Could you pull the trigger?

a reply to: Noncents

Fair enough, you've given an honest answer, and I can respect that.

My only caution would be; while that may be your personal standing as an admittedly non-LEO, you shouldn't pass off that same judgement about the right and wrong of how LEO's function in their world (which is admittedly different from yours) and under circumstances such as the one posted in the OP.

As sad as it may be (and it is indeed sad), deadly force was clearly (and legally) warranted in the case of the child with the firearm presented in the OP.

originally posted by: ttobban
a reply to: Shamrock6

I'm still looking for a link that indicates where a member said that 'good people don't kill kids' or 'only bad people kill kids?' Can you please link the person and quote in this thread, so I can find resolve with the fact that you aren't continuously creating your own debate terms and limits. I am not debating with you... I'm just pointing out a full on pot/kettle scenario here.

Please Detective Shamrock... link me the quote that I am blind to see. Please... not some words with a quote around it... the actual quote please. Are you getting messages that the rest of us aren't? How long are you going to go on and on making this thread about you? I can understand that I am a confusing individual, but the more you ramble about self serving ideals, the more you feed my points.

Anyhoo... link or it didn't happen.

if you cant find it...it was removed. i saw the post myself.

OH PAGE 3. I QUOTED IAND REPLIED. NEAR TOP.

a reply to: Noncents

Being unable to kill another person while being willing to lay down your own life is a valiant personality trait and should be commended.

This debate interests me so much, because I feel people don't get to make as much of a decision in such a short time frame of adrenaline pumping and massive blood circulation. People can say they'd kill an infant if need be may find that adrenaline provides a different act. People can say that they'd never kill another human all they want, but the situation may just as easily present itself with conflicting results to action taken when such a conflict arises.

I witnessed an armed robbery while waiting for my shift to start. I remember planning what I would do if it happened to me... visualizing it over and over in my mind. My mind did not find that file folder when I had a gun pointed at me just a few months later. Instincts kicked in, and I barely remembered specifics of what occurred.

a reply to: ttobban

This is a fact; people involved in an armed dispute are commonly unable to recall specific details about the event. Even things like how many shots were fired are often wildly inaccurate. Even though a firearm is one of the loudest things most people will ever hear, often even experienced law enforcement personnel will not be able to recall how many shots even they fired themselves personally.

A life and death shooting situation is probably one of the most high-stress situations the human mind and body can experience.

edit...I actually know a State Trooper who was involved in a shootout with an escaped convict one night on a deserted highway. What started out as a routine speeding stop turned into a nightmare. The trooper exited his car and was walking toward the car he'd pulled over when the driver jumped out of the vehicle and immediately fired a pistol at him several times. One of the shots struck him in the eye (but miraculously missed his brain). Half blinded the trooper drew his firearm and returned fire as the suspect jumped back in his car and sped off. Miraculously, the trooper put almost every shot through the back window of the car, striking the assailant in the low shoulder blade / lung once. The trooper managed to make it back to his car and call for help. The suspect, badly wounded crashed before a road block and was apprehended. The trooper later said he was firing his pistol, but he didn't understand why it wasn't firing. He thought he'd only fired 2-3 rounds when, in fact, he had emptied his magazine and was just dry firing the pistol. He'd fired 15 rounds, and 14 of those rounds struck the escaping car. (That was one pissed off trooper!)

a reply to: ttobban
I should have said so before but thanks for the kind words.

I did say that good people don't kill kids. It's still there, page 2. I mean that too, put it in my signature. I do not intend to offend anyone when I say that. I do feel like some people took my words as some kind of personal jab or something instead of thinking about what they actually meant. Maybe it is a moral thing. I just thought it was a built-in type of thing.

Sort of like you said:

I think some people say they would be able to and believe while looking at it from an outside perspective that they could but when the time came they wouldn't actually be able to do it. I think we're wired to protect children and it would be very, very hard to overcome that.

a reply to: Noncents

I've said I respect your earlier response, and what I'm about to say I don't mean as a challenge, but I do have a question for you. ...

I understand what you've written, and I believe I understand your opinion. However, let me ask you a question which is a little derivative of the scenario the OP posted.

What if the little girl in the video had your wife/husband and your child on the side of the road (in addition to the Deputy). You also have a firearm. And what if, instead of shooting the deputy, the little girl shot your wife and then started swinging the firearm towards your child. Would you fire on the girl then? Your own life isn't in imminent danger, but your wife has been shot and your child may be next. Would you fire then?

