California considering unprecedented law restricting police from fire arm use

[BULLDOG]

California Considering Unprecedented Law Restricting Police Firearm Use | HuffPost
On the heels of police officers shooting a young, unarmed black man to death in Sacramento, California, last month, state lawmakers announced a first-of-its-kind bill on Monday that raises the standard for when officers may open fire.




Obama and Sharpton tried pushing this and we told you sooner or later the cops will lose guns as well... CA. is now starting the trend watch.
And in a way , Obama had the police trained shoot to kill, so did Bush as they militarized the police they went crazy shooting people that shouldn't have been shot ...

Now this is going to be the end result of ............... paying attention to MSM BS cops included.
============================================


It was none other than Al Sharpton (I won’t call him reverend) who suggested recently that the answer to the use of excessive force by local police is to nationalize them – federalize them. If there were any doubt what a bad idea this is, consider its new champion.
So you want to federalize local cops?

Why is everything you post a lie? Changing the rules to allow cops to shoot people only when necessary is a good thing. Why do all these nut bags think anyone is taking guns away from cops?

Dang...... talk about connect the dots issues....

One thing you can always be sure of in life.... when progressive ideas are put into practice more people end up dead. One only need to look at Baltimore after the riots a couple of years ago..... all these engagement restrictions placed on cops by the idiot progressive mayor. The ghetto areas in Baltimore became shooting galleries for bad guys.....who knew no cops were coming to help their victims.

Duh...... no elaboration necessary s0ns....

So you are good with cops shooting people when it isn't necessary? That's all the proposal is. Don't shoot unless necessary.

It's funny that you think cops do that now.

Laugh if you want to, but read the OP link.

 

[BULLDOG]

Why is everything you post a lie? Changing the rules to allow cops to shoot people only when necessary is a good thing. Why do all these nut bags think anyone is taking guns away from cops?

Dang...... talk about connect the dots issues....

One thing you can always be sure of in life.... when progressive ideas are put into practice more people end up dead. One only need to look at Baltimore after the riots a couple of years ago..... all these engagement restrictions placed on cops by the idiot progressive mayor. The ghetto areas in Baltimore became shooting galleries for bad guys.....who knew no cops were coming to help their victims.

Duh...... no elaboration necessary s0ns....

So you are good with cops shooting people when it isn't necessary? That's all the proposal is. Don't shoot unless necessary.

It's funny that you think cops do that now.

No, they don't have to. The rules now require that any shooting only needs to be reasonable, and he only has to justify that he thought his personal definition of reasonable was met. The proposal will change "reasonable" to "necessary", and he will have to justify why he thought it was necessary. What part of that is not better?

the part where the cop chooses to not risk his life b/c he doesn't have time to determine weather or not he's going to be killed.

You're OK with cops shooting people unnecessarily?

 

[Crepitus]

Seems reasonable to me. Cops seem to be trigger happy as fuck these days.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The solution is actually quite simple: a police officer should be held to the same standard as anyone else. If a civilian with a CCW permit would not be allowed to shoot, neither would a cop. Very simple.

 

[martybegan]

California Considering Unprecedented Law Restricting Police Firearm Use | HuffPost
On the heels of police officers shooting a young, unarmed black man to death in Sacramento, California, last month, state lawmakers announced a first-of-its-kind bill on Monday that raises the standard for when officers may open fire.




Obama and Sharpton tried pushing this and we told you sooner or later the cops will lose guns as well... CA. is now starting the trend watch.
And in a way , Obama had the police trained shoot to kill, so did Bush as they militarized the police they went crazy shooting people that shouldn't have been shot ...

Now this is going to be the end result of ............... paying attention to MSM BS cops included.
============================================


It was none other than Al Sharpton (I won’t call him reverend) who suggested recently that the answer to the use of excessive force by local police is to nationalize them – federalize them. If there were any doubt what a bad idea this is, consider its new champion.
So you want to federalize local cops?

Why is everything you post a lie? Changing the rules to allow cops to shoot people only when necessary is a good thing. Why do all these nut bags think anyone is taking guns away from cops?

Dang...... talk about connect the dots issues....

One thing you can always be sure of in life.... when progressive ideas are put into practice more people end up dead. One only need to look at Baltimore after the riots a couple of years ago..... all these engagement restrictions placed on cops by the idiot progressive mayor. The ghetto areas in Baltimore became shooting galleries for bad guys.....who knew no cops were coming to help their victims.

