By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
thismeintiel on 22 November 2021
Edit Thread
Ryuu96 said:

thismeintiel said:

No, any sane person wants the cops to keep innocent people safe, no matter the cost to the offender.  Would it be nice if no one had to die? Sure. But the world isn't some Care Bear special.

And anything can be deadly. Yes, even a skateboard counts. People have died from being hit by those.  Hell, more people die by fists and feet than by AR-15s each year.

Uhh, I'm sorry, so we're clear, are you seriously suggesting it would be okay for a cop to fire into a crowd of rioters if they're perceived as being violent? We're talking real bullets, too.

Anything can be deadly, sure, so does that mean we just shoot at any level of danger? Ignoring the fact that while yes, anything can be deadly, some things are much more likely to be deadlier than other things if used, someone is much more likely to kill you with a bullet versus a punch, someone running towards a cop with a skateboard versus running towards them with a knife should absolutely not result in the same defensive measure for both.

There is such thing as "reasonable force" in these scenarios, with this logic, police in America would be killing basically everyone who is violent, the purpose of the police force isn't only to be a death squad, at least, not in UK.

If they are being violent towards others, and will not stop when told to, you're god damned right they have the right to stop with any means necessary.  And if they are destroying property and get violent towards someone trying to stop them, yes, they can be shot.  When you have only a split second that could decide someone dying or not, you don't exactly want cops thinking, "Well, how is this going to look to the media or the Left if I shoot this violent criminal."  Really I have little sympathy for garbage humans destroying the property and livelihood of law-abiding decent citizens, and absolutely none when they get violent towards others.  Used to be that the vast majority of citizens felt the same way.  Sadly, one side of the political spectrum currently thinks it's politically expedient for violent thugs to be deified and decent people to be demonized for defending themselves against those thugs.

So, yes, if you fear for your life, you can shoot in self-defense, or if you fear for another's life.  Your bullet and punch example falls flat when it is a fact that more people die from being hit physically than from being shot every year.  You can survive a bullet depending on where you are hit, just like Jacob Blake survived getting shot several times when he refused to drop a knife.  You can also die, or become severely brain damaged, from a single punch if you are hit hard enough and in the right spot.  Same goes for being stabbed.  So, no, what kind of weapon is used does not change the response.  The law is if you fear for your life, period.  Not if the person is holding a certain weapon or not.  That's just a ridiculous standard, probably brought on by people watching actors "survive" those kinds of things in movies.  Life isn't like the movies.  You can die by getting hit ONCE by anything if its hard enough and in the right spot.