Quote:
|
Originally Posted by whocarz
All else is inconsequential? I have to take issue with that. No doubt this person deserved getting shot. However, I don't think the cop was more important than the poor girl the scumbag grabbed at random.
|
Oh, no doubt at all. I wouldn't begin to weigh the value of human life. This statement goes for all people. People have a right to defend themselves, but the woman didn't have a gun of her own, nor was she of proper training or capacity to disarm the attacker. Now, for us regular citizens, we are put under more scrutiny when we shoot someone just because someone pointed a gun at us. We need to be sure it was a "in danger of our life" situation. Police officers are also scrutinized, but were first properly trained to identify situations in which shooting is a necessity (read: shoot or be shot), and therefore are trained when to act to do what is necessary.
Quote:
|
Where does this attitude come from? Why are police officers superior human beings in your eyes? Are you one yourself? Do you come from a family of them? Help me understand why you think it wasn't such a big deal when this bastard was shooting at unarmed civilians and holding a gun to someone's head, but then when he points it at a cop, he needs to die right there. Perhaps I'm assuming things about you that are wrong, but your spartan post leaves much to the imagination.
|
Two things-
1. I didn't say he deserved to die. There's a big difference between saying, "you point a gun at a cop and you WILL be
shot" and "you point a gun at a cop and you WILL be
killed". Negotiation can many times lead to a non-violent resoluation to circumstances such as this. In all matters, a non-violent resolution is, of course, preferable. In many cases, police sharpshooters can shoot a gun from a person's hand, rendering the gun inoperable or sending it flying, giving police time to aprehend the suspect while disarmed, and without any danger to the police or the suspect. Police have many, many non-violent methods of conflict resolution, and they always try to use them over violent ones, where at all possible. This person had demonstrated complete disregard for human life, shooting at people at random, and was holding a person hostage. If the only clean shot the officer could take when the barrel of that gun was pointed at him was the man's head, then so be it. You have to take the life of the hostage into consideration as well.
2. It WAS a big deal when he was shooting civilians. That's why the officer needed to step-up his response. He knew the man was capable of shooting people, the negotiator had worked for 40 minutes with NO progress. I'm not sure how much more clear I can make it that this lowlife (and yes, you shoot at random people and take a person hostage, you are "lowlife" in my book) drove the police to his own demise. Also, the police are there to protect and to serve. I'd really be interested (and appalled) to read a person's attempt to tell me that police officers aren't supposed to shoot a person to disarm them (and in certain circumstances, if that means killing them to do it, then so be it) if a gun is pointed at them. They are here to protect us. They risk their lives every day so we can live in peace. Any "attitude" I have about them is based in honor, for all that they do for us. Sure, I may hate them for enforcing certain laws I beleive are bullshit, but that doesn't make them less important, or less worthy of recognition for their efforts.
Side note: When brevity is the obvious aim in a persons post, and their point clearly stated (which I believe mine was), calling their addition to the discussion "spartan" can sometimes come off as a chide, leading to responses that are longer than perhaps necessary, if only to ensure clarity. I can type allllllllllllll day.