imported post
Of course they're not paid to do something suicidal, but you and I both know that is not what I was referring to.
They certainly are paid to protect the public from criminals, and that means risking their lives. That means waiting to determine whether or not someone is actually a threat before dealing out lethal force. I think everyone in here understands that certain kingpin drug dealers are prone to violence, but we are NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT.
We're talking about things like using a SWAT team on someone who might have "marijuana seeds" in their trash can, which you seem to fully support. Perhaps someone will do you the service of falsely accusing you of something so you can experience a SWAT raid. It's scary to consider that all it takes is a single "informant" to get these actions authorized. You don't address that at all, but rather you focus on one part of my post and then comment on it out of context with the rest of the statement. As others have said, you're being intentionally obtuse.
Police sure are paid to risk their lives, to claim otherwise is ridiculous. To imply that the officer doesn't need to determine whether or not someone is armed (Or even a criminal at all) before shooting them is just sick. The officer's safety is not more important than a civilian's safety, period. The officer is given power over citizens, and is therefore expected to do things like fully determine whether or not they need to shoot before shooting, once again, even if that means risking their life.
While an officer is not a body guard, and I know you know that I'm not claiming that, when you get down to it they really only exist to protect citizens. Not in a body guard way (As you already know), but in a removing criminals/crime from the streets kind of way. If you're saying that police don't need to and aren't expected to help ("Guard") civilians who are being attacked then I also find that ridiculous. I'm sure there are rare circumstances where this is the case, but it's certainly an exception rather than a rule.
If the mentality of our police departments is that officers' safety is more important than the safety of the general public, no matter what, then something needs to be fixed. The police officer needs to take the time to do things like determine whether or not shooting is acceptable, even if that means risking their life. They took the job, they are paid by the public, and I expect them to do what we pay them to do, not shoot my neighbors just because one of them "might be a threat" or "might have something shiny on their wrist" or "might have marijuana seeds in the trashcan."
Somehow it seems like you're playing a semantics game here. You've danced around the point I made, and have defined "paid to risk life" in a manner that ignores the context of my post.
Of course they're not paid to do something suicidal, but you and I both know that is not what I was referring to.
They certainly are paid to protect the public from criminals, and that means risking their lives. That means waiting to determine whether or not someone is actually a threat before dealing out lethal force. I think everyone in here understands that certain kingpin drug dealers are prone to violence, but we are NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT.
We're talking about things like using a SWAT team on someone who might have "marijuana seeds" in their trash can, which you seem to fully support. Perhaps someone will do you the service of falsely accusing you of something so you can experience a SWAT raid. It's scary to consider that all it takes is a single "informant" to get these actions authorized. You don't address that at all, but rather you focus on one part of my post and then comment on it out of context with the rest of the statement. As others have said, you're being intentionally obtuse.
Police sure are paid to risk their lives, to claim otherwise is ridiculous. To imply that the officer doesn't need to determine whether or not someone is armed (Or even a criminal at all) before shooting them is just sick. The officer's safety is not more important than a civilian's safety, period. The officer is given power over citizens, and is therefore expected to do things like fully determine whether or not they need to shoot before shooting, once again, even if that means risking their life.
While an officer is not a body guard, and I know you know that I'm not claiming that, when you get down to it they really only exist to protect citizens. Not in a body guard way (As you already know), but in a removing criminals/crime from the streets kind of way. If you're saying that police don't need to and aren't expected to help ("Guard") civilians who are being attacked then I also find that ridiculous. I'm sure there are rare circumstances where this is the case, but it's certainly an exception rather than a rule.
If the mentality of our police departments is that officers' safety is more important than the safety of the general public, no matter what, then something needs to be fixed. The police officer needs to take the time to do things like determine whether or not shooting is acceptable, even if that means risking their life. They took the job, they are paid by the public, and I expect them to do what we pay them to do, not shoot my neighbors just because one of them "might be a threat" or "might have something shiny on their wrist" or "might have marijuana seeds in the trashcan."
