When a Policeman joins the force, one of the things they must accept is one day they might die on the job.Do you think police should not defend themselves? From what I understand, this woman was holding a gun toward police, and was shot when an officer said he saw her lifting the gun to point it at the officers. The officer who did the shooting was determined not to have done anything criminal prior to the civil case. I don't know what the jury in the civil case based their judgement on, do you? Or do you think that police should only be able to shoot once someone has shot at them first? That is the impression I got from this post of yours.
They also receive training in how to disarm someone.
I have seen this done in a martial arts class that I attend.
That being said, I do not believe anyone should lose their life at the hands of the police.
The police are supposed to protect us, even from ourselves.
That didn't really answer the question. Are you saying the police should have attempted to disarm the woman?
Perhaps no one should lose their lives at the hands of police.....but by the same token, no one should threaten the lives of police. That officers know they could lose their lives on the job does not mean they should not be allowed to protect themselves.
Now, as I've said, I don't know enough about the details of this case to understand the judgement. There were supposedly some inconsistencies in the testimony of the officers about things like where the different officers were positioned. On the other hand, I don't believe there was any question that the woman who was killed had a warrant out for her arrest, and I'm not sure if there was any question that she was holding a gun or that she threatened the police. It's possible that the officer should not have fired, but I don't know what it is about this particular situation that makes that true. You have not given any reason that it was true in this particular situation, either; you have only said that people should not be killed by police.
The police should have disarmed her. If they felt like they had to shoot her ( how did they know the gun was loaded?) They could have shot her in the leg. That would have stopped her.
Of course that's not what this thread is about. It's about money. Should her family be given all that money?
I don't know about you but for me there is no amount of money that would replace my mom.
Out of curiosity, are the murdering cops still on the force?
Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk
So you think police should approach an armed suspect and attempt to disarm them? You also seem to think that police should assume a gun is unloaded?
As far as shooting her in the leg, that is mostly something from film, not real life, so far as I know. It is hard enough to hit a person in a life-or-death situation (real or perceived), let alone attempt to hit them in a specific limb. Moreover, how does shooting someone in the leg prevent that person from firing the gun they are holding?
You seem to be expecting entirely unrealistic actions from police.
The jury clearly felt the officer who first shot was in the wrong. However, I am confident that the reasoning behind that decision was not that the police should have disarmed the woman, nor that the police should have shot her in the leg, nor that the police should have assumed the gun she was holding was unloaded.
"How did they know the gun was loaded?"
Would you prefer the police FIND OUT if the gun is loaded or shoot to kill?
Sent from my SM-J727VPP using Tapatalk
Would YOU wait to "find out if the gun is loaded" if someone pointed a gun at you in a threatening fashion?
Look, I can agree that police sometimes should do more to attempt to defuse a situation. I can agree that police sometimes shoot when other actions seem better. However, the idea that a police officer should wait for someone to shoot at them, to ensure that the gun being pointed at them is loaded, is completely asinine. If someone points a gun at you, waiting for them to fire to ensure it is loaded could well lead to your death. There is no good reason for police to do that.
Therefore, I would prefer that police use reasonable force. When someone threatens an officer with a gun, the officer firing at that person is a reasonable use of force. You may find it acceptable for police to use their own lives as some sort of test as to whether a suspect's weapon is loaded, but I completely reject that. It is one of the most ridiculous arguments I have ever seen regarding police shootings.
It's possible there will be situations where something like this is possible; if the police are out of the line of fire, for instance, and no innocents are in danger. You, however, make it sound as if you don't care what happens to police officers; in fact, I get the impression you would be happy to see more police getting shot, if you honestly believe they should wait to find out if a gun is loaded when it is pointed at them.