You see, I think you're making a judgement from a distance which isn't really objective or accurate. You say "you" would be willing to die in a situation given your beliefs, but would you let a loved one die for those same beliefs?

edit...this is really the essence of what is being debated here. It's not about the fact the shooter is a child, as much as it is about stopping an active threat who might, and likely will, continue to do grave bodily harm to others.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
I get where you're coming from, Blain and I touched on this as well.

Adrenaline's a powerful thing that can make people do things they normally wouldn't so I can't say 100% how that would play out. But I can say that I think I'm a good enough shot to kneecap the kid and put her on the ground screaming in pain, hopefully giving me enough time to snatch her gun up.

If I absolutely had to take a shot, it would be like that. Preferably a kneecap or leg, the arm with her hand on the trigger maybe. But I wouldn't go for a head, stomach or chest shot. I would try for something that wouldn't kill her. And that's if all I had was a gun.

That's what Blain and I was getting into when you came in. We've got some really amazing non-lethal weaponry that would put the other person on the ground without hurting them (well, not enough to kill them anyway). That would be the better option.

I do believe we can defend without killing.

a reply to: yuppa

Well, I seen a few posts that even indicate that they were changed, but I never read or even had the chance to read the original. I looked through the whole thread again for what I was told I was blind to see... it doesn't exist. I asked for the quote to be sourced in this thread, and it has yet to happen. If the link can be shared, I can re evaluate my opinions. Honestly, my points in debate with that particular person were to throw shade at the 'talking down to' aspects that are read in their wording... in both this thread and other law enforcement threads.

That particular member has shown a recent history of twisting reality, so it's kind of difficult to fall in line with all of the insults that person throws around to people for being inferior to their badge's owed respect. It's the sad kind of funny, to accuse people of moving goal posts after they add a story of a 16 year old with a gun to be compared to a little girl with a gun... added to a debate about police training.

Really... why would someone change the subject line to what happened in Memphis between a 16 yer old and a cop while on duty, then tell others that are talking about a training video used by police that they're 'moving goal posts?' Seriously, it's a freaking joke... making it out like all others are changing the story. It then streams on to include that it was only brought up because a 3rd party member said something that was not related to the OP's training video case... getting butt hurt by a person saying they feel poorly of another's choices. There was no need to defend his/her wish to go home after work... they were just looking to tell people how they're wrong for not aligning with the emotions that were flowing.

Come on already... a spade is a spade, and people should be made aware when fake is masked as trustworthy.

a reply to: ttobban

There's quite a number of folks who will "hit and run", then go back and edit posts when they realize they're outgunned (metaphorically speaking). Worse, there are equally a number of folks who love to just argue for the sake of arguing, constantly deflecting and changing the subject (they irritate me even worse). I'd name one skunk with an exceptionally wide stripe in particular, but this would be bad form (not to mention a likely T&C violation). In any case, don't worry about it.

State your position clearly, and stand by it. Don't let someone distract from your position or draw you down into some alternate reality. The key is just stating your posture in detail, and being prepared to defend it. People can tell...when you're not mincing words.

Edit...I edit posts all the time, but never for content. I mainly edit them for syntax, spelling, grammar and readability. I don't ever change the posture.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I couldn't agree more... that's why this debate has my attention. It's interesting to read what people say they'd do vs. what actually happens vs. what was remembered.

It's a two way street with that too though. I remember after being held at gun point that the police asked if a note was involved. I already forgot that the gunman did give me a note, but quickly remembered the conversing that took place over the note. The assailant tried to put the note in my hand after showing a gun. Instincts told me to hand over whatever he wanted, so I turned for the register. The assailant stopped by from going into the register two times, and then forced the note into my hand. I turned around, threw the note down without even offering a peek at it, and emptied the register. The assailant was running on adrenaline too, and likely couldn't believe that he slowed his own getaway down by addressing the note... if he even remembered that part that is.

What did the note say when I showed police where it was you ask? It said, "Give me all the money or i'll shot your ass." Yes, it was written in past tense!

General note to all...

The question in the OP, and the associated video is actually an excellent example of numerous facets on a number of debate topics here on ATS (firearms, law enforcement, morals, honesty and hypocrisy). The question posed is not an easy one, and it involves some tragic and difficult decisions...all in a split second. Decide right and people might die. Decide wrong and more people might die (possibly even yourself). It is truly a paradoxical decision, but not one without an answer.

