• When a suspect pulls something from his pocket

  • Only in shootouts

67% 18 votes
33% 9 votes
  • They should look at what they are, but if the cop says to put their hands behind their head, and they go into their pocket, it's self defense. Also, try not to kill the suspect, shoot them in the leg.

  • ya, because it isn't gonna be a banana

  • Non-lethal force if possible

  • All while using proper judgement of course... if they feel the object is life-threatening, then for sure, the cop has the right to defend himself.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
The-Voice-of-Truth says2015-05-08T13:56:36.5904357-05:00
When there is a threat to his life.
Midnight1131 says2015-05-08T14:26:34.7957208-05:00
The Voice of Truth, the exact moment when there's a threat to a policeman's life is very subjective.
Vox_Veritas says2015-05-08T14:51:33.3880254-05:00
When a criminal is charging him or her.
tajshar2k says2015-05-08T15:29:22.3183785-05:00
Cops need to learn to handle these situations better. Atleast shoot him in the leg.
briantheliberal says2015-05-08T17:38:34.3681747-05:00
Tajshar2k, right, but cops in America shoot with the intent to murder even when it's not necessary. You rarely ever see this in Europe or Asia.
heil83 says2015-05-08T17:47:14.2464275-05:00
But cops are given permission to shoot to protect themselves. If they are already being shot at then that beats the whole point of self defense
neoryan1 says2015-05-08T18:31:19.4344368-05:00
@Brian as a police officer in pre-training we are taught to shoot with the intent to STOP the suspect. And this means make it so he is prevented from harming, not prevented from doing more harm. If a man is told to put an object down, and he doesn't, it's for the safety of everyone that is shot at. So if the suspect is already on the ground and the police continue shooting well knowing he cannot further harm anyone, then yes that could be put on trial for murder.
briantheliberal says2015-05-08T18:47:57.1298415-05:00
Great, thanks for missing the point of what I said and telling me what I already know. Now how does that somehow change or refer to the thousands of people being shot and killed by police every year unarmed, or running away despite not being a potential danger to anyone around them? How exactly are they harming anyone, and how is shooting them to death justified?
neoryan1 says2015-05-08T19:32:55.0240456-05:00
Well in those instances I wouldn't say it's justified. In something like the Walter Scott incident the police officer obviously should be and will be put on trial for murder. Because the video clearly shows that's what he is, a stone-cold murderer. However all cases are different. The majority of the time police kill, they have a justifiable reason to believe there own or someone else's life is threatened.
tajshar2k says2015-05-08T20:27:24.7936306-05:00
@briantheliberal Exactly, that needs to change. It actually is worse in Asia though, cops often work with gang members, and often accept bribes to allow injustice. Http://www.Theguardian.Com/world/2014/jun/12/indian-police-gang-rape-uttar-pradesh
tajshar2k says2015-05-08T20:28:34.7060237-05:00
@heil Not everybody is shooting at the cop. What about that guy who simply was running away? He only was killed because he was black, nothing else.
briantheliberal says2015-05-08T21:53:20.0651246-05:00
"The majority of the time police kill, they have a justifiable reason" - But there is no evidence of this. The overwhelming majority of cops who end up shooting someone dead also conveniently claim self-defense without any substantial evidence (police cameras on patrol cars or uniforms, witnesses etc...) and they almost always get away with it without an investigation, or a trial. Charges are usually dropped completely.
briantheliberal says2015-05-08T21:55:08.1962555-05:00
Tajshar2k, you're right, it's really bad in South Asia. I didn't specify but I was referring to East Asian. There it is more similar to Europe.
Death23 says2015-05-09T00:28:31.0048544-05:00
"the thousands of people being shot and killed by police every year unarmed" Brian you might want to check your facts.
Mathgeekjoe says2015-05-09T00:39:14.0366451-05:00
"Cops need to learn to handle these situations better. Atleast shoot him in the leg." Maybe you aren't away but the leg is a far harder target to hit, it tends to be moving a lot and it is a far smaller target. Also if someone is charging at you, you don't have the time to try to get a good shot at the leg.
TheMarquis says2015-05-09T01:08:26.8523700-05:00
@Joe: Cops should be able to do it.
tajshar2k says2015-05-09T08:29:50.4010429-05:00
Maybe you aren't away but the leg is a far harder target to hit, it tends to be moving a lot and it is a far smaller target. Also if someone is charging at you, you don't have the time to try to get a good shot at the leg. Thats why they get training... They are just the average American wielding a gun, they are trained policemen. What about those times, cops just shot the guy for no reason? Like that South Carolina cop.
tajshar2k says2015-05-09T08:30:04.5838650-05:00
They aren't*
tajshar2k says2015-05-09T08:35:55.9932305-05:00
If for some reason, they cant shoot the leg, use the taser instead.(there are long range tasers)
neoryan1 says2015-05-09T18:48:45.3040428-05:00
@Brian What makes you think this? Not saying you are wrong but what makes you believe police do not have an intent to kill? Surely you cannot believe that out of 700,000 police officers in the US that the majority are looking to kill people for no justifiable reason.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.