Saw that earlier today. These are so troubling, the last two shots, to me, are proof of the first two being about training. It seems the officers had no thought other than lethal force being used in that situation, again nothing more than overly aggressive traffic stop. Yes the cops may have thought this guy had a rifle on him, but the dead guy probably just thought he was being pulled over for a traffic violation while he may of had drugs or whatever and is confronted by officers with guns drawn on him.
He clearly was acting as if he had a gun. You want them to taser a guy who is acting like he has a gun. Your family would be burying you within a month if you were a cop.
lol no, they wouldn't. Because the vast majority of cops aren't shot at. And most of these stops don't involve actual danger.
Are you this big of an asshole in real life or is this just a part you play on the internet?
ya...this is why I'm saying take their guns away. the f ing body cam didn't save anyone's life. stupid enforcer mentality.
if they get into a situation where they need a gun they can call for backup. They shouldn't all be running around with 9mm and shotguns. It's not the Army.
So, if they come up against an armed individual or individuals, they should call for back up? Really? WTF do they do until back up arrives? Hope the armed individual(s) prefer(s) a fair fight?
Yes. It works in other civilized countries around the world. Amazing isn't it? You live in a police state and have been indoctrinated since childhood. Maybe consider other alternatives to what you have grown up with. Consider that armed police may cause more violence than they prevent. Look up homicides by the cops here vs the UK. It's staggering. Black and white, up and down opposite.
It works in England because the populace is mostly unarmed. Unfortunately, we are a bunch of gun nuts in a country awash with guns, so yeah, not going to work here.
how do you explain iceland? one third of citizens are armed. So yeah, it would still work fine.
Do the Icelandic people refuse to cooperate with police? Do they fight with police?
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22288564
Do they not? The difference is the response of the police. They don't escalate every little unpleasant encounter.
While this all may be true, it has nothing to do with qaz's comments about being armed.
Well, it explains why cops wouldn't have to be armed since there's little violent crime. The low drug use probably explains a lot, too.
No, pretty sure I would be fine.
when you have almost as many guns as people in a very large country, then you are probably going to have and need an armed police force.
Still not sure that comparing a country with 73% less guns in private hands, where most of those guns are hunting rifles and shotguns, tells us much about what's possible in the US, where there are more guns in private hands than people, including a shitload of semi-automatic handguns and rifles.
You just did what advocates of single-payer health care do, and that's cite a country that has about 60% of the population of Wyoming as an example relevant to the United States. There are more people in the suburbs of pretty much every major city in America than reside in Iceland, and their population demographic is 98% one race, 84% one religion, and 99% of them live in urban areas, with 60% of that made up in the capital alone.
what are you talking about? Only 28% of individuals are armed in the US. That's less than the per capita in iceland.
No it's not irrelevant. It's about a different way to view police. As peace keepers instead of "law enforcement". It's ridiculous that you guys complain at the rate you do, then when someone points out things COULD be different and ARE different in other places in the world, you freak out. You won't even consider it. This is why things never change. ZOMG THE OUTRAGE! WE MUST CHANGE NOTHING!
A largely semantic one which I don't believe would work in a country that is 1000 times as large as the one you cited.
Why does the size of the country matter? Our population density is not significantly worse than the UK? It works in london and manchester but not here? It's not semantic. It's about what force is authorized. Even our troops don't have the kind of carte blanche use of force latitude the cops are given. If you were insulted, you should think about why that is. Was what I said so really insulting or does it just ring a little too true?
A while back, there was a thread asking for each person to explain their username. Mine, for example, is my cat's name. Anyway, hunkgolden informed us that his name was created by the fact that he's a good looking dude (hunk) with blonde hair (golden). I shat my pants when I read that.
nope, much more handsome than morgan and probably dressed significantly better.
i added the period to my username for effect. very intimidating IMO, just like my cat.
Oh...I thought your cat's name was pronounced "Toast PERIOD". Thanks for clearing that up.