Duh...... no elaboration necessary s0ns....

So you are good with cops shooting people when it isn't necessary? That's all the proposal is. Don't shoot unless necessary.

You really don't grasp the problem here. Says someone pulls a toy gun on a cop and the cop shoots them. by the "nessasary" standard that would be a bad shoot.

 

[BULLDOG]

California Considering Unprecedented Law Restricting Police Firearm Use | HuffPost
On the heels of police officers shooting a young, unarmed black man to death in Sacramento, California, last month, state lawmakers announced a first-of-its-kind bill on Monday that raises the standard for when officers may open fire.




Obama and Sharpton tried pushing this and we told you sooner or later the cops will lose guns as well... CA. is now starting the trend watch.
And in a way , Obama had the police trained shoot to kill, so did Bush as they militarized the police they went crazy shooting people that shouldn't have been shot ...

Now this is going to be the end result of ............... paying attention to MSM BS cops included.
============================================


It was none other than Al Sharpton (I won’t call him reverend) who suggested recently that the answer to the use of excessive force by local police is to nationalize them – federalize them. If there were any doubt what a bad idea this is, consider its new champion.
So you want to federalize local cops?

Why is everything you post a lie? Changing the rules to allow cops to shoot people only when necessary is a good thing. Why do all these nut bags think anyone is taking guns away from cops?

Dang...... talk about connect the dots issues....

One thing you can always be sure of in life.... when progressive ideas are put into practice more people end up dead. One only need to look at Baltimore after the riots a couple of years ago..... all these engagement restrictions placed on cops by the idiot progressive mayor. The ghetto areas in Baltimore became shooting galleries for bad guys.....who knew no cops were coming to help their victims.

Duh...... no elaboration necessary s0ns....

So you are good with cops shooting people when it isn't necessary? That's all the proposal is. Don't shoot unless necessary.

You really don't grasp the problem here. Says someone pulls a toy gun on a cop and the cop shoots them. by the "nessasary" standard that would be a bad shoot.

That already happened, only the kid didn't even point it at the cop. He just had a toy gun in his hand. The cop just drove up and killed the kid within a couple of seconds. That is not the way it should work.

 

[martybegan]

California Considering Unprecedented Law Restricting Police Firearm Use | HuffPost
On the heels of police officers shooting a young, unarmed black man to death in Sacramento, California, last month, state lawmakers announced a first-of-its-kind bill on Monday that raises the standard for when officers may open fire.




Obama and Sharpton tried pushing this and we told you sooner or later the cops will lose guns as well... CA. is now starting the trend watch.
And in a way , Obama had the police trained shoot to kill, so did Bush as they militarized the police they went crazy shooting people that shouldn't have been shot ...

Now this is going to be the end result of ............... paying attention to MSM BS cops included.
============================================


It was none other than Al Sharpton (I won’t call him reverend) who suggested recently that the answer to the use of excessive force by local police is to nationalize them – federalize them. If there were any doubt what a bad idea this is, consider its new champion.
So you want to federalize local cops?

Why is everything you post a lie? Changing the rules to allow cops to shoot people only when necessary is a good thing. Why do all these nut bags think anyone is taking guns away from cops?

Dang...... talk about connect the dots issues....

One thing you can always be sure of in life.... when progressive ideas are put into practice more people end up dead. One only need to look at Baltimore after the riots a couple of years ago..... all these engagement restrictions placed on cops by the idiot progressive mayor. The ghetto areas in Baltimore became shooting galleries for bad guys.....who knew no cops were coming to help their victims.

Duh...... no elaboration necessary s0ns....

So you are good with cops shooting people when it isn't necessary? That's all the proposal is. Don't shoot unless necessary.

You really don't grasp the problem here. Says someone pulls a toy gun on a cop and the cop shoots them. by the "nessasary" standard that would be a bad shoot.

That already happened, only the kid didn't even point it at the cop. He just had a toy gun in his hand. The cop just drove up and killed the kid within a couple of seconds. That is not the way it should work.

Well under the nessasary standard even if the kid pointed said toy gun at the cop the cop would be liable for shooting him, because the cop was never in any real danger. of course the cop wouldn't know that until after the fact.

