EPTI think it's hard to judge what the punishment should be. If it was a mistake (why was he holding the gun in the first place?) then there's no reason the policeman's life must be destroyed too. On the other hand, just being a cop (or an american soldier, lol) brings out violent behaviour somewhat, since you're seeing so much of it. Tricky!
Metro Policeman Shoots Rider - Page 13
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
aseq
Netherlands3964 Posts
I think it's hard to judge what the punishment should be. If it was a mistake (why was he holding the gun in the first place?) then there's no reason the policeman's life must be destroyed too. On the other hand, just being a cop (or an american soldier, lol) brings out violent behaviour somewhat, since you're seeing so much of it. Tricky! | ||
|
oBlit
United States22 Posts
| ||
|
SiNiquity
United States734 Posts
On July 09 2010 23:38 oBlit wrote: The tenets of gun safety go out the window when you are attempting to control a situation like those cops were in. I feel that applies to recreational use of weapons. Maybe it's just early, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. Gun safety goes out the window when you're restraining people? And that this idea (gun safety no longer applying) should apply to recreational weapons? | ||
|
Slakter
Sweden1947 Posts
Whatever, FTP and all that. | ||
|
prochobo
United States232 Posts
On July 09 2010 18:41 SnK-Arcbound wrote: Treat every weapon as if it were loaded. Never point your weapon at anything you don't intend to shoot. Be sure of your target and look beyond. Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you are ready to fire. These are the 4 basic firearm safety rules you learn. If the police officer shot a man, then all of these rules must have been true. He was treating his weapon as loaded, he was ready to fire, and he intended to shoot him. This fits the description of second-degree murder. Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life. Fixed. That rule I crossed out doesn't apply to all weapons. A lot of police departments carry Glocks, which do not have selectable safties. Revolvers apply as well as some Sigs. | ||
|
mmp
United States2130 Posts
No justice, no peace. | ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
On July 09 2010 16:20 Jayme wrote: jinmaekul has obviously never fought someone high on rack and cocaine and lsd at the samd time. I've seen a few people high on tthe stuff fight off seven fully grown men and still keep going. You cant possibly comprehend how strong people are under excited delirium. So don't play side line coach when you don't actually have any clue at all. Yes, because physical confrontation is always the appropriate answer and the job of a police officer is to physically fight a person high on crack cocaine and LSD at the same time... -_- Police officers ARE trained to contain and subdue suspects high on crack and it doesn't absolutely have to involve the use of tasers. Tasers simply make the job easier for the officers, but in doing so (as my post argues), it encourages lazy police work. I would not have a problem if tasers were used appropriately, but there are far too many instances where they are not. Tasers are a weapon to help you use a certain type of force in the appropriate situation. The key word here is: "APPROPRIATE". When officers start using this weapon inappropriately with such frequency, it's time we took some time to evaluate what needs to be done about this and how this problem can be remedied. Certainly, there's no absolute need for tasers and most certainly there's no need for them to be standard issue. Limiting their distribution or eliminating them completely are two steps that could be taken to deal with this situation that we have. Also if they are to be used, enforcing stricter protocol for their use is important to making the officers think about whether it is, indeed, an appropriate weapon to use in a given situation. | ||
micronesia
United States24494 Posts
On July 10 2010 00:32 mmp wrote: The fact of the matter is a cop could have shot him 41 times and still got off easy. No justice, no peace. Actually that's not a fact of this matter. If the cop in this instance had shot the person 41 times he would have gotten into a boatload of trouble. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On July 10 2010 04:59 micronesia wrote: Actually that's not a fact of this matter. If the cop in this instance had shot the person 41 times he would have gotten into a boatload of trouble. He probably would have been shot during the trail or something if he pulled that. I'm just guessing mmp dresses up in black, wears a face mask and shouts at people for no reason. If that's the America he believes esp the bay area he believes he should just leave. | ||
|
overt
United States9006 Posts
Y'know, real people from the real world realize that a police officer should be able to handle a guy laying on the ground on his stomach without a gun out. Anyone who still thinks he's a threat and that the police officer needed a gun or that it's "standard procedure" aren't even worth discussing this topic with. There are literally hundreds of examples of police overkill and part of it can be understood, I'm sure it's a stressful job and at times that may boil over into straight up brutality or result in accidents. But when something like this happens the officer needs to be relieved of duty. Period. They can move on with their lives and find something else to do. This reminds me of a situation that happened near here where a police officer shot and killed a 16 year old kid who was wielding a knife and wasn't responsive. I understand that the kid has a knife and is therefore a threat, but seriously it's not like you can't call for back up or handle a 16 year old without firing your gun. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24494 Posts
On July 10 2010 06:13 overt wrote: Am I wrong for thinking that in situations like this the people who immediately defend the police officer's behavior are either socially biased or something? Y'know, real people from the real world realize that a police officer should be able to handle a guy laying on the ground on his stomach without a gun out. Anyone who still thinks he's a threat and that the police officer needed a gun or that it's "standard procedure" aren't even worth discussing this topic with. There are literally hundreds of examples of police overkill and part of it can be understood, I'm sure it's a stressful job and at times that may boil over into straight up brutality or result in accidents. But when something like this happens the officer needs to be relieved of duty. Period. They can move on with their lives and find something else to do. This reminds me of a situation that happened near here where a police officer shot and killed a 16 year old kid who was wielding a knife and wasn't responsive. I understand that the kid has a knife and is therefore a threat, but seriously it's not like you can't call for back up or handle a 16 year old without firing your gun. I don't see people immediately rushing to defend the police officer. I see people taking all facts into account and trying to analyze this logically and rationally. I do however see people jumping all OVER the police officer without stopping to think about it rationally. I don't think anyone is arguing that the cop shouldn't be relieved of duty... you can't take out your gun and shoot an innocent person. But that's completely different from criminal charges. | ||
|
SpicyCrab
402 Posts
That is not even taking in to account the fact that wrestling with a suspect is extremely dangerous for the officer, leaving him vulnerable to attacks from his flanks by other suspects or to surprise weapon strikes, as well as leaving him open to having his tazer, gun, or club snatched away by the suspect and used against him. Basically, Tazers are WAY safer than the alternative. People should just listen when cops tell them to do something. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On July 10 2010 06:23 SpicyCrab wrote: Those espousing physical fights please recognize that in a physical grappling/fighting confrontation injuries and deaths are MORE likely than when using a tazer and that goes for both parties involved. That is not even taking in to account the fact that wrestling with a suspect is extremely dangerous for the officer, leaving him vulnerable to attacks from his flanks by other suspects or to surprise weapon strikes, as well as leaving him open to having his tazer, gun, or club snatched away by the suspect and used against him. Basically, Tazers are WAY safer than the alternative. People should just listen when cops tell them to do something. but if people did that then razer would be unnecessary clearly they just want their money's worth of police brutality. | ||
| ||
