The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[Trollheart]

Originally Posted by The Batlord

So I'm assuming the "lowering hands when there's no evidence of a weapon can legally get you shot" thing for cops is about to get tossed out the window. Two in a week has got to do something.

What exactly did this 7-year veteran fear from the guy? That he'd shoot lasers out of his eyes? He was obviously unarmed. Why are cops so eager to literally shoot first and ask questions later now?

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by Trollheart

What exactly did this 7-year veteran fear from the guy? That he'd shoot lasers out of his eyes? He was obviously unarmed. Why are cops so eager to literally shoot first and ask questions later now?

This ain’t Ireland, son. We can’t just go around eye-****ing the popo.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by Trollheart

What exactly did this 7-year veteran fear from the guy? That he'd shoot lasers out of his eyes? He was obviously unarmed. Why are cops so eager to literally shoot first and ask questions later now?

It's basically a militaristic, zero-tolerance policy thing where the police are to assume the absolute worst in order to ensure the highest level of survivability for them since them getting shot and disabled would result in an armed danger to the community. It's basically what would make sense in a guerilla war zone.

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by The Batlord

It's basically a militaristic, zero-tolerance policy thing where the police are to assume the absolute worst in order to ensure the highest level of survivability for them since them getting shot and disabled would result in an armed danger to the community. It's basically what would make sense in a guerilla war zone.

It’s the Iraq/Afghanistan to America pipeline.

Every other pig was trained for war.

[Trollheart]

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

This ain’t Ireland, son. We can’t just go around eye-****ing the popo.

WTF does that mean? Our police aren't even armed, usually.

Originally Posted by The Batlord

It's basically a militaristic, zero-tolerance policy thing where the police are to assume the absolute worst in order to ensure the highest level of survivability for them since them getting shot and disabled would result in an armed danger to the community. It's basically what would make sense in a guerilla war zone.

Isn't the motto To Serve and Protect? Didn't realise it was themselves they were trying to protect. So basically, in training they're being told "If it even LOOKS like someone MIGHT have a gun or ANY weapon, no matter how small the possibility, SHOOT TO KILL?" Can't these guys even wound someone? I mean, it's still bad, but at least the innocent wouldn't be dying...

[OccultHawk]

WTF does that mean? Our police aren't even armed, usually

We ain’t got the same police, son.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by Trollheart

WTF does that mean? Our police aren't even armed, usually.


Isn't the motto To Serve and Protect? Didn't realise it was themselves they were trying to protect. So basically, in training they're being told "If it even LOOKS like someone MIGHT have a gun or ANY weapon, no matter how small the possibility, SHOOT TO KILL?" Can't these guys even wound someone? I mean, it's still bad, but at least the innocent wouldn't be dying...

Shoot to wound and the perp could still be able to shoot back. If you're going to shoot then make sure it is effective. Of course if you're going that route then I think you should make reasonably sure that you're in danger than just the perp lowering his hands. But such is our police.

[Cuthbert]

Shooting to wound = hitting a limb, probably going to be a moving limb. So guys are expected to hit a small moving target without missing

And even if they hit the suspect they can still shoot back as Bat says.

[Blank.]

Originally Posted by Trollheart

Isn't the motto To Serve and Protect? Didn't realise it was themselves they were trying to protect. So basically, in training they're being told "If it even LOOKS like someone MIGHT have a gun or ANY weapon, no matter how small the possibility, SHOOT TO KILL?" Can't these guys even wound someone? I mean, it's still bad, but at least the innocent wouldn't be dying...

My brother is a cop and he always says this, "The people I'm there to serve and protect usually aren't even in danger. They got out of harms way to call us. And if there is people in danger, I have seconds to assess the situation and determine who is and isn't a threat. Then you have the element of adrenaline which can cause anyone to have an itchy trigger finger when they shouldn't."

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by Man like Monkey

Shooting to wound = hitting a limb, probably going to be a moving limb. So guys are expected to hit a small moving target without missing

And even if they hit the suspect they can still shoot back as Bat says.

They're not expected to hit a moving target as such because they're trained to shoot to kill.