They certainly DO have the right if they feel their life is in danger. I think you'd better educate yourself before you go thinking you can threaten a police officer to the point of that officer fearing for his life. You could get fatally shot. Whether or not your death is subsequently ruled as a 'good shoot' or not would be pretty moot for you at that point wouldn't it? I agree, one should respect others and I agree that individual cops should not be the arbiter of life and death however reality is reality and you can get fatally shot if an officer thinks his/her life is in danger.
You can get fatally shot if a gang banger thinks you looked at him the wrong way. That doesn't mean either "have a right to bust a cap" on us.
A gang banger is generally a criminal doing unlawful things. a police officer is sworn to uphold the law. There is no moral equivalence in your argument.
You didn't assert moral equivalence, you asserted I should face the reality that one could shoot me dead. On that account both are equivalent. Reality is reality, I'd be just as dead either way. And regardless of whether either swore an oath, he does not "have a right to bust a cap" in me.
As far as whether either "have a right to bust a cap" in me -- they're equal. A right is something you're owed or due. Rights are freedoms and entitlements. No one is owed the freedom or entitlement to "bust a cap" in me. It's more than a little unsettling you would argue otherwise.
If a cop in a 'dirty cop' RE: corrupted, on the take, exercises his prejudices using his badge and assigned authority to do so. etc. then why not?
While i believe that if an officer's life is in danger that is when he should pull the trigger. They have a firearm for last resort. With that said the situation with Micheal Brown was bull (*)(*)(*)(*) and you know it. There was no reason that some one needs to be shot with their hands up. Even if he was involved with a robbery, he took some (*)(*)(*)(*)ing chips. Darren Wilson should have his badge taken and fired. Police brutality has become a major problem in the US considering the militarization of the police. There are more than just the people in the news that it has happened to. A lot of people wont report what has happened to them out of fear and doubt. People think that even if they do speak up nothing will happen and no justice will be served. This is why the Ferguson situation as inspired allot of victims to speak up. And they did.
If the "attacker" is Black. . . very probably. If he is White. . .probably not, especially if he wears a suit and looks "middle class!"
So who attacked Officer Wilson while Mr Brown had his hands up because the officer was attacked and there is evidence showing that? The only thing Mr Browns theft contributed was his his own mental state during the altercation.
You haven't adequately described a situation upon which to ask the readers of your post to pass judgment. Is it your contention that a police officer should be expected to use deadly force in response to any and all situations that could be defined as an "attack"? Would that include blowing someone's brains out if they told the officer that his mother was ugly? If you believe that the same standards established for the legal use of deadly force in self-defense among civilians should not apply to police officers, then I'd like to hear your justification for holding that position.
I agree it was left vague as an earlier poster mentioned. I at the time did not want to influence the votes and should have been a bit more specific. Attack here refers to some one physically harming a police officer. So I apologize again for the vagueness.
I wouldn't expect a police officer to immediately resort to shooting someone even in the event of a physical altercation. Deadly force should only be used when one's life is in peril. That could certainly be the result of some physical altercations, and in those cases, the use of deadly force is warranted. Otherwise, it is not. Police officers shouldn't consider themselves to be in possession of a license to kill civilians at will.
But the police officer has to make that call right then and no one knows what is going through the mind of an attacker or an attacked officer. I was always taught, if I attacked an armed person I would probably get shot. If I went for a police officers gun I would get shot.
Doesn't everyone have to make snap decisions when faced with the necessity to use deadly force in self-defense? The same rules that apply to all Americans should also apply to police officers. Why is that a problem?
The only sad thing about that is more people have been shot in my town by cops than gang bang shootings. One was a white guy in college who had pot and the cop thought was a gun. One was a 12 year old white boy with autism his front yard with a cap gun they thought was real and he was "big for his age" . All the rest were unarmed blacks. I think cops need to stop acting like pompous bullies and pull their big boy panties up and deal with things without a gun. A lot of them were teased as children and get off on the power they wield over others. A gun and a badge does not make you a god. There are times when there are situations where it is needed to use deadly force but they should be taught more constructive ways to get out of danger.Thugs come in all shapes and sizes and the fact that they are cops does not make them immune.
It is not when I police officer shoots some one it needs to be in self defense. If you are attacked by some one then you have a right to defend yourself even with deadly force. We have investigations after every death and if a person (police officer or not) is found to have done something wrong they are prosecuted and a jury decides. The only real difference is that the police are put in the situation way more often then most people and they are being watched more closely.
I also wonder why it is primarily male cops that shoot the criminals. Women cops are stronger? The "thugs" respect them enough not to attack them? Could it be that the cops are trying to prove what men they really are and make mistakes?
Then, we apparently agree. Police officers should be held to the same standards as are their fellow citizens when it comes to deploying deadly force.
I would say they are held to a stricter standard since they also have to convince the court of public opinion that they also were justified. If it were you or me we would just need to convince a district attorney in most cases. They have to convince a district attorney, their superiors, the reporters, and the public every time.
I would beg to differ, take the Furgeson situation if this was just two men on the street and one shot the other it would have been just a matter of the police and the district attorney. But because he was a police officer he was subjected to extra scrutiny by not just his superiors and the district attorney but also the media and the local populace. Who I might add immediately jumped to the conclusion of his guilt without a trial. If you or I had shot that man we would most likely not had to go into hiding for our lives.
Very well, it just seemed relevant to the discussion at hand and this is a forum for such discussions.
