4 ms·

It does not tell you anything about their rules of engagement, so how can you say it is completely reckless? I've seen my fair share of shoot-outs from the US,

by vegardx 14y ago

It does not tell you anything about their rules of engagement, so how can you say it is completely reckless? I've seen my fair share of shoot-outs from the US, and if that is not reckless, than what is? Coming from Norway i find the very notion that police carry guns very strange. I also feel less safe when I'm around guns, be that of police or just regular citizen.

staunch 14y ago
Because there's no safe way to fire a warning shot in a public space. Firing a weapon without a proper backstop is always extremely dangerous and should be a last resort. Also, I seriously doubt you would feel less safe in an FBI office than a ghetto in London. One is full of guns, the other is full of danger.
- biafra 14y ago
  If there is no one around except the person that is not shot at? Why is that not safe?
- vegardx 14y ago
  You are taking my statement out of context. I just said that guns make me feel less safe, not that I feel less safe in a police station. You also conclude that firing warning shots means that they have no backup, again, you have no idea what their rules of engagements are or what situation they were in and what the circumstances was.
- justincormack 14y ago
  London does not really have anything that you could describe as a ghetto.
  - staunch 14y ago
    No crime-ridden neighborhoods where many of the residents live in government housing?
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- darklajid 14y ago
  I'm not familiar with the procedure of giving a warning shot. Are you entirely certain that these shots were fired high up in the air, instead of, say, 5 meters up ahead (or behind, for extra safety) of someone running away, into the ground? Leaving that aside (I might be totally wrong and you can convince me of that): "Last resort" leaves only room for one single thing, right? And I'd put "shoot at a person" in that place, after all (potentially?) dangerous acts of warning.

by vegardx 14y ago

staunch 14y ago

Because there's no safe way to fire a warning shot in a public space. Firing a weapon without a proper backstop is always extremely dangerous and should be a last resort. Also, I seriously doubt you would feel less safe in an FBI office than a ghetto in London. One is full of guns, the other is full of danger.

biafra 14y ago
If there is no one around except the person that is not shot at? Why is that not safe?
vegardx 14y ago
You are taking my statement out of context. I just said that guns make me feel less safe, not that I feel less safe in a police station. You also conclude that firing warning shots means that they have no backup, again, you have no idea what their rules of engagements are or what situation they were in and what the circumstances was.
justincormack 14y ago
London does not really have anything that you could describe as a ghetto.
- staunch 14y ago
  No crime-ridden neighborhoods where many of the residents live in government housing?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
darklajid 14y ago
I'm not familiar with the procedure of giving a warning shot. Are you entirely certain that these shots were fired high up in the air, instead of, say, 5 meters up ahead (or behind, for extra safety) of someone running away, into the ground? Leaving that aside (I might be totally wrong and you can convince me of that): "Last resort" leaves only room for one single thing, right? And I'd put "shoot at a person" in that place, after all (potentially?) dangerous acts of warning.