3 ms·
> Or shoot him, the law won, and he is dead. if a iron fist rule you shoot them, but sooner or later you will end up with situations where their brother will s
by dathinab 1y ago
> Or shoot him, the law won, and he is dead.
if a iron fist rule you shoot them, but sooner or later you will end up with situations where their brother will shoot you, or there is a uprising and they lynch the police chef etc. no one wins
in country with strict rules but no iron fist rule the police person who tries to shoot someone who doesn't pose danger for other just because they try to avoid arrest by running away will lose their job
> involve killing people in the end
this is such a misleading dumb fatalistic argument, yes people will get killed, but there is a huge difference between the context.
> You can't enforce laws without the threat of killing people if they refuse all other punishments.
Except pretty much all of the EU operates _exactly_ that way with minor differences. And it works.
Sure there are edge cases where you threaten shooting at someone, and sometimes police will have to shoot. But only if there is risk to live. And most crimes don't go that far.
- Ray20 1y ago>Except pretty much all of the EU operates _exactly_ that way with minor differences. And it works. Well, it seems to be the same situation as everywhere: you either obey or be killed. As far as I know, in the EU there is no option to disobey and survive.
- Vegenoid 1y agoI do not believe that police are permitted to shoot a nonviolent criminal simply because they might escape (in most circumstances). They do have to actually physically apprehend them.
- spwa4 1y agoWhat is this insanity? Obviously the police have instructions that letting someone get away with a crime is better than having a shootout in the street. There's 3 big reasons for that. 2 good, one really bad: 1) other people can and will get hurt if you do that. Plus other damage. 2) no criminal only breaks the law once, so the police will get another chance. And, frankly, if by some miracle the criminal really does only breaks the law just once, that by definition means they're rehabilitated. Job well done. 3) If you use violence you WILL get hurt. Perhaps that's very Jesus of me but it's true. Jesus did not see fit to build in an exception for the police. And states do not take good care of police that get hurt in the line of duty. So for individuals ... SWAT pays well but on the other hand there's demands. Demands you will never meet again if you get even a severe kick in the knee, and that represents years/decades of lost income that the state will not replace. So ... This is something people forget, but even animals behave like that. And it makes sense: a tiger may be powerful, but he cannot survive long term eating just you. Plus the calories the tiger gains from eating you justify maybe a few scratches, nothing more. In other words: an attack will only happen if the tiger is either desperate or VERY sure there's no risk. Not even a small risk of getting knifed. Yes, we're still human, and if you really make it clear your a dangerous lunatic, say kill a cop, or kids, or ... yes some police will risk their own safety to arrest/kill you. So there's exceptions. But mostly, no.
- Ray20 1y agoDisobey is not to escape. In most cases escape isn't possible. Disobey is to put up enough resistance to prevent your restriction of freedom. In Europe, they would absolutely one hundred percent kill you in such cases.
- Vegenoid 1y agoIf you limit the definition of “disobey” to mean “use lethal force against law enforcers”, then yes. However, I think that is a narrow and inaccurate definition.