapon to incapacitate their victims rather than something that can end a life. We have these wonderful things called rubber bullets, why don't they get used instead of lead? ...But dis is 'Murrrica, and they're our guns!!! Seriously, with the amount of guns in this country, the police would be handicapped without them. On a side note, it speaks volumes about the state of this country that police officers need guns just to properly enforce the law, whereas in other developed countries, they don't need them at all. This simply isn't true. The police would not be handicapped without them, at least patrolmen wouldn't. http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2011-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-and-assaultedOnly 72 cops were killed in action in 2011, and of them, only ~50 were shot. If you include non-fatal shootings, around 2000 were shot/shot at. That might sound like a lot, but remember, there's around 800,000 police officers in the US,(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_police_officers) so it's still exceedingly rare.
It seems possible that given the number of guns already present in the US, police officers would not bring the same level of security and control without their own weapons equipped. Maybe it is possible that police are not targeted by those with weapons in some cases due to the fact that the police possess their own weapons.
The best case for the US might possibly be less guns overall, in which case it may be possible for police to rely less on carrying weapons to maintain security, as is the case in many European countries
|
On February 17 2013 14:38 WritersBlock wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 14:31 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 17 2013 14:25 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Perhaps some cops feel a threat merely because they're pissed off or racist. I suppose that's a possibility. But what if this cop was a normal cop, and at worst made a poor judgement with regard to what he wrongly perceived as lethal threat? I think in that case it is reasonable to question whether it's right to assume he was a wild, racist, or pissed off cop. He may have been an honest cop who evaluated a situation and concluded he was in lethal danger, whether or not it was an accurate conclusion.
To us it may seem that the threat was not lethal. But we were not there in his position, considering all the factors from his perspective, so we cannot know with certainty that he was not actually perceiving a genuine lethal threat.
Again, I'm not saying this because I am a cop lover or apologist. I just think it's fair. Then he should still be punished in a proper manner. A mistake is a mistake and we don't burn people at the stake for making them, but at the same time, you have the legal leeway to use deadly force on citizens; (assuming that the cop did genuinely feel threatened but was not actually in a threatening situation) this cop took a kid's life. You don't get do-overs or "you're just learning" with this kind of power. If you fuck up, you need to be held responsible. if he did something wrong he would have been punished, thats how the system works... he was found innocent after investigation. Did you not read the thread? Why are you still posting here? Are you arguing some other theoretical situation that didn't happen here?
The point is that the definition of what constitutes a mistake is flawed. Also the process that decides if a mistake was committed or not (even by those flawed standards) is not trustworthy.
The first one is mostly an American problem (at least as far as democracies in developed countries are concerned), but the second is an issue almost everywhere.
|
On February 17 2013 14:40 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 14:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 17 2013 14:11 HackBenjamin wrote:
I think police should not be allowed to have guns. Maybe some kind of weapon to incapacitate their victims rather than something that can end a life. We have these wonderful things called rubber bullets, why don't they get used instead of lead? ...But dis is 'Murrrica, and they're our guns!!! Seriously, with the amount of guns in this country, the police would be handicapped without them. On a side note, it speaks volumes about the state of this country that police officers need guns just to properly enforce the law, whereas in other developed countries, they don't need them at all. This simply isn't true. The police would not be handicapped without them, at least patrolmen wouldn't. http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2011-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-and-assaultedOnly 72 cops were killed in action in 2011, and of them, only ~50 were shot. If you include non-fatal shootings, around 2000 were shot/shot at. That might sound like a lot, but remember, there's around 800,000 police officers in the US,(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_police_officers) so it's still exceedingly rare.
and the fact THAT they are carrying guns could by no means have anything to do with those numbers being so "low".
