Okay, fine. But you kind of skirted around my issue a bit. My point was, cops with the training you're talking about make mistakes frequently. Another example is the kid who was shot on BART here in the Bay Area. We all saw the video of that one. Both that one and the kid in Florida results in criminal charges being pressed against the officer. However, there is no law on the table suggesting cops should start using rubber bullets because they cannot be trusted with using deadly force because a few asshole made mistakes.
I'll play devil's advocate on this one. It's a 2 on 1 fight, neither side is coming out victorious. You have given 5+ commands to the suspect to show his hands, he breaks free of your grip and goes for his waist band. You can't see what's in his waist band because he's laying on his stomach... I make a habit of not monday morning quarter backing but in an effort to answer your question the officer had a right to be judged by his peers (a jury).
Cops do have rubber bullets, we get an entire arsenal of less lethal because being armed with only a gun is the least desirable option in any situation. That's the reason every shooting is investigated, "were all other options exhausted?"
On one hand, you have to protect that thing with your life because if you lose it you're dead. On the other, if you use it unjustly, you're dead as well. Whether you know it or not cops are punished as a whole by other cops' mistakes. Since that BART Incident, we've received extra training, are no longer allowed to carry the TASER on the same side as the gun, etc. Rubber bullets would put us at a disadvantage to the average criminal so I'm not sure I understand the distinction or metaphor you're trying to make.
Quote:
I think this is exactly what was wrong with the system as it was Anti. It was up to the arbitrary and inconsistent judgement of a law enforcement official to determine whether or not someone had a good enough reason to carry. The entire purpose of the 2nd amendment really wasn't to protect against other people so much as it was to protect against the government becoming too powerful. If law enforcement (the government) decides who can carry a weapon with no set standard that's upheld in every jurisdiction as to what a legitimate reason is, I see that as a problem and directly contrary to the purpose of 2nd amendment.
This is why I think open carry is a better solution anyway. It seems a lot safer for officers to me than everyone being able to conceal carry.
A lot of people state "government" as if it's some artificial intelligence that is of the same mindset trying to control people. You do realize that these Sheriff's were elected and live in the same communities we all do?
If you're going to make the argument that the 2nd amendment was created to protect against government becoming too powerful I could make the argument that the amendment wasn't created with the idea of carrying around an instant killing device in your pocket either. That's an old and tired argument which can be interpreted many ways, I just think that carrying a hidden weapon isn't the answer.
Quote:
Does this actually happen? I'm at a bit of a loss on this one. Any civilian who sees 3 cops drawing down on a perp with a knife should back the fuck away and let the cops do their job. If you draw a weapon as a civilian when a cop is present, for any reason, you're an idiot. If I was ever stopped by a cop when I was carrying with a CCW, the first thing I'd do is inform him that I have a CCW and am carrying.
Yes, contrary to your intellectual answers that you have provided so far the majority of the population doesn't think the same way you do. While you may be fully capable of carrying a concealed weapon, in my experience, I'd say 90% would be a danger to society. Not because they're evil people, but because they're incapable of being trusted with the life of another.
Quote:
For me, drawing a gun would be a last resort because of all the things you just mentioned. If I draw, I WILL use it if necessary and then I risk prison, etc, like you said. I'd only do that if I genuinely felt I or my family might lose my life if I don't. And honestly, and this is just me, I'd wouldn't pull it out and fire. If it was possible I'd pull it out and issue a warning before firing a round to give the guy time to back away. I wouldn't take pleasure in killing someone, even if it was self-defense.
Luckily I have never drawn off duty, but if I draw it's because I am doing so in a LE manner. I am drawing my weapon to enforce the law and protect others or myself. Do you think that the majority of people out there are capable of doing that, ignoring every human emotion they have, and upholding the law? Because I don't, and that's really what this all boils down to.
