[CNN] Union: Pistol-whipped detective didn't shoot attacker because of headlines

Any rational person's motivation would be "don't get shot" when the cop pulls his gun....which would lead to compliance. The outliers who attack the cop despite the gun are the reason they need to have one in the first place.

I know you want to make all cops essentially mall cops with only whistles, but that's just not realistic in America if you want to even halfway control crime.

 

Plenty of public servants hand out citations and collect fees without a gun. If I am a violent criminal with a gun I have no motivation to shoot a cop. The laws for shooting a cop are higher than for shooting me or you. The motivation is to NOT shoot the cop and if the cop has no gun I have no reason to shoot him. Just as I have no reason to shoot a meter maid, toll booth loser or county inspector.

 

Not all cops. I would have no problem with a fully armed, physically capable goon squad that finds this guy after he has been identified on the multiple car and body cameras. IF he wants to fight those guys let him suffer the repercussions. I'm guessing such a squad would be guys he doesn't want to mess with though.

 

If you look back at my prior comments you can clearly see me say that it wouldn't be a good idea for the US not to carry guns because we have so many guns in this country. You don't always have to use it and for some reason we have created the warrior mentality where it is kill or killed. We've seen officers kill mentally ill people when they didn't exactly need to do so. To go back to the Ferguson case, the guy didn't have a gun. Wilson could have done what you should do, establish a perimeter wait for backup he dd not. The confrontation was totally unnecessary but it ended in death. You can't convict the guy for murder but should he really be a cop? no, he shouldn't. These people are clearly not having their best day but you don't have to kill them for it. In the U.S. we need to change how we train police for certain situations. You will here some cops say yeah it was within my legal right to kill him but I didn't because I didn't need to. You do not always have to kill.

 

The United States isn't France.
The United States is modern Rome.
The United States is massive and guns are everywhere and have literally saturated the country... and Americans don't want to give up their firearms.
We are violent and that would have to change drastically, culturally.

The police force is a reflection of our culture. I agree that the police force needs to stop thinking they are soldiers, they are not. Their beat isn't a force enemy and they are not an occupying force. A good officer isn't a good shot or a 25 year old ex marine with a 6 pack. A good cop defuses situations and only shoots his gun as an absolute last response.

Having said that, these people calling for taking away service fire arms are insane. It will not happen and it would be a disaster. Rob a bank? Why not... Rob a liquor store sure... Confront an officER with a firearm? Go ahead. Respond to a rape in progress or a break in? Sure, cops will feel comfortable doing that.

I expect we will see changes (and we should) but people need to be realistic.

 

You are assuming that everyone in this situation is in the right state of mind which they usually are not, if they were they wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

 

No... the vast majority of the time, a criminal's motivation changes from escape to "oh ****, he's got a gun, I better do what he says".

 

So how are cops going to confront armed criminals on the street without a gun?

 

Answer me this...

how does a lone cop establish a perimeter?

 

Don't worry, we'll have "goon squads" for that apparently. Everyone will just stay back and wait for the "goon squad" if criminals pull out guns....or run away if the criminals look to attack the cops.

It's a well thought out and brilliant plan that would absolutely work in America.

 

By shooting everyone in the knee because he's watched Terminator and Person of Interest WAY too many times.

 

This detective was on his way to interview a robbery witness. He wasn't responding to any of those calls you listed. A responding officer to those calls should be armed and uniformed in a way indicating they are armed. A subdivision of SWAT perhaps. How many bank or store robbery are thwarted by a cop with a response time of 7 minutes. Very few to nill. Why would you confront an unarmed cop with a gun? To rob him? If you want to escape go, you are on camera and evading.

Let's be realistic. You are giving firearms and asking fat, physically inferior uneducated civil servants to have confrontations with people who know they are armed. These civil servants fire 50 rounds per year to qualify and the requirements are so easy you have to be blind or have parkinsons to fail.

People (in this thread) expect 100% of these civil servants to have shooting skills of an IDPA Master level shooter, well versed in hand to hand combat, determine in milliseconds if rounds they fired were on target, not be at all racist, and as brave as a super hero because "that is what they signed up for". Who is insane again?

 

Ticket writers and report takers won't be confronting anyone.

What is your evidence for that? In this case and michael brown that wasn't the case at all.

 

If you are against police officers using guns... then why does your "goon squad" get to use guns?

Are you admitting that guns are necessary or not?

 

I can't believe that you actually believe what you are saying. It's so ridiculously stupid that it's not even fun to debate.

 

My first post in this thread

Guns are NOT necessary for most cops. The police force needs guns, they don't need to hand them out to everyone who becomes a cop. Raise the bar a bit.

Great response to the two examples I listed that show the exact opposite of what you said.

 

So they do what if someone refuses to identify themselves or attacks them? Run away? You do realize that numerous cops get murdered every single year while trying to write a ticket even with the ability to defend themselves and you think they'd be better off defenseless?

Again, brilliant, well thought out stance.

 

How would an unarmed cop who is patrolling be able to safely get out of his car and confront suspicious activity if he's not armed and the people he is confronting know he is not armed?

 

When I say that, I'm saying the rules if you will. Secondly he can get on the radio and call out where he is if there is a cop in the area and Brown runs they know the exact area to check, there was no need to shoot him.

 

They'll have radios and segways....if Paul Blart can do it, so can they!




If something bad happens, they use their radios to call the "goon squad" while running away on their segway. Crime would screech to a halt.