All police departments should have very clearly defined rules of engagement, with an emphasis on the use of non-lethal devices, i.e., Tasers and rubber bullets, before guns are discharged. And they should all have their body cameras turned on.
Perhaps you remember a time when the police always fired a shot in the air and shouted “Stop! Police!” before they shot at someone. What has happened to this idea? I haven’t heard it mentioned for years, nor have I seen it used in any of the videos showing police shootings.
Is “protect and serve” still in effect as police forces become more militarized?
It's distressing that people who are incapable of telling the difference between TV and real life walk free in the streets. Such a disconnect with realty can be a dangerous thing. Sadly, this is just the sort of failed logic we see from those most vocal about "gun control." Gun control and anti-police sentiments walk hand in hand these days. These people have absolutely no idea about guns or self-defense yet seek to place restrictions on the rights of others. In their distorted reality they think that defending yourself denies "due process" to criminals. As is typical of the left, they have greater concern for thugs than for innocent people. This letter writer seems to care little about innocent bystanders who may be injured or killed by the falling bullets from those "shots in the air."
This is why it's generally better to ignore arguments from the left, you can't argue using logic when the concept is lost on them.
My view is that we must educate them about malevolence. The underlying assumption is that even criminals are good people. They have made the decision to do malevolent acts against others. Some are out to destroy as many as they can in their self-destruction. When people truly understand that malevolence is the problem, then the instruments we use to stop them become viewed as beneficial instead of "dangerous."ReplyDelete
The greatest trick of the devil is convincing people he doesn't exist.Delete
I support our police that act within the constitutional constraints for gov't. Period. I do not support indiscriminant killings because "I feared for my life". Just as an aside, if I fear for my life in the presence of a LEO, can I take their life without legal scrutiny? No? Why don't we levy "what would a rational and prudent man (person) have done", before a jury of their peers, on all police shootings. This may make a few of those cowboys that think they are above the law have to be exposed to what the rest of us sovereigns (i.e. citizens) must deal with. If the cowboys don't want to deal with that, maybe they should find a different job.Delete