3 ms·
For one, civilians don't have the role of "protecting and serving" :) Cops are trained, and are supposed to learn how to handle a situation without pulling out
by dudul 11y ago
For one, civilians don't have the role of "protecting and serving" :)
Cops are trained, and are supposed to learn how to handle a situation without pulling out their gun [].
I don't necessarily disagree with you though. It would be good for people to be able to walk at night with a bag of candies without getting gunned down. I don't think that 2 problems should cancel each other.
[] And I know I'm wrong when I say that. I remember another paper showing how American cops spend a disproportionate amount of time practicing with their gun as opposed to cops in other countries where they mostly learn how to handle situations without their arms.
- krapp 11y agoPolice should certainly be held to a higher standard - and when they shoot someone, they should be treated the same as anyone else, if not put under greater scrutiny, because of the greater responsibility their position entails. But the fact remains that, for better or worse, every American by default has the right to shoot people with guns under certain circumstances. I am not a lawyer but I don't see a legal justification for limiting the ability of the police to defend themselves, without treating police officers like felons.
- dudul 11y agoI don't necessarily disagree, but the problem is you could say the opposite. If you claim that police officers should have the same rights as a civilian, couldn't you argue that civilians should have the same rights as police officers? I believe that the role of "police officer" comes with the idea that before defending yourself you should be prepared to defend other first.
- krapp 11y agoAs far as I know, civilians and police officers in the US do have the same rights, as far as firearms are concerned.