I also noticed you didn't answer my specific scenario, and instead brought up another example.

The issue isn't changing the standard, the issue is holding them to a stronger version of "reasonable"

 

[BULLDOG]

Why is everything you post a lie? Changing the rules to allow cops to shoot people only when necessary is a good thing. Why do all these nut bags think anyone is taking guns away from cops?

Dang...... talk about connect the dots issues....

One thing you can always be sure of in life.... when progressive ideas are put into practice more people end up dead. One only need to look at Baltimore after the riots a couple of years ago..... all these engagement restrictions placed on cops by the idiot progressive mayor. The ghetto areas in Baltimore became shooting galleries for bad guys.....who knew no cops were coming to help their victims.

Duh...... no elaboration necessary s0ns....

So you are good with cops shooting people when it isn't necessary? That's all the proposal is. Don't shoot unless necessary.

You really don't grasp the problem here. Says someone pulls a toy gun on a cop and the cop shoots them. by the "nessasary" standard that would be a bad shoot.

That already happened, only the kid didn't even point it at the cop. He just had a toy gun in his hand. The cop just drove up and killed the kid within a couple of seconds. That is not the way it should work.

Well under the nessasary standard even if the kid pointed said toy gun at the cop the cop would be liable for shooting him, because the cop was never in any real danger. of course the cop wouldn't know that until after the fact.

I also noticed you didn't answer my specific scenario, and instead brought up another example.

The issue isn't changing the standard, the issue is holding them to a stronger version of "reasonable"

A cop making sure that a threat is real isn't too much to ask for. Too many kids with plastic guns being killed, and people reaching for their ID being shot. Yes, being a cop is a dangerous job, but they knew the danger before they took the job, and they don't have a right to kill people every time they are in doubt.

 

[martybegan]

Dang...... talk about connect the dots issues....

One thing you can always be sure of in life.... when progressive ideas are put into practice more people end up dead. One only need to look at Baltimore after the riots a couple of years ago..... all these engagement restrictions placed on cops by the idiot progressive mayor. The ghetto areas in Baltimore became shooting galleries for bad guys.....who knew no cops were coming to help their victims.

Duh...... no elaboration necessary s0ns....

So you are good with cops shooting people when it isn't necessary? That's all the proposal is. Don't shoot unless necessary.

You really don't grasp the problem here. Says someone pulls a toy gun on a cop and the cop shoots them. by the "nessasary" standard that would be a bad shoot.

That already happened, only the kid didn't even point it at the cop. He just had a toy gun in his hand. The cop just drove up and killed the kid within a couple of seconds. That is not the way it should work.

Well under the nessasary standard even if the kid pointed said toy gun at the cop the cop would be liable for shooting him, because the cop was never in any real danger. of course the cop wouldn't know that until after the fact.

I also noticed you didn't answer my specific scenario, and instead brought up another example.

The issue isn't changing the standard, the issue is holding them to a stronger version of "reasonable"

A cop making sure that a threat is real isn't too much to ask for. Too many kids with plastic guns being killed, and people reaching for their ID being shot. Yes, being a cop is a dangerous job, but they knew the danger before they took the job, and they don't have a right to kill people every time they are in doubt.

If the gun is real instead of plastic his first indication is a bullet in him or her.

Changing the standard to nessasary is an overreaction that would lead to mass resignations of police officers, or police officers not going on any calls anymore without SWAT backup.

And sometimes an ID is reached for, sometimes a gun is reached for, so basically the cops would only be able to shoot back AFTER the other side fires their first bullet.

 

[Skull Pilot]

California Considering Unprecedented Law Restricting Police Firearm Use | HuffPost
On the heels of police officers shooting a young, unarmed black man to death in Sacramento, California, last month, state lawmakers announced a first-of-its-kind bill on Monday that raises the standard for when officers may open fire.




Obama and Sharpton tried pushing this and we told you sooner or later the cops will lose guns as well... CA. is now starting the trend watch.
And in a way , Obama had the police trained shoot to kill, so did Bush as they militarized the police they went crazy shooting people that shouldn't have been shot ...

Now this is going to be the end result of ............... paying attention to MSM BS cops included.
============================================


It was none other than Al Sharpton (I won’t call him reverend) who suggested recently that the answer to the use of excessive force by local police is to nationalize them – federalize them. If there were any doubt what a bad idea this is, consider its new champion.
So you want to federalize local cops?

