Originally posted by Jedidiah
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Ferguson shooting indictment announcement coming at 9PM EST
Collapse
X
-
-
The reason I don't give credence to the arguments of Wilson's detractors is because they're making their pronouncements from the comfort of their computer chair where they have the luxury to contemplate to their heart's content and determine what they think the "best" course of action might have been. Wilson, on the other hand, was reacting on a spur of the moment to an unpredictable and quickly changing situation. It was less than 90-seconds from the time Wilson first confronted Brown until the final fatal shot was fired.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Psychic Missile View PostMy main objection to the whole scenario is that I question the validity of the use of guns on unarmed people.
Originally posted by Psychic MissileIf the police in the UK handle unarmed suspects without shooting them, why can't the police in the US?
USA: (by my count) 41 officers killed in the line of duty ** in 2014 so far
Homicide rate (per 100,000 people): 4.7
UK: (by my count) 77 officers killed in the line of duty by gunfire since 1900
Homicide rate (per 100,000 people): 1.0
So you're not comparing apples with apples.
And, BTW, American police do arrest plenty of unarmed suspects without shooting them.
* technical term
** not counting accidental gunfire...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...
Comment
-
As I posted in another thread, the UK is starting to arm more of their police. Scotland already does. The basic British Bobby is an officer that patrols a suburb. They don't usually send them in to handle bank robberies, gang wars, etc. They have armed response units (kind of like our SWAT) that handle the rough stuff.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Psychic Missile View Post"If I am threatened I have no way of knowing, until it is too late, what their intentions are." Being threatened doesn't make shooting someone permissible. Any threat could be a case of mistaken intentions on your part, end right away without harm done, or escalate. At least, without a gun involved. When you draw a weapon, who knows how people will react. Your argument looks to me like preemptive killing. What I'm advocating is threat assessment and the avoidance of conflict escalation. That shouldn't be controversial.Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostI don't think anyone here thinks police should shoot unarmed people as a matter of routine. But (1) police don't always know until after the event that a suspect is actually unarmed (especially in America, where guns are very available) ; (2) there are occasions when an (apparently) unarmed person is acting in such a way as to require use of lethal force*
Because the two societies are very different.
USA: (by my count) 41 officers killed in the line of duty ** in 2014 so far
Homicide rate (per 100,000 people): 4.7
UK: (by my count) 77 officers killed in the line of duty by gunfire since 1900
Homicide rate (per 100,000 people): 1.0
So you're not comparing apples with apples.
And, BTW, American police do arrest plenty of unarmed suspects without shooting them.
* technical term
** not counting accidental gunfire
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostAs I posted in another thread, the UK is starting to arm more of their police. Scotland already does. The basic British Bobby is an officer that patrols a suburb. They don't usually send them in to handle bank robberies, gang wars, etc. They have armed response units (kind of like our SWAT) that handle the rough stuff.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Psychic Missile View PostAFAIK, the increased gun use is limited to a small area or two, it is decided by politicians, was in response to criminals with guns killing police, and police in general do not want to be armed.
You also seem to think that by unarming the police, that the criminals will go around unarmed too. That won't happen. You will just get more violence and crime.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 09:08 AM
|
0 responses
2 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Today, 09:08 AM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 07:44 AM
|
0 responses
6 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 07:44 AM | ||
Started by seer, Today, 07:04 AM
|
14 responses
45 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by KingsGambit
Today, 08:59 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 04-21-2024, 01:11 PM
|
89 responses
473 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Today, 08:30 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 04-19-2024, 02:09 PM
|
18 responses
157 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Today, 07:45 AM
|
Comment