72 cops killed in action may seem low to you, to a german it's a LOT. but that's cause of local gun law etc.
the thing that i find most disturbing about this event, is that he went up to the already injured person to straight up shoot him dead. again, that is possibly due to me being from a country with rather few gun-related crimes, but still. if police in germany would pull something like that off, there'd be quite the shitstorm. i'm not saying that there never were cases of questionable use of violence versus suspect or possible threats, but they are very rare.
|
On February 17 2013 14:40 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 14:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 17 2013 14:11 HackBenjamin wrote:
I think police should not be allowed to have guns. Maybe some kind of weapon to incapacitate their victims rather than something that can end a life. We have these wonderful things called rubber bullets, why don't they get used instead of lead? ...But dis is 'Murrrica, and they're our guns!!! Seriously, with the amount of guns in this country, the police would be handicapped without them. On a side note, it speaks volumes about the state of this country that police officers need guns just to properly enforce the law, whereas in other developed countries, they don't need them at all. This simply isn't true. The police would not be handicapped without them, at least patrolmen wouldn't. http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2011-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-and-assaultedOnly 72 cops were killed in action in 2011, and of them, only ~50 were shot. If you include non-fatal shootings, around 2000 were shot/shot at. That might sound like a lot, but remember, there's around 800,000 police officers in the US,(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_police_officers) so it's still exceedingly rare.
~60,000 police officers were assaulted, according to your statistics. More than a quarter were injured. 20% of those assaults were using dangerous weapons. 4% involved guns.
I don't know what kind of statistics you need to see in order to justify someone having a weapon to defend themselves, but 7.5% is a fairly substantial number.
Not to mention that knowledge that police officers are trained and armed would act as a deterrent for a sizable number of people.
|
On February 17 2013 14:28 KingAce wrote:
Man watching someone die. I can never get used to that. Why shoot a man who's running away from you?
what does an innocent man have to hide from?
Some people question his motive for shooting but you have to consider the officer's position. Whether or not he is crooked you have to realize that they are going out to strangers and essentially putting their lives in the stranger's hand. They never know when they could be shot or given a handshake.
|
On February 17 2013 14:40 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 14:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 17 2013 14:11 HackBenjamin wrote:
I think police should not be allowed to have guns. Maybe some kind of weapon to incapacitate their victims rather than something that can end a life. We have these wonderful things called rubber bullets, why don't they get used instead of lead? ...But dis is 'Murrrica, and they're our guns!!! Seriously, with the amount of guns in this country, the police would be handicapped without them. On a side note, it speaks volumes about the state of this country that police officers need guns just to properly enforce the law, whereas in other developed countries, they don't need them at all. This simply isn't true. The police would not be handicapped without them, at least patrolmen wouldn't. http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2011-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-and-assaultedOnly 72 cops were killed in action in 2011, and of them, only ~50 were shot. If you include non-fatal shootings, around 2000 were shot/shot at. That might sound like a lot, but remember, there's around 800,000 police officers in the US,(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_police_officers) so it's still exceedingly rare.
Because the system is so great in this country...
|
On February 17 2013 14:52 Candide wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 14:28 KingAce wrote:
Man watching someone die. I can never get used to that. Why shoot a man who's running away from you? what does an innocent man have to hide from? Some people question his motive for shooting but you have to consider the officer's position. Whether or not he is crooked you have to realize that they are going out to strangers and essentially putting their lives in the stranger's hand. They never know when they could be shot or given a handshake.
In this country, there are a lot of reasons for an innocent man to be wary of police officers.
|
On February 17 2013 14:45 WritersBlock wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 14:40 Millitron wrote:On February 17 2013 14:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 17 2013 14:11 HackBenjamin wrote:
I think police should not be allowed to have guns. Maybe some kind of weapon to incapacitate their victims rather than something that can end a life. We have these wonderful things called rubber bullets, why don't they get used instead of lead? ...But dis is 'Murrrica, and they're our guns!!! Seriously, with the amount of guns in this country, the police would be handicapped without them. On a side note, it speaks volumes about the state of this country that police officers need guns just to properly enforce the law, whereas in other developed countries, they don't need them at all. This simply isn't true. The police would not be handicapped without them, at least patrolmen wouldn't. http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2011-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-and-assaultedOnly 72 cops were killed in action in 2011, and of them, only ~50 were shot. If you include non-fatal shootings, around 2000 were shot/shot at. That might sound like a lot, but remember, there's around 800,000 police officers in the US,(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_police_officers) so it's still exceedingly rare. 2000 events occurred where people were bold enough to fire at armed police and you for some reason believe this number would be lower if police were equipped with high-fives and peace signs? Now you're just being delusional.