Why is everything you post a lie? Changing the rules to allow cops to shoot people only when necessary is a good thing. Why do all these nut bags think anyone is taking guns away from cops?

Dang...... talk about connect the dots issues....

One thing you can always be sure of in life.... when progressive ideas are put into practice more people end up dead. One only need to look at Baltimore after the riots a couple of years ago..... all these engagement restrictions placed on cops by the idiot progressive mayor. The ghetto areas in Baltimore became shooting galleries for bad guys.....who knew no cops were coming to help their victims.

Duh...... no elaboration necessary s0ns....

So you are good with cops shooting people when it isn't necessary? That's all the proposal is. Don't shoot unless necessary.

Anyone can be a Monday Morning quarterback.

If you're a cop and someone is refusing your orders to stop and put his hands up and keeps coming at you in the dark with an object that very well may be a gun in their hand do you wait until he's right in your face to fire or do you wait until he shoots you first?

 

[BULLDOG]

So you are good with cops shooting people when it isn't necessary? That's all the proposal is. Don't shoot unless necessary.

You really don't grasp the problem here. Says someone pulls a toy gun on a cop and the cop shoots them. by the "nessasary" standard that would be a bad shoot.

That already happened, only the kid didn't even point it at the cop. He just had a toy gun in his hand. The cop just drove up and killed the kid within a couple of seconds. That is not the way it should work.

Well under the nessasary standard even if the kid pointed said toy gun at the cop the cop would be liable for shooting him, because the cop was never in any real danger. of course the cop wouldn't know that until after the fact.

I also noticed you didn't answer my specific scenario, and instead brought up another example.

The issue isn't changing the standard, the issue is holding them to a stronger version of "reasonable"

A cop making sure that a threat is real isn't too much to ask for. Too many kids with plastic guns being killed, and people reaching for their ID being shot. Yes, being a cop is a dangerous job, but they knew the danger before they took the job, and they don't have a right to kill people every time they are in doubt.

If the gun is real instead of plastic his first indication is a bullet in him or her.

Changing the standard to nessasary is an overreaction that would lead to mass resignations of police officers, or police officers not going on any calls anymore without SWAT backup.

And sometimes an ID is reached for, sometimes a gun is reached for, so basically the cops would only be able to shoot back AFTER the other side fires their first bullet.

So the SOP should be to shoot when a person reaches for his wallet, even after the cop told him to show his license? Your Cop, Judge, Jury, and Executioner attitude is why cops are receiving less respect by the day. The badge makes you a cop. It doesn't make you God.

 

[Skull Pilot]

You really don't grasp the problem here. Says someone pulls a toy gun on a cop and the cop shoots them. by the "nessasary" standard that would be a bad shoot.

That already happened, only the kid didn't even point it at the cop. He just had a toy gun in his hand. The cop just drove up and killed the kid within a couple of seconds. That is not the way it should work.

Well under the nessasary standard even if the kid pointed said toy gun at the cop the cop would be liable for shooting him, because the cop was never in any real danger. of course the cop wouldn't know that until after the fact.

I also noticed you didn't answer my specific scenario, and instead brought up another example.

The issue isn't changing the standard, the issue is holding them to a stronger version of "reasonable"

A cop making sure that a threat is real isn't too much to ask for. Too many kids with plastic guns being killed, and people reaching for their ID being shot. Yes, being a cop is a dangerous job, but they knew the danger before they took the job, and they don't have a right to kill people every time they are in doubt.

If the gun is real instead of plastic his first indication is a bullet in him or her.

Changing the standard to nessasary is an overreaction that would lead to mass resignations of police officers, or police officers not going on any calls anymore without SWAT backup.

And sometimes an ID is reached for, sometimes a gun is reached for, so basically the cops would only be able to shoot back AFTER the other side fires their first bullet.

So the SOP should be to shoot when a person reaches for his wallet, even after the cop told him to show his license? Your Cop, Judge, Jury, and Executioner attitude is why cops are receiving less respect by the day. The badge makes you a cop. It doesn't make you God.

I carry my ID and my Carry permit in my shirt pocket so I don't have to reach behind my back to get them.

