|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
Should the police change their training in order to prevent crime and save taxpayer money?
This morning in Indianapolis a man with a rifle was about to rob a neighborhood "stop and rob." When police arrived and ordered him to stop and drop the gun he turned it on police. Several police officers discharged their weapons. He survived and was transported for medical care. He has been arrested.
My questions is: Should those police officers be sent back for target training or be armed with more deadly firearms as a means of saving trial costs in cases of vicious armed criminals who should be dead not in jail?
Police have to go through a mental checklist very quickly when they draw their weapons. Do they fire at all? Do they shoot to injure only? Do they shoot to kill? In the case you mention, I think they'd probably choose the third because it comes down to asking themselves if they can kill him before he kills one of them. Sending them back to the range probably wouldn't change the outcome. Anyone can stand on a shooting range and get a perfect score. Put those same people in live fire action out on the street and probably most of them won't hit where they think they aimed. Try it sometime. I doubt you could do any better.
What kind of "more deadly firearms" do you have in mind? Bazookas? Grenade launchers? Small thermonuclear devices? I know that sounds ridiculous, but you left yourself open. I'm guessing you're thinking semi- or fully automatic rifles of some kind. Not a good idea. Police can't just go spraying bullets willy-nilly like you see guys doing in the movies. Well, they can, but think of the number of innocent by-standers injured or killed by that kind of action.
Should the criminal in this case be dead? Are you God to judge he should be dead and not in jail?
No I am thinking that criminals cost society too much money.The threaten the police in the discharge of their duty.When confronted by a man with a rifle, I think they should have a better option than a pistol of medium caliber.Criminal dead? YES!
Sheila, you know my background so I am just going to correct you on one thing. There is NO SUCH THING as a police officer shooting to "injure", that is a bunch of Hollywood make believe. It's called deadly force for a reason.
There was a case here in Tucson recently where a man was trying to rob a bank using a gun. Someone inside the bank was able to use a cell phone to alert the police.
The robber heard the sirens outside and knew the police were out there.
He calmly walked out of the bank, went to his vehicle parked in front of the bank, picked up a box of ammunition and headed back into the bank.
Five police officers shot him before he could get back into the bank and make it a hostage situation.
A long expensive trial will not be necessary for this bank robber.
Believe it or not, some groups of citizens are calling this police brutality with excessive force. Perhaps if they had been one of the unarmed citizens inside the bank they would have a different outlook?
How much safer for the police if the bank customer had been willing and able to shoot the robber dead right there. No rushing to a crime, no worry about throwing himself in front of a bullet. I want our police to have long happy sane lives.
Hmmmm, perhaps that is why I have a Concealed Carry Permit and use it?
by ahorseback2 years ago
Most of Americans support you , trust the job that you do and support the process in which you do it ! Up to about eighty percent of us, [ 80%,] depending on race , economics , ...
by Jennifer Kessner2 years ago
If you haven't kept up to date on the issues in Ferguson, here is a drastically simplified version of events:1. On August 9th, a St. Louis County police officer shot an unarmed 18-year-old young black man. 2. The...
by Mike Russo3 years ago
I know this is going to be controversial, but I'm deeply concerned about racism in this country. There seems to be many more shootings of unarmed black men by white police in the last few months. This latest...
by Jay Barban3 years ago
Do you think it fair and constitutional to make police officers wear audio/video recording devices?
by Rakim Cheeks3 years ago
Do you think policemen abused their power as officers? Do you think racism is involved? Over the past several months, police brutality has increased. Not to mention, the police has killed several people of...
by MysteryPlanet22 months ago
Have you noticed police officers speeding, running red lights, failing to use turn signals...... tail gating, and generally breaking traffic laws? In my own experience I see this nearly every time I drive through town....
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.