jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (7 posts)

Should the police change their training in order to prevent crime and save taxpa

  1. profile image60
    retief2000posted 3 years ago

    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?

  2. profile image0
    sheilamyersposted 3 years ago

    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?

    1. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      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!

    2. Superkev profile image85
      Superkevposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      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.

  3. profile image0
    Old Poolmanposted 3 years ago

    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?

    1. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      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.

    2. profile image0
      Old Poolmanposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      Hmmmm, perhaps that is why I have a Concealed Carry Permit and use it?