But I guess that's just too much common sense to ask of the general public

 

[martybegan]

You really don't grasp the problem here. Says someone pulls a toy gun on a cop and the cop shoots them. by the "nessasary" standard that would be a bad shoot.

That already happened, only the kid didn't even point it at the cop. He just had a toy gun in his hand. The cop just drove up and killed the kid within a couple of seconds. That is not the way it should work.

Well under the nessasary standard even if the kid pointed said toy gun at the cop the cop would be liable for shooting him, because the cop was never in any real danger. of course the cop wouldn't know that until after the fact.

I also noticed you didn't answer my specific scenario, and instead brought up another example.

The issue isn't changing the standard, the issue is holding them to a stronger version of "reasonable"

A cop making sure that a threat is real isn't too much to ask for. Too many kids with plastic guns being killed, and people reaching for their ID being shot. Yes, being a cop is a dangerous job, but they knew the danger before they took the job, and they don't have a right to kill people every time they are in doubt.

If the gun is real instead of plastic his first indication is a bullet in him or her.

Changing the standard to nessasary is an overreaction that would lead to mass resignations of police officers, or police officers not going on any calls anymore without SWAT backup.

And sometimes an ID is reached for, sometimes a gun is reached for, so basically the cops would only be able to shoot back AFTER the other side fires their first bullet.

So the SOP should be to shoot when a person reaches for his wallet, even after the cop told him to show his license? Your Cop, Judge, Jury, and Executioner attitude is why cops are receiving less respect by the day. The badge makes you a cop. It doesn't make you God.

That's not what I am saying and you know it. You don't want to admit a "nessasary" standard would make cops liable for shooting someone running at them unarmed, liable if some idiot pulled a toy gun out or aimed one at them, liable if they were only armed with a knife 50 feet away from them but moving slowly towards them (when would it be "nessasary" to shoot them at that point?)

 

[skookerasbil]

Why is everything you post a lie? Changing the rules to allow cops to shoot people only when necessary is a good thing. Why do all these nut bags think anyone is taking guns away from cops?

Dang...... talk about connect the dots issues....

One thing you can always be sure of in life.... when progressive ideas are put into practice more people end up dead. One only need to look at Baltimore after the riots a couple of years ago..... all these engagement restrictions placed on cops by the idiot progressive mayor. The ghetto areas in Baltimore became shooting galleries for bad guys.....who knew no cops were coming to help their victims.

Duh...... no elaboration necessary s0ns....

So you are good with cops shooting people when it isn't necessary? That's all the proposal is. Don't shoot unless necessary.

It's funny that you think cops do that now.

No, they don't have to. The rules now require that any shooting only needs to be reasonable, and he only has to justify that he thought his personal definition of reasonable was met. The proposal will change "reasonable" to "necessary", and he will have to justify why he thought it was necessary. What part of that is not better?

the part where the cop chooses to not risk his life b/c he doesn't have time to determine weather or not he's going to be killed.

Exactly.... but the progressive mind just doesn't understand that dynamic. Their simplification process on that... it's utterly fascinating to me. Thankfully most people do get it.... which is one of the main reasons Trump won in a landslide!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

A Two Thumbs.... how about this?

How about the adults in the black community wear t-shirts everyday that say, "HANDS UP OR YOU'LL GET YOUR HAT KNOCKED OFF" ....

YEP..... we don't have a police problem we have a black problem. Less of these dirtbags will get whacked if they could just learn to follow directions sometimes.

Too and never considered by the progressive.... many of these dirtbags who get their ass shot off by police.... it's actually saving lives. Duh....

 

[Godboy]

California Considering Unprecedented Law Restricting Police Firearm Use | HuffPost
On the heels of police officers shooting a young, unarmed black man to death in Sacramento, California, last month, state lawmakers announced a first-of-its-kind bill on Monday that raises the standard for when officers may open fire.




Obama and Sharpton tried pushing this and we told you sooner or later the cops will lose guns as well... CA. is now starting the trend watch.
And in a way , Obama had the police trained shoot to kill, so did Bush as they militarized the police they went crazy shooting people that shouldn't have been shot ...

Now this is going to be the end result of ............... paying attention to MSM BS cops included.
============================================


It was none other than Al Sharpton (I won’t call him reverend) who suggested recently that the answer to the use of excessive force by local police is to nationalize them – federalize them. If there were any doubt what a bad idea this is, consider its new champion.
So you want to federalize local cops?

