Protect and Serve . . . yeah right !
- Thread starter Sliver
- Start date
He was laying largely prone, with one hand out, flailing. He clearly touches, and has his open palm on the back of the officer's gun, as it is holstered.
He didn't *have* the gun, he was merely in contact with it. Just because they are telling him to "drop" the gun doesn't mean that he actually has it, and considering they go on to execute him seconds later AS they're tasering him, shows they're not the most reliable bunch of people, don't you think?
Not sure what you mean?
You will end up with more dead police officers most probably.
People need to stop trying to compare the USA and UK police forces. If you can't manage that then look further than just the incidents that make front page news. Yes they are tragic; but I am sure there are plenty of incidents where people go 'thank god our police are armed'.
The Americans have made their bed so to speak.
I meant exactly what I said. Swap the same incidents to the UK and keep everything else the same and you will end up with people in custardy instead of the morgue. Why are you having trouble with this simple premise ?
An assumption that does not make sense.
Comparing the UK to the US exposes the flaws in the US system of policing. It's a good thing to compare them, so I disagree with you on this.
Last edited:
Some one is a bit touchy today aren't they.
I am not having trouble with anything, but simply stating that in a few handpicked incidents, if the police had done 'xyz' like the UK does, then the outcome would have been better, is just an easy and obvious conclusion with hindsight?
The truth is this whole fiasco is anything but simple. In a country where gun ownership is very much the norm and in the majority the police force out there have a very hard and very real threat constantly.
Mistakes are ofc going to happen causing fatalities; they are all tragic.
But comparing US police forces/procedures to the UK's is not comparing apples and apples. Sorry.
I would contest that, that is a point of valid debate.
Oh jeeze, here we go
Wouldn't be fun if I rolled over and said 'yes sir, you are completely correct, always'.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,132
- Location
- one nation under sony
what I don't get is why do they shot to kill instead of shooting their legs or use a taser to get the person to the ground
Sliver, how much use would the American police depts. be if they were disarmed when the rest of the populace are packing? Not a job I'd want to do!
I'm fairly sure they're also trained to deal with any attempt from someone to take their weapon with lethal force. Why struggle to get it off him where anything could happen? They won't be able to protect anyone if they've been shot by their own gun.
Disarm the populace, then you'd look to you police.
I'm fairly sure they're also trained to deal with any attempt from someone to take their weapon with lethal force. Why struggle to get it off him where anything could happen? They won't be able to protect anyone if they've been shot by their own gun.
Disarm the populace, then you'd look to you police.
If the decision has been made to fire a gun, it's to kill. If the situation doesn't require a lethal response then a gun shouldn't be fired full stop!
I think the essence of this debate, is that weapons are not the answer. Remove weapons by law from civilians, then you have what we have in the UK. A system of law enforcement where most people are detained and not killed.
Wouldn't be fun if I rolled over and said 'yes sir, you are completely correct, always'.
Yes it would be fun and also correct.
But everything else isn't the same. We don't have an armed populace in the UK nor a routinely armed police service. There are clearly some big issues with the way police in the US are equipped and use force but it's as much a societal issue as it is a policing one.
A hypothesis is a hypothesis.
That's where I live, although a few miles from the actual incident.
There is no easy answer to this. Guns are part and parcel of the American culture unfortunately. Realistically, cops are always going to carry guns here. Cops are also human and are not going to take any chances. The incident in the video above is a perfect example. Cop responds to report of assault, follows guy responsible, guy then assaults cop, cop shoots him dead. What's the cop supposed to do? You think he's going to mess around with a tazer or try and shoot to injure when he knows the guy could very well have a gun and clearly has no intent to surrender? He probably had a couple of seconds to make a judgement call....he isn't Robocop. Not that the cop in this case knew it (AFAIK), but it turns out this particular suspect had already been convicted of armed robbery...
Do cops ever shoot and kill people when there was no need? Of course. However, when you have humans beings walking around with guns then both scenarios will always happen over time.
Yeah. So remove the guns from the equation then, like we do here in the gun free UK. More people end up put through the judicial system instead of the morgues.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,622
- Location
- La France
The UK isn't gun free.
How? You must surely know of America's love affair with the firearm, how do you propose that they just take those guns away? People aren't going to give up their rights without a fight (a gunfight, at that) and even if you were somehow successful in removing guns from private citizens, you've still got thousands of illegal firearms out there.
If you really can't approach these issues without comparing them to another country, try Canada instead. Geographically close to the US, fairly similar culturally (broadly speaking), has an armed police service and allows at least some level of firearms ownership by citizens.
Saying "remove guns" is about as useful as saying "remove crime" or "remove homelessness".