It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I have had a gun pointed at me. More than once, and I have never lost control.
Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by sheepslayer247
The problem isn't the use force but the fallout from it. The entire point being that these are people trained to assess, justify and execute it.
Is that a fancy way to say "The police are suppose to be judge, jury, and executioner."?
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by muzzleflash
Is that a fancy way to say "The police are suppose to be judge, jury, and executioner."?
How about "The police were protecting themselves when threatened with deadly force by the perpetrator of a murder."
He drew a weapon at close range. Is that not sufficient call for the use of deadly force? Were they supposed to wait for him to open fire?
The man wasn't running around screaming and yelling and threatening everyone. He wasn't firing his weapon indiscriminately.
I don't expect perfection, but I expect more than this.
That would put you in the Kantian Ethics camp it would seem. At least in this one instance.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Montana
He drew a weapon. Is that not sufficient call for the use of deadly force? Were they supposed to wait for him to open fire?
The man wasn't running around screaming and yelling and threatening everyone. He wasn't firing his weapon indiscriminately.
I don't expect perfection, but I expect more than this.
Maybe your expectations are too high. The police are, after all, human.
edit on 8/25/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by muzzleflash
That would put you in the Kantian Ethics camp it would seem. At least in this one instance.
No. It would put me in the camp of self preservation.
Could we agree that perhaps force was justified if the suspect did indeed make threatening gestures with a weapon, but also explore the possibility that they may have overused that force and went a little overboard?
Many of them probably will not press charges, but may receive some type of out of court settlements for financial compensation.
That doesn't make sense.
Unless you are suggesting that police lives > civilian lives, which is also illogical because their job is to protect civilians, not sacrifice half a dozen of them to potentially protect "more", which is indeterminate.
Originally posted by Phage
Many of them probably will not press charges, but may receive some type of out of court settlements for financial compensation.
I'm sure that will be the case.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
But, I thought having more guns at a scene of a shooting would keep people safe???
These are trained police officers...and even they can't control their gunfire in broad daylight. Can you imagine if 5-10 people were armed in Aurora inside a smokey dark movie theater???
Some people want you to believe that if other people were armed, they would have taken down the shooter with one clean shot and been the hero...I think this pretty much proves them wrong.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by WeRpeons
Right. You have a gun pointed at you and you're going to pull out a taser.
Good luck with that. Do you know what the range of a taser is?
So easy to say the cops blew it. How many of you have had a gun pointed at you? Maybe you think they should have waited for him to open fire?
edit on 8/25/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)