It would be great if, in life, all the decisions we had to face were black and white with finite answers. It would be great if we had a bell-curve buffer where a 70% would still get a passing grade. But real life isn't always like that. Sometimes the test only has one question, and you either get it right or you get it wrong. And in the case presented here, it's not a class you can take over to get a better grade. The outcome is the outcome, good or bad.

Life is for keeps; you don't get a 2nd chance.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
Regarding the editing of posts: I try to use the reason box to give a real reason to why posts were edited. It's a great place to add a little levity to the serious conversations we have around here sometimes.

Most of my edits are replacing lost words or letters but I tend to type way too much and edit down to remove a lot of unnecessary fluff.

a reply to: Noncents

You're good.

No worries!

a reply to: Noncents

Well, I kind of thought it was a comment by you that was being discussed and hidden. Honestly, I don't compare the decision a citizen can or should make in an instance like that to what a trained professional can or should make in an instance like that. Law enforcement and their training aren't to be compared to what a citizens lack of training would or wouldn't provide as results. Apples aren't oranges, and oranges aren't apples.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

I find myself in conflict on this site and most of society for that matter, mostly due to the love of learning. I prefer to be wrong, as it means there's more to learn. The whole new style of breaking people down prior to debate is an aspect of debate that I am not well equipped for. You're right on again, and I am served well by you reminding me of my inner warrior's futile attempts to offer verbal salvation.

Thanks again...

a reply to: DBCowboy

No way-under no circumstances-even with the gun pointed at me-even if I would be killed and called a coward if I lived could I ever shoot a child-self defense or not-so call me all those names. Nope.

I would FAIL ...I am NOT trained in discretionary combat, it is A PRECISE science, I can half ass in a pinch.
LIKELY by getting SHOT ,pissed off and killing the bad guy...NOT a cop..
I prefer a Gerber Mark II,BUT I can't CARRY the thing.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

That’s really what training evolutions like this are meant to do: show you a worst possible case scenario and drive home the point that there may come a day when you’ve got to make a hard call with far-reaching effects. Not just for yourself, but for others.

It’s not uncommon for training like this to cause people to drop out of an academy, because they’d rather not worry about finding themselves in a situation like this.

originally posted by: Justso
a reply to: DBCowboy

No way-under no circumstances-even with the gun pointed at me-even if I would be killed and called a coward if I lived could I ever shoot a child-self defense or not-so call me all those names. Nope.

There are always special circumstances. Would you shoot one kid to save two other kids from being killed? Or another scenario - would you see your own spouse and kids lose a breadwinner, partner and parent for the sake of a young murderer?

Thankfully, in Britain, I'll never have to make the choice and I truly hope you never do either.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Whoa, let's back up for a second. The issue is that it appears that the Police do not have a clear set of Rules of Engagement.

They should have them, just as the Military does. There are lots of 'good shoots' in the military in foreign countries where they ask for and are denied the option to shoot.

IMO, Police need to re-align themselves with their actual job and that is to bring in people who are about to or have committed violent crimes for presentation to a judge and jury. It should not be their job to stop people on the highway for 'imagined' or 'low level event' so they can go on a fishing expedition.

There should be no high speed chases after a car which just didn't want to stop for the cops, because AT THAT MOMENT there was not a crime (except for fleeing from the cops). They should note the license number and find the owner and arrest them later. It's not worth the life of ONE INNOCENT person who might be killed during a high speed chase and there are many of those. Some departments have already outlawed this practice, but sadly only after innocent people are killed.

There should not be cops who chase after people on foot who they did NOT see commit a crime, simply on the word of someone else, which then leads to that person on foot being killed because they 'resisted'. They had not committed a crime at that point.

The problem is that there is too much 'fishing expedition' type stops going on, too many arrests for the use of substances which is a victimless crime and all too often cops have the idea that it's their job to shoot people because they are given guns.

We need to ramp back their armament to the possession of a 5-6 shot revolver, take away the militaristic upscaling of their armament and use, instead, radios, overwhelming force, PATIENCE and kindness if warranted and alternative means (such as netting and spraying foam and other non-lethal methods which are used in other countries.

If we did this there would be a lot less deaths on either side. Nobody is saying that in the event that there is a clear indication to use deadly force that it should not be an option but it should be WAY DOWN at the bottom of the list of options. But it's not. It's the first option.

Arresting people is what cops do. They will, apparently, do anything and everything to get arrests, including, as we've seen recently on a cop's lapel camera, plant evidence. This has being going on for a LONG time.

Let's have policing where they actually have a first edict to protect and then to serve and eliminate as best as possible the evolution of cops as thugs in blue who think it's ok to shoot and kill someone for disrespecting them.