I remember when I was a child Andy of Mayberry didn't even carry a gun. He would talk to his neighbor who was shooting at him and get him to surrender his weapon. Of course, that was TV. In the 60's and 70's police officers were trained to only fire on suspects when they were fired upon first. I guess a knife attack or someone running at them with a baseball bat were also permissible reasons to fire on the citizenry.
Since 911, and perhaps before, there has been a movement in this country to place public servants above the general population. For an example other than the police, one only needs to drive by any federal building...even the Department of Agriculture. Those building are surrounded by barbed wire, cameras, large cement barricades and other defenses. Next door is an old folks home with no protection. If the Dept. of Ag. is such grave danger, shouldn't we be concerned about the old folks?
I was watching the Gun channel the other day (the name of the actual channel escapes me) and they were showing a police training video. There was a male officer and a female officer and they entered an apartment where there was "domestic" in progress. I'm not sure how they gained entry since both parties were on the bed when they came into the room. Anyway, the male was beating the female on the bed and the female officer ran over and grabbed him by the arm. The male on the bed took his other hand and grabbed her service revolver.
At that point, the instructor then yelled stop and everyone stood still. The instructor then told the officers that they should have shot the guy beating his significant other since if they didn't the scenario proved they would both be killed. There may have been some other scenarios and outcomes in my opinion!
He went on to instruct the officers that their life was more important than the criminals and that they should shoot if the person they are approaching do anything that could be interpreted as "threatening!"
If one reads the newspapers there are more and more instances where people are shot under questionable circumstances by the police. There needs to be new training standards that focus on non-fatal ways to subdue criminals. Some will say that today's criminals are better armed and more likely than yesterdays criminals to kill police officers. That is true. The problem is that they just do! It's not the guy whittling on the street in Oregon that was shot this week for not putting his knife down in Portland that are killing cops and took 5 in the chest for his insubordination. It's the guy or gal that walked into the coffee shop and killed 4 police officers in full uniform.
Killing our black youths running away with cell phones in their hands, that look like guns to some officers, are not really saving the lives of police officers. In fact, in some communities that would cause some deaths. Let's not even talk about SWAT teams in the wrong house.
One of the main reasons this is a big problem is the our legislators are continuing to make laws that give a possible death penalty to very stupid laws. For example, in Virginia it would now be possible to be shot by the police for smoking in a restaurant. It would take an unusual set of circumstances for that to occur, but it is now possible.
Our lawmakers need to begin weighing all laws they propose on the scale of is it a law needed so badly it's worth killing constituents for!
Since 911, and perhaps before, there has been a movement in this country to place public servants above the general population. For an example other than the police, one only needs to drive by any federal building...even the Department of Agriculture. Those building are surrounded by barbed wire, cameras, large cement barricades and other defenses. Next door is an old folks home with no protection. If the Dept. of Ag. is such grave danger, shouldn't we be concerned about the old folks?
I was watching the Gun channel the other day (the name of the actual channel escapes me) and they were showing a police training video. There was a male officer and a female officer and they entered an apartment where there was "domestic" in progress. I'm not sure how they gained entry since both parties were on the bed when they came into the room. Anyway, the male was beating the female on the bed and the female officer ran over and grabbed him by the arm. The male on the bed took his other hand and grabbed her service revolver.
At that point, the instructor then yelled stop and everyone stood still. The instructor then told the officers that they should have shot the guy beating his significant other since if they didn't the scenario proved they would both be killed. There may have been some other scenarios and outcomes in my opinion!
He went on to instruct the officers that their life was more important than the criminals and that they should shoot if the person they are approaching do anything that could be interpreted as "threatening!"
If one reads the newspapers there are more and more instances where people are shot under questionable circumstances by the police. There needs to be new training standards that focus on non-fatal ways to subdue criminals. Some will say that today's criminals are better armed and more likely than yesterdays criminals to kill police officers. That is true. The problem is that they just do! It's not the guy whittling on the street in Oregon that was shot this week for not putting his knife down in Portland that are killing cops and took 5 in the chest for his insubordination. It's the guy or gal that walked into the coffee shop and killed 4 police officers in full uniform.
Killing our black youths running away with cell phones in their hands, that look like guns to some officers, are not really saving the lives of police officers. In fact, in some communities that would cause some deaths. Let's not even talk about SWAT teams in the wrong house.
One of the main reasons this is a big problem is the our legislators are continuing to make laws that give a possible death penalty to very stupid laws. For example, in Virginia it would now be possible to be shot by the police for smoking in a restaurant. It would take an unusual set of circumstances for that to occur, but it is now possible.
Our lawmakers need to begin weighing all laws they propose on the scale of is it a law needed so badly it's worth killing constituents for!
Comments
Post a Comment