General Discussion

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)

28. Qualified maybe.

Mon Sep 15, 2014, 01:20 PM

Sep 2014

My ''magic rule' would be, you shoot an unarmed person, (ie somebody you thought was 'reaching for a gun' or 'holding a cellphone' or even a bystander) you can't carry a gun any more, no matter what happens in any associated lawsuits or charges. If you're 'acquitted', you still wind up on desk duty or some job that doesn't have you armed. Your judgment or visual acuity or aim has proven itself to be inadequate to the task of actually evaluating the real danger of a given situation and wielding a weapon responsibly.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Should officers who discharge a firearm in the line of duty be PERMANENTLY relieved of duty? [View all] IdaBriggs Sep 2014 OP

I agree largely with your "Maybe" option. cali Sep 2014 #1

I am trying to "devil's advocate" for all sides to encourage discussion. IdaBriggs Sep 2014 #19

Maybe, each situation is different. Steroid use, however, should not be tolerated at all. KittyWampus Sep 2014 #2

Some medications definitely impact judgement, including pain medications. IdaBriggs Sep 2014 #33

They should be moved to a desk job. KittyWampus Sep 2014 #39

So you give a cop a gun with the expressed intent B2G Sep 2014 #3

That would be one option - it *used to be* that police officers could go decades IdaBriggs Sep 2014 #5

Maybe. Depends on the situation Scootaloo Sep 2014 #4

I went with "outside peer review" as opposed to "internal peer review." IdaBriggs Sep 2014 #7

So say a cop has a clear shot at an armed kidnapper who is holding hostages. Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #6

What do you think? IdaBriggs Sep 2014 #8

Call me old-fashioned, but I would want him to shoot the bad guy to save the hostages, Nye Bevan Sep 2014 #9

And what if he shoots the wrong person? IdaBriggs Sep 2014 #15

No YarnAddict Sep 2014 #10

Exactly. B2G Sep 2014 #12

"deadly force is absolutely necessary" -- this seems to be the crux of the matter. IdaBriggs Sep 2014 #22

With intensive and proper YarnAddict Sep 2014 #25

May I ask why you preferred the "no" option to the "maybe" option? tkmorris Sep 2014 #35

Because it is a "yes" or "no" question YarnAddict Sep 2014 #38

No because that would be idiotic... Oktober Sep 2014 #11

I asked it in another post, but it seems like you might have some insite into this issue also. IdaBriggs Sep 2014 #16

Same standard we use for everyone else... Oktober Sep 2014 #29

If it's clearly a good shoot that saves lives, why would geek tragedy Sep 2014 #13

"If its a bad shoot, they should go to prison." IdaBriggs Sep 2014 #18

There are varying degrees of criminal culpability geek tragedy Sep 2014 #27

I think the Canadians used to have a system that investigated any Mountie who fired their weapon jwirr Sep 2014 #14

Interesting. Any idea if the program still exists? IdaBriggs Sep 2014 #17

I do not know if it still exists. From what I understand it is based on the same idea as the one in jwirr Sep 2014 #20

I believe every city in the US B2G Sep 2014 #21

Good. However as we are seeing in Ferguson MO - it depends on who reviews the report. jwirr Sep 2014 #24

If that's the issue, then address that B2G Sep 2014 #26

Searching for black & white in a grey world ksoze Sep 2014 #23

Qualified maybe. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2014 #28

People can kill using other means B2G Sep 2014 #30

I would call knives and cars weapons. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Sep 2014 #32

Perception is a tricky thing... Oktober Sep 2014 #31

Not if the shooting was justified. KamaAina Sep 2014 #34

Two things: Pay cops a lot more, and at the same time demand a lot more of them. True Blue Door Sep 2014 #36

For unjustifiable shoots yes, justifiable ones no jmowreader Sep 2014 #37

No. Some shootings are necessary and justified. hack89 Sep 2014 #40