OrangeEmpire
The White Debonair
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 74,988
- Likes
- 59
Yes.
Police officers should use their firearms to protect themselves and protect the public from immediate harm. An unarmed, small time crook is not posing an imminent danger to anyone.
He didn't have a big problem doing Iraq because he believed it right.Lame excuse to me. If you believe you are right and do not act, does not say much for your character.
Having had to make tougher decisions in the tougher situations, I will continue to not offer these guys any leniency.It's real easy to Monday morning quarterback an officer that uses a weapon on a criminal when the fact is that officers put their lives on the line everytime they do a routine traffic stop...
I know there are a lot of cops that give them bad reputations (most of the time well earned), but still, making a decision in the heat of a foot race or the struggle to subdue a felon should offer these guys some leniency.
These border guys encounter not only the sterotypical farm workers or potential female housekeepers, but also common felons and drug dealers...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Apparently nobody in this thread feels that shooting a non-combatant in the back is worthy of jail time???
Interesting...
Well, Mr. Trooper. The next time some of your SWAT buddies are talking about their brave escapades. Let's say 25 of them armed to the teeth busting a house with 15 or so drugheads. Tell them to go try it by themselves, and then get back with me.
Strange isn't it? Columba Bush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No, but not everyone else runs around calling themselves "The Decider." If he wanted to be accurate, he would call himself "The Guy Who Makes Decisions Only When They Are Useful In Pandering To Some Fringe Group Or Of No Danger To Me."