- Messages
- 1,606
- Reactions
- 681
- Thread Starter
- #21
"Above the rest?" Hardly.
How about better equipped to make snap life-and-death decisions.
How about better equipped to make snap life-and-death decisions.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Whether or not you side with the cop isn't as important to me as to the fact they hold a double standard...one for them and one for us.
Face it, if anyone on this board (who isn't LEO) did this, we would be rotting in jail for a *long* time.
double standard 
noun
1.
any code or set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another
I think anyone should be OK'ed to do this, in a case like this. It's wrong that you have to "be somebody" to not end up in trouble for it. Who cares if you didn't need to do it for defense, it's getting another armed badguy off the streets.
If it were acceptable for everyone, that would be one thing. The fact that a cop can get away with it, but we lowly peasants can't is entirely another.
I may be entirely in the wrong here, but if I'm held and robbed at gun point, I don't think a legally armed citizen would be charged for shooting the robber.
I mean this isn't like the robber was running off with your TV set, or even your vehicle.
Using deadly force, after being threatened with deadly force, is 'defense' against that force being used against some one else.
If the robber had dropped his gun and ran, that's one thing. But he was still armed, and could have even shot a passer by as he made his escape.
I think the cop's action was justified, and I think a civilian doing the same thing would be also.
Frog.
See my previous post for my opinion on the incident itself. As for my brethren that are convinced that police are held to a different standard than a citizen, that is absolutely correct: In all matters, and either way, and in any scenario, higher and lower. I am in a daily position to know this without a doubt.
The crux of the matter exists as to what standard one holds oneself: When you pull the trigger, can you face the legal music and take the medicine dished out by the system and still feel righteous and that you had no choice in the matter?
For those who are struggling with my meaning: if you take a human life under any circumstances, and your society elects to punish you for your decision, will you still be comfortable with society's applied consequences for your decision, confident you did the absolute right thing?
If you haven't asked yourself this, then you have no business carrying the instant means to end human life: civilian or cop.
Face it, if anyone on this board (who isn't LEO) did this, we would be rotting in jail for a *long* time.
LEO shoots fleeing robber - in the back
Are there cases where normal law-abiding citizens actually were either arrested/prosecuted/convicted for shooting an armed robber as he flees or otherwise momentarily turns his back?
I was wondering the same thing. Our legal system is supposed to be based on precedence, so if your were in the same situation as this officer and shot the perp as they were fleeing you should be able to expect the same recourse. That being said our legal system is so seriously flawed that cannot be expected, but it should be.
if you believe the suspect will commit this action again against another person it is your duty to stop them, if they are armed deadly force can be used.
Our legal system is supposed to be based on the Constitution of the United States and Common Law. Just because a police officer "gets away" with shooting some one in the back don't think that you could do the same without prosecution. Don't assume that the legal system applies the law equally between the government class (LEO's) and civilians, it does not.
Deadly force is justified "in self defense and the defense of others"
These guys were still a threat to the public.
I believe this fact would get any one of us out of trouble.