Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Should Cops Risk Their Lives To Stop Someone?

Berend
Posts: 188
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2015 7:26:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
By that, I mean to stop an aggressor. If someone has a gun, or a knife, should they kill them if they are a threat or just standing there and refusing to listen, or should they try non-lethal means, like tasers or tackling?
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2015 11:41:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
A reasonable person would only shoot a criminal as a last resort. Since police are meant to uphold the law, they are expected to behave like reasonable people, and should therefore try and defuse the situation if possible.
ConnorSween16
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2015 1:01:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think they are at liberty to use lethal force if their lives are in danger. If someone is holding a gun or a knife at you, you wouldnt be expected to just stand there and get shot or stabbed, neither should the officers.
ConnorSween16
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2015 5:48:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
First, if I was a LEO (law enforcement officer) and if I'm responding to a "man with a gun" then I would've already have my firearm out. And if I see him, taking time to take my taser out can cost me my life. So if he won't drop his gun when I say so I would most likely shoot unless there's a subtle sign that he's a good guy (off duty LEO or a carry conceal holder) and he was responding to the "man with a gun".
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2015 9:50:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2015 5:48:51 PM, Maccabee wrote:
First, if I was a LEO (law enforcement officer) and if I'm responding to a "man with a gun" then I would've already have my firearm out. And if I see him, taking time to take my taser out can cost me my life. So if he won't drop his gun when I say so I would most likely shoot unless there's a subtle sign that he's a good guy (off duty LEO or a carry conceal holder) and he was responding to the "man with a gun".

Cop, not cowboy. Act accordingly.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2015 11:23:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/4/2015 9:50:17 PM, SM2 wrote:
At 12/4/2015 5:48:51 PM, Maccabee wrote:
First, if I was a LEO (law enforcement officer) and if I'm responding to a "man with a gun" then I would've already have my firearm out. And if I see him, taking time to take my taser out can cost me my life. So if he won't drop his gun when I say so I would most likely shoot unless there's a subtle sign that he's a good guy (off duty LEO or a carry conceal holder) and he was responding to the "man with a gun".

Cop, not cowboy. Act accordingly.

Not sure what you're talking about. It's precedure for LEOs to have there weapons out and ready when responding to "man with a gun".
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Al_Capwned
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 6:22:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The use of lethal force should be last resort. Use the rules of engagement. You know, don't fire unless fired upon...

I mean, use common sense. Shooting unarmed people is unacceptable!
collintheboss10
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2015 6:27:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree that shooting people is always a last resort, but even when an LEO is use his fire arm to protect lives I firmly believe that he should try to protect all lives, even a criminal's, by shooting for his arms and trying any nonlethal possible.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 5:22:32 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/5/2015 6:27:32 AM, collintheboss10 wrote:
I agree that shooting people is always a last resort, but even when an LEO is use his fire arm to protect lives I firmly believe that he should try to protect all lives, even a criminal's, by shooting for his arms and trying any nonlethal possible.

1. When the armed criminal is high on adrenaline or bath salts they don't comply all too quickly to non lethal wounds

2. When the officer is high on adrenaline it's very hard to shoot such relatively small targets such as arms and legs especially if they're moving. The most effective way to stop someone by shooting him is to shoot center mass where the vital organs are. Whether he lives or dies matters little when everybody else's lives are at stake.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Midnight1131
Posts: 1,643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2015 1:43:55 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/4/2015 7:26:01 AM, Berend wrote:
By that, I mean to stop an aggressor. If someone has a gun, or a knife, should they kill them if they are a threat or just standing there and refusing to listen, or should they try non-lethal means, like tasers or tackling?

Just because has a gun on them isn't good reason for a cop to kill them. If they're shooting at the cop or pointing the gun at the cop, then it's very reasonable to kill them.
#GaryJohnson2016
#TaxationisTheft
#TheftisTaxation
Axon85
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2016 11:53:25 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/5/2015 6:22:34 AM, Al_Capwned wrote:
The use of lethal force should be last resort. Use the rules of engagement. You know, don't fire unless fired upon...

I mean, use common sense. Shooting unarmed people is unacceptable!

In some situations, unarmed people are perfectly capable of posing a serious threat to the life of a police officer.

