guys its hard to comment without the facts - the issue (as with the gangster Duggan) is whether the officer thought the person armed and what happened to make the officer feel threatened .....
To be honest, I'm surprised that police forces throughout the country get enough officers wanting to be firearms officers.
Shooting someone, never mind killing them is something I hope no police officer wants to do. And if it happens, you just know there's going to be a circus descending on you. Your clothes will be seized, you'll be suspended from work, no contact with colleagues (who may be witnesses), skin swabbed, etc. etc. Then it's a waiting game, being interviewed, with your life in turmoil month after month. And that's just for the most straightforward incident where it's clear the officer had no choice.
Of course it's right that any use of such force by the police should be scrutinised. Many forces only have enough firearms officers by making it a requirement of another job. For example, if you want to apply for a job on the traffic department, fine, but you have to successfully pass a suitability course and become a firearms officer. Then there's the regular re-testing. Fail that and you job is on the line.
Then of course, there's always the risk that you make a wrong decision and a full investigation ensues. The media frenzy, all the people with axes to grind getting on the bandwagon, your livlihood and indeed your freedom at risk, your family also.... Not something I'd want, for sure.
I am not a Police knocker as its not a job I could do, but at some point when an unarmed man is shot by them I would expect a prosecution.
I would say the complete opposite - if acting on duty with a person failing to co-operate criminals should expect to be shot, and the officer should be 100% immune from presecution. These 'gangsters' don't fear the police, maybe if they knew if they didn't co-operate with the police they would get shot it might improve their attitude.
Law abiding citizens need not worry.
I would say the complete opposite - if acting on duty with a person failing to co-operate criminals should expect to be shot, and the officer should be 100% immune from presecution. These 'gangsters' don't fear the police, maybe if they knew if they didn't co-operate with the police they would get shot it might improve their attitude.
Law abiding citizens need not worry.
That's right.......... Take em out and do it fast... The ones that scream "there's gotta be another way" the loudest will be the quietest when it comes time take care of the cop's family if he had not have made that split second decision and the guy was actually armed... Always a good idea to follow instructions in situations where you could get shot.....
never read the story, but could it be that the cop told him to get out? Or maybe put his hands up where he could see them? How did the cop know that there wasn't a gun in the guy's lap ready to rearrange his belt buckle.... I feel bad for the cop and the innocent family of the guy shot, but have no sympathy for the guy....I agree if someone is pointing a gun at you and it becomes a "him or me" situation.... but an unarmed man sat in a car? He may have been a wrong 'un but he was someone's brother, uncle, father and the fact remains, he was unarmed.
The cop who pulled the trigger gets my sympathy, he's the one who has to live with the fact that he killed an unarmed man. As they say - **** rolls down hill, but the boss who gave the order should be held to account.
I agree if someone is pointing a gun at you and it becomes a "him or me" situation.... but an unarmed man sat in a car? He may have been a wrong 'un but he was someone's brother, uncle, father and the fact remains, he was unarmed.
The cop who pulled the trigger gets my sympathy, he's the one who has to live with the fact that he killed an unarmed man. As they say - **** rolls down hill, but the boss who gave the order should be held to account.
If you weren't there keep it shut until you know the ENTIRE facts. If you were there, gob off as much as you like if you witnessed the events; otherwise you are regurgitating what someone else has told you or perceived.
I would say the complete opposite - if acting on duty with a person failing to co-operate criminals should expect to be shot, and the officer should be 100% immune from presecution. These 'gangsters' don't fear the police, maybe if they knew if they didn't co-operate with the police they would get shot it might improve their attitude.
Law abiding citizens need not worry.
So all criminals failing to cooperate should expect to be shot? The shoplifter who does a runner, the brawling drunken lad on a Saturday night, and the fraudulent banker who doesn't readily cooperate with producing documents? We wouldn't need prisons, courts or probation services - just lots of very large cemeteries. And lots of apologies for getting the 'wrong guy'.
This is supposed to be a sophisticated civilised society not a despotic police state.