4 ms·

agreed. if they are unarmed then they can forget about arresting people and bringing them into jail and in front of a judge. plenty of people are willing to kil

by lg 10y ago

agreed. if they are unarmed then they can forget about arresting people and bringing them into jail and in front of a judge. plenty of people are willing to kill to avoid that outcome.

euyyn 10y ago
> they can forget about arresting people and bringing them into jail and in front of a judge Hyperbole much? I expect most arrests are done without firearms being drawn. > plenty of people are willing to kill to avoid that outcome. And plenty of people are willing to kill for other reasons too, which is why no one's discussing that zero police officers should carry firearms. What's being questioned is the policy of all of them doing it.
- lg 10y ago
  maybe most arrests happen that way, but you need to be prepared for any reasonable eventuality. apprehending people can be very dangerous. I see no reason why an officer would willingly go into that situation unprepared to defend him/herself with lethal force. having armed help a radio call away doesn't seem comforting when you're dealing with someone who's armed and angry now.
  - euyyn 10y ago
    I would bet most shots at the police aren't because the criminal wants to straight up murder a police officer out of anger in the heat of the moment. Rather because he's scared, wants to flee, and his only option left for that is his gun. It's a given here in the US that the moment you as much as appear to draw a gun at a cop, you're getting shot. So I don't think criminals even have to think about it to know that it's a "kill first or die" situation, once you're down that route. Now, if the criminal knows that the cop is unarmed, all of that changes: his gun is just leverage. He flees (or expels the cops off his house), which is undesirable; but then's when the situation can be escalated. No more "wild West" situations of "this guy might shoot me any moment, better be prepared to kill him for my life".
DashRattlesnake 10y ago
> if they are unarmed then they can forget about arresting people and bringing them into jail and in front of a judge. plenty of people are willing to kill to avoid that outcome. I'm going to call bullshit on that. Proportionally few criminals are North Hollywood Shootout types that require lethal force to be subdued. I would think that a very large fraction of arrests can be accomplished with threats of extra legal penalties or physical man-handling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout
gambiting 10y ago
And yet, in UK criminals are arrested absolutely fine, even though police does not carry guns!

by lg 10y ago

agreed. if they are unarmed then they can forget about arresting people and bringing them into jail and in front of a judge. plenty of people are willing to kill to avoid that outcome.

euyyn 10y ago

> they can forget about arresting people and bringing them into jail and in front of a judge Hyperbole much? I expect most arrests are done without firearms being drawn. > plenty of people are willing to kill to avoid that outcome. And plenty of people are willing to kill for other reasons too, which is why no one's discussing that zero police officers should carry firearms. What's being questioned is the policy of all of them doing it.

lg 10y ago
maybe most arrests happen that way, but you need to be prepared for any reasonable eventuality. apprehending people can be very dangerous. I see no reason why an officer would willingly go into that situation unprepared to defend him/herself with lethal force. having armed help a radio call away doesn't seem comforting when you're dealing with someone who's armed and angry now.
- euyyn 10y ago
  I would bet most shots at the police aren't because the criminal wants to straight up murder a police officer out of anger in the heat of the moment. Rather because he's scared, wants to flee, and his only option left for that is his gun. It's a given here in the US that the moment you as much as appear to draw a gun at a cop, you're getting shot. So I don't think criminals even have to think about it to know that it's a "kill first or die" situation, once you're down that route. Now, if the criminal knows that the cop is unarmed, all of that changes: his gun is just leverage. He flees (or expels the cops off his house), which is undesirable; but then's when the situation can be escalated. No more "wild West" situations of "this guy might shoot me any moment, better be prepared to kill him for my life".

DashRattlesnake 10y ago

> if they are unarmed then they can forget about arresting people and bringing them into jail and in front of a judge. plenty of people are willing to kill to avoid that outcome. I'm going to call bullshit on that. Proportionally few criminals are North Hollywood Shootout types that require lethal force to be subdued. I would think that a very large fraction of arrests can be accomplished with threats of extra legal penalties or physical man-handling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

gambiting 10y ago

And yet, in UK criminals are arrested absolutely fine, even though police does not carry guns!