Right to bear arms except when armed cop around?

Right to bear arms except when armed officer around? Not about NC but related.

If you have a fire arm on you, a cop can just kill you dead.

Even if your white.

Tranquilizer guns might help...Seriously cops should just chill a bit before going all kill you.

Why do they always shoot to kill anyway?

originally posted by: Xeven
Even if your white.

I've seen waaaaaaay too much evidence to the contrary.





It's like a thing they do.


edit ps - I agree with the rest of what you said, though.

a reply to: Xeven

It just goes to show the supposed freedom of the 2nd is not what is cracked up to be.....owning and carrying a weapon may be a right, it may also be a death sentence...

Only if you pull your weapon and threaten the cop.

If you have your weapon hidden, the cop won't know you have it right?

originally posted by: xuenchen
Only if you pull your weapon and threaten the cop.

If you have your weapon hidden, the cop won't know you have it right?

Open carry. It's a right.

You have the right to be in possession of a weapon. And a police officer has the right to tell you to put it down. If you don't than yes you will be shot.

If you own the gun and are not a felon, have no warrants,you have the right to skip away laughing.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: xuenchen
Only if you pull your weapon and threaten the cop.

If you have your weapon hidden, the cop won't know you have it right?

Open carry. It's a right.

And if you have it holstered?

a reply to: Xeven

" If you have a fire arm on you, a cop can just kill you dead. "


You are talking about a Legal Registered Firearm as opposed to an Illegal Unregistered one , Right ?

a reply to: Xeven

If you have a fire arm on you, a cop can just kill you dead. 

What do you mean by can? That they can legally? Or that they have the capability to?

Those are two very different things.

a reply to: Xeven

A cop doesn't shoot to kill, they shoot to stop the threat. Although in the end it becomes the same thing. Since a cop is liable for what he/she/it hits, they must aim at the largest target (also called center mass). These types of shots often end up killing people. You are now going to proceed to argue, "Well, he coulda shot him in the arm like in the movies!" Stop and think for a second just how stupid that is. I have a threat in front of me in a life or death situation and I am going to aim at the smallest target available? No, I am going to shoot at what I don't even have to aim at in order to hit. Because if I miss that arm shot and hit a kid down the street, then I just committed a serious crime. However, if I shoot the idiot who is a threat to me and those around us, then I am doing my job.

And yes, I would rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

And no, a cop can't just shoot you because you have a gun. That being said, if you have a gun and cops are telling you to drop it and you don't . . . well I'm pretty sure my 9 year old daughter is smart enough to know what will happen next. If you're not, then my best suggestion for you is to buy some life insurance. Although many policies have suicide clauses and that is considered suicide by cop.

a reply to: JDeLattre89

A cop doesn't shoot to kill, they shoot to stop the threat.

Perceived threat.
Just to clarify.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Only if you pull your weapon and threaten the cop.

If you have your weapon hidden, the cop won't know you have it right?

And if you do have it in sight , and the officer warns you to lay down the weapon what does a sane person do ?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JDeLattre89

A cop doesn't shoot to kill, they shoot to stop the threat.

Perceived threat.
Just to clarify.

When your target is stationary and standing ten feet away from you, and you aim at the head or chest - you are shooting to kill. A shot to the leg will stop most unarmed people well enough.

a reply to: Abysha

It is. But brandishing and threatening people with it is not.

Dude got what he had coming to him.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JDeLattre89

A cop doesn't shoot to kill, they shoot to stop the threat.

Perceived threat.
Just to clarify.

When your target is stationary and standing ten feet away from you, and you aim at the head or chest - you are shooting to kill. A shot to the leg will stop most unarmed people well enough.

And if you miss that leg and hit whatever is behind it, perhaps a bystander? Then what? Pistols do not shoot magical limb seeking projectiles. The least risk is in shooting the largest and most immovable target. Legs or arms are a lot smaller, and (surprise) they move a LOT. Unless you have fired at a moving target, you cannot logically make that statement. Unless you care less for anyone or anything beyond that leg or arm in the higher probability you missed.

Good luck explaining that in court. The movies don't cover aspect that much do they?

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Abysha

It is. But brandishing and threatening people with it is not.

Dude got what he had coming to him.

The OP didn't specify an incident. I'm woefully uninformed this week in the news so maybe I'm missing something. I thought the OP was just being general.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: JDeLattre89

A cop doesn't shoot to kill, they shoot to stop the threat.

Perceived threat.
Just to clarify.

When your target is stationary and standing ten feet away from you, and you aim at the head or chest - you are shooting to kill. A shot to the leg will stop most unarmed people well enough.

And if you miss that leg and hit whatever is behind it, perhaps a bystander? Then what? Pistols do not shoot magical limb seeking projectiles. The least risk is in shooting the largest and most immovable target. Legs or arms are a lot smaller, and (surprise) they move a LOT. Unless you have fired at a moving target, you cannot logically make that statement. Unless you care less for anyone or anything beyond that leg or arm in the higher probability you missed.

Good luck explaining that in court. The movies don't cover aspect that much do they?

I am a very experienced shooter of various types of firearms.

Line of sight is important. No argument there. But we are talking about a potential risk compared to almost a certain death. You are justifying the death to avoid potential litigation.

Nice priorities.

edit: if there are bystanders that close then you go for a larger non-lethal target. A hip or a shoulder. You don't have to aim center man every time you fire, especially at close range for supposedly experienced and well practiced shooters.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Abysha

It is. But brandishing and threatening people with it is not.

Dude got what he had coming to him.

I would like to add a small but important detail. And if his finger was on the trigger and NOT laying flat on the side of the upper, then he has made himself an immediate threat. That too is not covered legally in the movies. You always see folks with their finger on the trigger, which is wrong unless you are immediately ready to fire the weapon. That comes from good training and knowledge of proper and legal carry. If that is not something that is obvious, then you should not be in possession of that responsibility IMO.

ETA: In response to your edit, that make it more clear how? Sadly, many police officers are not highly trained in weapons firing. Is that right, heck no IMO. That should be done continuously and part of their ongoing qualifications. But that does not happen in every precinct. That is something, I believe, should be one of the corrective actions here.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Then you know the potential inaccuracy of firearms in a stressful and moving situation. I have not heard if his finger was on the trigger either. If a police officer tells you to drop the weapon, that is an indicator they see you as an immediate threat. Unless you are at the advantage, you should drop the weapon to defuse the situation.

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Then you know the potential inaccuracy of firearms in a stressful and moving situation. I have not heard if his finger was on the trigger either. If a police officer tells you to drop the weapon, that is an indicator they see you as an immediate threat. Unless you are at the advantage, you should drop the weapon to defuse the situation.

Potential inaccuracy due to stress? Police are supposed to be trained to handle the stress and act properly in all situations. Unfortunately, we see all too often they do not.

There is no "if his finger was on the trigger". The thread is not about a specific event, just carrying a firearm in the presence of a police officer.