3 ms·

I don't think that policemen's lives are "forfeit," but that it's their duty to not have self-defense as their very top priority, which entails taking risks in

• gozur88 11y ago
  Clearly the cop doesn't have self-defense as his top priority, or he wouldn't be in that situation at all. He'd make sure he was somewhere else when the possibility of violence manifested itself. Like, say, I would. Police officers shouldn't be shooting people on the off chance that a suspicious bulge might be a gun, but it seems pretty unreasonable to expect police officers to put their self-defense as the very lowest priority and wait until bullets actually come out of a gun-like-object being pointed at them before shooting.
  • gherkin0 11y ago
    But what I'm saying isn't putting their self-defense at "the very lowest priority," it's just putting it after correctly determining the suspect is an imminent mortal threat before deciding to kill them. The police are after all are the ones with the experience and training: they shouldn't ever be killing kids with toy guns or people with wallets, which they in fact are. The thinking that enables that needs to change.
    • gozur88 11y ago
      >...they shouldn't ever be killing kids with toy guns or people with wallets, which they in fact are. The thinking that enables that needs to change. I disagree. That's not an achievable standard without putting officers' lives at undue risk. Cops can not tell the difference between toy guns and real guns without a close inspection.