Is using deadly force on an unarmed person EVER justified?

originally posted by: OrphanApology
a reply to: TorqueyThePig

As I stated above if you cannot call backup then it is justified as a police officer.

Obviously, it is ill judgement to have cops answer any type of call without having a backup.

When backup is minutes away and you are getting thrashed right then, even a police officer should be able to use deadly force in defense of his life or that of another.

a reply to: OrphanApology

I apologize.

You stated "Is using deadly force on an unarmed person justified as a police officer? No."

So you do feel that there are rare occassions where using deadly force on an unarmed person is justified.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Very good point.

The saying when "seconds count the police are only minutes away" applies to police officers in need of back up as well.

Local St. Louis sources said Wilson suffered an “orbital blowout fracture to the eye socket.” This comes from a source within the Prosecuting Attorney’s office and confirmed by the St. Louis County Police.

www.thegatewaypundit.com... ow

a reply to: NavyDoc

No, that is not "police" that is "military". Police arrest, military KILLS.

Policing means you ARREST violent unarmed suspects WITHOUT killing them. They are souped up security guards or communities. If a suspect has a gun and is using it against said community the cops can shoot because their job is defending the community. If not, other tactics are applied. Otherwise they are nothing more than a standing army.

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
I'm completely against violence and unless someone was physically assaulting me I wouldn't raise a finger.

No one is truly unarmed. The original arms were, well, your arms.

So someone beating a child in front of you and you wouldn't raise a finger? I'm glad you're not my parent.

a reply to: OrphanApology

Okay so I am confused.

You believe that a cop can use deadly force against an unarmed person if he is protecting a member of the community that is not another police officer but an officer can not use deadly force to protect their own self from harm against an unarmed attacker using deadly force.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig I believe with all my heart that if i were to go out today and assult a cop and i were unarmed i would be shot justifibly. I believe that if i put an officer in a position for him to draw his weapon in an effort to get me to comply with him and i ran towards him or away i would be shot justifibly. I also believe that if i verbaly assulted an officer i would be shot.

a reply to: deadeyedick

You believe that you would be shot for verbally asasulting an officer?

Interesting.

If that was the case I would have shot thousands of people.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

If a person is using a gun against a community, a police officer usually will use a gun to protect the community(unless said suspect is mentally ill and more of a threat to themselves than anyone(i.e. a suicidal person with gun to their head).

Otherwise, non-violent tactics should be used. If a person has no gun, why would a community police force use deadly force? The whole purpose of police is to have a security force that is NOT military. Not being military means you use non-violent problem solving methods in place of shooting and blowing # up.

I am not understanding your confusion.

a reply to: OrphanApology

I think I am confused because you feel the police should use non violent tactics against a violent person. One does not have to be armed to be violent.

Did you watch the video I posted. Would the officer have been justified in using deadly force in that situation? The attacker was unarmed.

You do know it is fairly easy to beat someone to death with hands and feet right?

a reply to: FlyersFan

Exactly.

I am 6ft 1in and 240lbs.

If I attacked another man that was 5ft 8in and 150lbs I would totally expect to be shot without question.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

Yes I also know that before becoming a police officer, you should be able to defend yourself without killing someone. That is the core of "policing".

Imagine if police officers in los vegas used deadly force every time they encountered a physically violent suspect.

Or a cop in New Orleans.

Or cops outside metal bars where the kids just came from mosh pits...

Or in projects housing where the majority of the inhabitants are violent alcoholics.

Learn some #ing self defense and tactics to subdue PRIOR to becoming a cop. If you are a woman and are needed on the force and for the life of you can't find a jiu jitsu academy anywhere nearby...CALL BACKUP.

Do not shoot unarmed suspects. If you do not have the skills to where you cannot subdue without deadly force you should NOT be a cop. The end.

a reply to: OrphanApology



Never did I say it was okay to use deadly force everytime an officer encountered a violent subject.

Do you think the officer in the video I posted had time to call for back up?

Martial arts are great. I study them and they can help.

However what about being sucker punched giving the attacker a distinct advantage?

Make no mistake about it there is always someone bigger, badder and dirtier then you.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

If you're life is in danger or the life of someone else is in danger.

Then yes.

I hope a lot of members here read and absorb what you posted here Torquey.

originally posted by: OrphanApology
a reply to: NavyDoc

No, that is not "police" that is "military". Police arrest, military KILLS.

Policing means you ARREST violent unarmed suspects WITHOUT killing them. They are souped up security guards or communities. If a suspect has a gun and is using it against said community the cops can shoot because their job is defending the community. If not, other tactics are applied. Otherwise they are nothing more than a standing army.

No, any human being has the right to defend their lives whether they wear a uniform or not. Are you suggesting that a police officer should simply permit someone else to kill him or her?

Real life isn't the movies. Sometimes you cannot stop death or severe bodily harm through nonlethal means, even if your name is Bruce Lee.

a reply to: OrphanApology

Here's a problem though. There have a been a ton of threads about how our police have been too martial, so here you are advocating that our police in effect not be allowed to be police unless they become highly trained and skilled hand-to-hand combatants. Do you also think they should be militarized?

Simple question: Do you want a cop who is a trained hand-to-hand killer with all the equipment on hand to easily over-power any and all threats and the tie his hands so he can never be justified using those skills? How does he police then?

And, whatever happened to the idea that people should respect the cops in general. Not because we have to terrified of them, but because we respect the role they are supposed to have? And them, when someone does wind up falling afoul of the cops, most people can feel comfortable thinking that they likely asked for the trouble they got?

If folks respected the idea of the rule of law in general, then cops wouldn't have to be intimidating, heavily armed warriors in order to keep the peace.

Maybe we should stop looking at cops as the problem and start pointing fingers at a society that has increasing put cops in an impossible position.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

Deadly force with intentions to kill is and never should be used on an unarm individual, now deadly force with intentions to restraint an individual that still can pose a danger to himself and others is another matter.