Zone1 Why is that the police hesitate,

[OODA_Loop]

It is NOT legal to shoot a person in the back, because deadly force is only supposed to be used to neutralize an eminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death and a person fleeing is no longer considered a legal threat in most circumstances.

Here is a video of police shooting a person in the back who is running away. Eminent threat ? You bet.

WARNING VIDEO IS GRAPHIC

 

[Dragonlady]

Understood, but in the case of the perp attempting to run after assaulting a police officer, and then showing himself to be a threat not only to the police but to the public as well, then that perp should be stopped by gunfire before leaving the scene if trying to escape after using violent force in the attempt to escape. A long time ago I remember a perp trying to wrestle the gun from an officer unsuccessfully, and then the perp attempted to flee when the officer shot him before he could escape to possibly pose a threat to the public at large. The officer went to jail due to the pressure of being tried first in the court of public opinion that reverberate into his trial. Now if the perp in his escape would have carjacked a mother and her baby, and placed them in extreme danger before being captured again, it would have all been shoved under a rug.

Seems when watching all these cop video's, that we now have a huge problem in discernment between criminal supposed rights and the rights of the innocent public.

If the perp is a threat to the public in fleeing, wouldn't shooting the fleeing suspect also endanger the public as well. There are numerous instances of innocents being shot by police who missed their intended target.

About 1 million of these civilians experience police threat of or use of force during these interactions. Of the estimated 250,000 civilians injured each year by law enforcement, approximately 75,000 suffer a non-fatal injury requiring hospital treatment.

U.S. Data on Police Shootings and Violence | Law Enforcement Epidemiology Project | University of Illinois Chicago

Data on police shootings and violence impacting civilians in the United States, as prepared by the Law Enforcement Epidemiology Project.

policeepi.uic.edu

 

[beagle9]

Your police kill more civilians that any police force in the first world - bar NONE. They're killing more than 1000 people per year. And just to be clear - last year, American police killed 1,096 civilians. The French police killed 37, the Brits 3, Germany 11, and there were 69 in Canada - which is the highest in our history and is raising concerns in Canada.

Police Killings by Country 2025

And you're complaining that American police aren't quick enough to kill.

So what does this tell you about the state of our cultural decline in America ? It should tell you that to be a police officer in America is possibly one of the most dangerous job's in the world now.

And who has created this situation and cultural decline in America ?

The radical identifying as leftist "Democrats" did, and they are still active in their agenda to drive it even further down into hell than it currently is. Does that make you proud ?

 

[beagle9]

If the perp is a threat to the public in fleeing, wouldn't shooting the fleeing suspect also endanger the public as well. There are numerous instances of innocents being shot by police who missed their intended target.

About 1 million of these civilians experience police threat of or use of force during these interactions. Of the estimated 250,000 civilians injured each year by law enforcement, approximately 75,000 suffer a non-fatal injury requiring hospital treatment.

U.S. Data on Police Shootings and Violence | Law Enforcement Epidemiology Project | University of Illinois Chicago

Data on police shootings and violence impacting civilians in the United States, as prepared by the Law Enforcement Epidemiology Project.

policeepi.uic.edu

In most cases where a suspect is in flight mode after a violent encounter with police, the public is not usually endanger within the immediate engagement between the two, but once the perp leaves the scene by escaping, this is when the real danger begins for the public.

Allowing an armed violent offender to escape from the scene of a deadly encounter with law enforcement, and all because the officer's were afraid of a politically incorrect system that would go against them if they attempted to stop a violent perp from reaching the public at large, uhhh is a tragically bad operating standard or procedure now set.

A violent offender should never be allowed to escape into the public after attempting to kill a police officer, and therefore posing a serious threat to the public afterwards.

 

[Dragonlady]

In most cases where a suspect is in flight mode after a violent encounter with police, the public is not usually endanger within the immediate engagement between the two, but once the perp leaves the scene by escaping, this is when the real danger begins for the public.

Allowing an armed violent offender to escape from the scene of a deadly encounter with law enforcement, and all because the officer's were afraid of a politically incorrect system that would go against them if they attempted to stop a violent perp from reaching the public at large, uhhh is a tragically bad operating standard or procedure now set.

