Cops, your “Shoot First, Ask Questions Later”policy has to stop

Like I said...simply not true. There are plenty of cases where cops don’t evade justice.

 

Plain and simple....if you are dumb enough to threaten someone with a gun, especially one who is charged with stopping you from doing stupid stuff....expect to get shot.

 

Change "plenty of" with "some" and we may have an agreement.

Anything above "some"; No deal.

 

That's what they want and chant, "What do we want? More dead cops."

 

It also takes a second or two to react.

 

You didn’t answer my second question.

 

And if you only know he's holding something and you don't know what it is and he suddenly crouches and spins toward you then what? Quit assuming the cops know what he's holding. Most of the time they don't.

 

no i prefer them to apprehend without shots being fired but I also dont live un utopia. There are no unicorns here.

 

You don't get shot in the back when you "crouch and spin"

 

What there ARE...are too many friggin guns

 

no there are too many criminals. Thats the difference between a lefty and a righty. Criminal uses gun ,you blame gun and coddle criminal, whereas I blame the criminal. A gun cant kill anyone. It requires a human.

 

A criminal without a gun is far less dangerous than one with a gun and police react accordingly.

Which is how and why so many unarmed people get shot

 

And there's nothing you will ever be able to do about it.

 

No, reacting tends to be instantly reflexive.

 

If they don’t know what he’s holding, they should take a half second to verify before shooting. That’s what was expected of us in a freaking warzone.

 

Has no one in a war zone ever mistakenly shot someone?

 

So your observation is that unarmed people get shot not because of their own actions but because law abiding citizens have guns. I wonder why so many of us...hundreds of millions...think about that number for a moment..............hundreds of millions of people somehow make it through their entire lives without getting shot by police.
Your backwards logic.."A criminal without a gun is far less dangerous"
My correct logic...a gun without a criminal is far less dangerous than a criminal without a gun.

 

Sure they have. And it has consequences. People get prosecuted for killing unarmed civilians.

 

But, shouldn't they have taken a half second to verify before shooting???

 

The simple fact is----------------the police dont shoot if the person stops raises their hands and do what the police say to do!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Show us one video of a person standing stock still with their hands raised, and then being shot by the police.

 

Yeah, they should have. They didn’t. Hence violating the ROE and consequences.

 

How about someone seated on the ground with their hands raised and then getting shot by the police?

 

Every soldier who has violated ROE has faced consequences have they? Got proof?

 

And NOTHING in their hands??????????? Yes go ahead and post it.