Police officers do not have to wait to be fired upon, there is no legal precedent for this. Officers could of course use extreme restraint and attempt every possible recourse to dissolve a dangerous situation, however, they would be doing this at the risk of losing their own life. True, some situations would end well were this the acceptable standard, but on average we would also end up with many more cops killed or injured in the line of duty. It is unfair to ask police to do the job they do (which is dangerous enough as it is) and not allow them a reasonable means for self defense. Deadly force is legally acceptable if the officer perceives a legitimate threat of death or serious bodily harm to the one's self or others. Furthermore, leeway must be given to the fact that life & death decisions are have to be made in a split second and are often based on incomplete information.
will031
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2016 8:18:37 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
A cops job is to protect and serve the people, and I believe risking death is apart of this.
Of course a cop should not just waste his life on something stupid, but rather work towards a greater good.
yunsta
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2016 8:20:29 AM
Posted: 10 months ago
Cops should be here to protect us therefore if the cop is not willing to risk his/her then i feel like their are in the wrong field. usually most Cops life are exciting, they track drug dealers, killers, all type of criminals so if there're are shaking in risking their lives they should find another job
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 10:02:08 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 12/5/2015 6:22:34 AM, Al_Capwned wrote:
The use of lethal force should be last resort. Use the rules of engagement. You know, don't fire unless fired upon...

I mean, use common sense. Shooting unarmed people is unacceptable!

there is no such thing as an unarmed person. Anyone can easily be overpowered just by brute force alone and have their life in danger at that point. Are you suggesting that LEO's allow this to happen?

I am not saying there are instances where LEO's use force unnecessarily, but to say LEO's need operate by rules of engagement(a military thing) is umerited. If they were to operate by military rules of engagement, there would be far more deaths than you see now. In the military, fire unless fired upon is in non-combative situations. The moment someone pulls out a gun or weapon, and acts in a threatening manner those rules of engagement are off and they are free to use lethal force.

This is why, for example you have examples where children are shot, because they are known to be used as a means to get close and detonate explosive devices as a means to harm military personnel. If one is moving towards an officer in a threatening manner armed or unarmed, and they are ordered to stop, and they do not stop, by your rules the officer would be justified in opening fire in a lethal manner. Which, is something i dont think you individually want to advocate for, yet you actually are
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 10:06:55 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/15/2016 8:20:29 AM, yunsta wrote:
Cops should be here to protect us therefore if the cop is not willing to risk his/her then i feel like their are in the wrong field. usually most Cops life are exciting, they track drug dealers, killers, all type of criminals so if there're are shaking in risking their lives they should find another job

you may think so, but the supreme court has already by proxy ruled that it is not a LEO's responsiblity to risk their lives for another individual in the name of that individuals protection. The case was Warren v District of Columbia, and though it was appealed to the highest level supreme court, it rejected taking it as a case upon grounds that the D.C supreme court was valid in its ruling.

Ergo, protection of self is an individuals own responsibility, not anyone elses.
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion
Buddamoose
Posts: 19,449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2016 10:08:53 PM
Posted: 10 months ago
At 1/17/2016 10:06:55 PM, Buddamoose wrote:
At 1/15/2016 8:20:29 AM, yunsta wrote:
Cops should be here to protect us therefore if the cop is not willing to risk his/her then i feel like their are in the wrong field. usually most Cops life are exciting, they track drug dealers, killers, all type of criminals so if there're are shaking in risking their lives they should find another job

you may think so, but the supreme court has already by proxy ruled that it is not a LEO's responsiblity to risk their lives for another individual in the name of that individuals protection. The case was Warren v District of Columbia, and though it was appealed to the highest level supreme court, it rejected taking it as a case upon grounds that the D.C supreme court was valid in its ruling.

Ergo, protection of self is an individuals own responsibility, not anyone elses.

not saying i agree with it either, but that is the reality of the law today. So you act within that reality, not reject that reality in substitution of your own, as that just leaves one making impractical choices.
"Reality is an illusion created due to a lack of alcohol"
-Airmax1227

"You were the moon all this time, and he was always there to make you shine."

"Was he the sun?"

"No honey, he was the darkness"

-Kazekirion