I never said it'd be lower if they didn't have guns, I said it wasn't a common occurrence, so this idea that the police are in an arms race against criminals is bunk.
On February 17 2013 14:47 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 14:40 Millitron wrote:On February 17 2013 14:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 17 2013 14:11 HackBenjamin wrote:
I think police should not be allowed to have guns. Maybe some kind of weapon to incapacitate their victims rather than something that can end a life. We have these wonderful things called rubber bullets, why don't they get used instead of lead? ...But dis is 'Murrrica, and they're our guns!!! Seriously, with the amount of guns in this country, the police would be handicapped without them. On a side note, it speaks volumes about the state of this country that police officers need guns just to properly enforce the law, whereas in other developed countries, they don't need them at all. This simply isn't true. The police would not be handicapped without them, at least patrolmen wouldn't. http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2011-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-and-assaultedOnly 72 cops were killed in action in 2011, and of them, only ~50 were shot. If you include non-fatal shootings, around 2000 were shot/shot at. That might sound like a lot, but remember, there's around 800,000 police officers in the US,(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_police_officers) so it's still exceedingly rare. It seems possible that given the number of guns already present in the US, police officers would not bring the same level of security and control without their own weapons equipped. Maybe it is possible that police are not targeted by those with weapons in some cases due to the fact that the police possess their own weapons. The best case for the US might possibly be less guns overall, in which case it may be possible for police to rely less on carrying weapons to maintain security, as is the case in many European countries
The biggest deterrent for criminals shooting cops is the fact that that triggers a huge manhunt, not that that one officer may be armed. Kill a cop, there is absolutely no escape.
Now I'm not saying they should all be disarmed; bank guards, SWAT teams, ATF agents all need guns, but I'm not sure the average patrolman needs one. Especially when you consider that most jurisdictions have insanely low training requirements for their service weapon. In my jurisdiction, the requirement is only 50 shots.
On February 17 2013 14:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2013 14:40 Millitron wrote:On February 17 2013 14:13 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 17 2013 14:11 HackBenjamin wrote:
I think police should not be allowed to have guns. Maybe some kind of weapon to incapacitate their victims rather than something that can end a life. We have these wonderful things called rubber bullets, why don't they get used instead of lead? ...But dis is 'Murrrica, and they're our guns!!! Seriously, with the amount of guns in this country, the police would be handicapped without them. On a side note, it speaks volumes about the state of this country that police officers need guns just to properly enforce the law, whereas in other developed countries, they don't need them at all. This simply isn't true. The police would not be handicapped without them, at least patrolmen wouldn't. http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2011-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-and-assaultedOnly 72 cops were killed in action in 2011, and of them, only ~50 were shot. If you include non-fatal shootings, around 2000 were shot/shot at. That might sound like a lot, but remember, there's around 800,000 police officers in the US,(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_police_officers) so it's still exceedingly rare. ~60,000 police officers were assaulted, according to your statistics. More than a quarter were injured. 20% of those assaults were using dangerous weapons. 4% involved guns. I don't know what kind of statistics you need to see in order to justify someone having a weapon to defend themselves, but 7.5% is a fairly substantial number. Not to mention that knowledge that police officers are trained and armed would act as a deterrent for a sizable number of people.
Most of those 60,000 did not use their gun. They simply didn't need it. A taser, mace, or nightstick was good enough.
I am all for the right to bear arms, but the police are an arm of the state, and therefore they should be held to a higher standard than your average civilian.
As I said, the average patrolman is hardly trained when it comes to their service weapon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