A violent offender should never be allowed to escape into the public after attempting to kill a police officer, and therefore posing a serious threat to the public afterwards.

The police should NEVER act as judge, jury or executioner, and that's what you're suggesting. You don't even see the danger in what you're suggesting in a country where the police are all too quick to kill suspects. It would give the police "license to kill" suspects and then claim they were attacked or fired upon. That's ALREADY happening with "throw down guns", but such a policy or law would legalize such practices and increase the kill rate.

Currently, officers cannot shoot fleeing suspects in the back. If officers are required to stop suspects from fleeing from attacks on police officers, "shot in the back after attacking cops" is going to sky rocket across the land.

 

[Dragonlady]

So what does this tell you about the state of our cultural decline in America ? It should tell you that to be a police officer in America is possibly one of the most dangerous job's in the world now.

And who has created this situation and cultural decline in America ?

The radical identifying as leftist "Democrats" did, and they are still active in their agenda to drive it even further down into hell than it currently is. Does that make you proud ?

There are numerous factors at play in your cultural decline, and a lot of them are rooted in Republican economic policy: starting with 40 years of disinvestment in infrastructure in your inner cities. The end to the "War on Poverty" and Republicans fixation on cutting taxes which reduced spending on education, recreation and infrastructure since Reagan was in office.

Even more of them are rooted in your Second Amendment. If everyone in the USA has easy access to guns, American police officers have no way of knowing whether suspects are armed or not. There's literally no difference between a "good guy with a gun" and a "bad guy with a gun" on American streets. Cops have to make that determination in a heart beat, and getting it wrong can end their lives. Better safe than sorry. I don't even begin to know how you go about changing that culture.

In Canada, if the suspect has a gun, he's bad guy, because good guys don't have handguns. We have gun clubs, and hunting tourism is a BUSINESS in Canada. 60% of Canadian households own guns. But gun clubs members are required to carry their guns to and from the club in a lock box. If you're carrying a handgun on the street, you're almost certainly breaking the law, and the cops will treat you accordingly.

The Conservative Government in Ontario in the 1990's tried American style cuts to social spending, and the free community recreational programs in poor neighbourhoods in Toronto either closed or instituted user fees. Even after the Conservative were driven from office in disgrace the rec centres were gone, and the user fees remained. 10 years later we had the "Year of the Gun".

Gangs flourished in poor neighbourhoods with latchkey kids. Violence and shootings every week. Police services across the GTA staged a massive raid in the predawn hours and picked up over 200 gang bangers, mostly on bail/parole violations, and weapons charges, and problem solved. The community centres had provided places for youth in poor neighbourhoods to have productive outlets for their time and energies.

Year of The Gun: Beausoleil, Mr Victor: 9781519404244: Books - Amazon.ca

Year of The Gun: Beausoleil, Mr Victor: 9781519404244: Books - Amazon.ca

www.amazon.ca

GUN CONTROL IN TORONTO

 

[beagle9]

The police should NEVER act as judge, jury or executioner, and that's what you're suggesting. You don't even see the danger in what you're suggesting in a country where the police are all too quick to kill suspects. It would give the police "license to kill" suspects and then claim they were attacked or fired upon. That's ALREADY happening with "throw down guns", but such a policy or law would legalize such practices and increase the kill rate.

Currently, officers cannot shoot fleeing suspects in the back. If officers are required to stop suspects from fleeing from attacks on police officers, "shot in the back after attacking cops" is going to sky rocket across the land.

Bull chit and you know it (you emotional drama queen). Why do you think that we have body cams and dash cams on scene ?

Now go back and read very carefully the scenario's I have described, and if you don't agree that officer's are the first line of defense between innocent citizen's and violent criminals, then you are living in some kind of fantasy world where nothing is real, and the criminal is allowed to have rights above and beyond the police and those the police are hired to protect.

Your world view has innocent blood on it's hands, and that is unexceptable.

We have strayed from what is normal for so long now, that the radicals have caused a confusion that is paid for by innocent blood.