Right.

"Let them shoot you first."

Seeing how I'm not a criminal, my chances of being hit by a lightning bolt are greater than me being shot by a cop.

 

[skookerasbil]

California Considering Unprecedented Law Restricting Police Firearm Use | HuffPost
On the heels of police officers shooting a young, unarmed black man to death in Sacramento, California, last month, state lawmakers announced a first-of-its-kind bill on Monday that raises the standard for when officers may open fire.




Obama and Sharpton tried pushing this and we told you sooner or later the cops will lose guns as well... CA. is now starting the trend watch.
And in a way , Obama had the police trained shoot to kill, so did Bush as they militarized the police they went crazy shooting people that shouldn't have been shot ...

Now this is going to be the end result of ............... paying attention to MSM BS cops included.
============================================


It was none other than Al Sharpton (I won’t call him reverend) who suggested recently that the answer to the use of excessive force by local police is to nationalize them – federalize them. If there were any doubt what a bad idea this is, consider its new champion.
So you want to federalize local cops?

Why is everything you post a lie? Changing the rules to allow cops to shoot people only when necessary is a good thing. Why do all these nut bags think anyone is taking guns away from cops?

Dang...... talk about connect the dots issues....

One thing you can always be sure of in life.... when progressive ideas are put into practice more people end up dead. One only need to look at Baltimore after the riots a couple of years ago..... all these engagement restrictions placed on cops by the idiot progressive mayor. The ghetto areas in Baltimore became shooting galleries for bad guys.....who knew no cops were coming to help their victims.

Duh...... no elaboration necessary s0ns....

So you are good with cops shooting people when it isn't necessary? That's all the proposal is. Don't shoot unless necessary.

You really don't grasp the problem here. Says someone pulls a toy gun on a cop and the cop shoots them. by the "nessasary" standard that would be a bad shoot.

That already happened, only the kid didn't even point it at the cop. He just had a toy gun in his hand. The cop just drove up and killed the kid within a couple of seconds. That is not the way it should work.

Dang s0n.... what kind of makey-uppey world do you navigate in? Obviously too much time spent on video gaming.

Thankfully for the rest of us your way of looking at these things constitutes a distinct minority.....Trump's Victory told us one thing very clearly: that people are done with the assholes making excuses for the behavior of the bad guys.... as if they were the victims. The folks said "f*** that!" to that nonsense.

The social engineering b******* practiced by progressives leads to one thing and one thing only: more good people getting whacked in lousy urban neighborhoods.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

This is called "How to turn into Baltimore overnight."

 

[BULLDOG]

That already happened, only the kid didn't even point it at the cop. He just had a toy gun in his hand. The cop just drove up and killed the kid within a couple of seconds. That is not the way it should work.

Well under the nessasary standard even if the kid pointed said toy gun at the cop the cop would be liable for shooting him, because the cop was never in any real danger. of course the cop wouldn't know that until after the fact.

I also noticed you didn't answer my specific scenario, and instead brought up another example.

The issue isn't changing the standard, the issue is holding them to a stronger version of "reasonable"

A cop making sure that a threat is real isn't too much to ask for. Too many kids with plastic guns being killed, and people reaching for their ID being shot. Yes, being a cop is a dangerous job, but they knew the danger before they took the job, and they don't have a right to kill people every time they are in doubt.

If the gun is real instead of plastic his first indication is a bullet in him or her.

Changing the standard to nessasary is an overreaction that would lead to mass resignations of police officers, or police officers not going on any calls anymore without SWAT backup.

And sometimes an ID is reached for, sometimes a gun is reached for, so basically the cops would only be able to shoot back AFTER the other side fires their first bullet.

So the SOP should be to shoot when a person reaches for his wallet, even after the cop told him to show his license? Your Cop, Judge, Jury, and Executioner attitude is why cops are receiving less respect by the day. The badge makes you a cop. It doesn't make you God.

That's not what I am saying and you know it. You don't want to admit a "nessasary" standard would make cops liable for shooting someone running at them unarmed, liable if some idiot pulled a toy gun out or aimed one at them, liable if they were only armed with a knife 50 feet away from them but moving slowly towards them (when would it be "nessasary" to shoot them at that point?)

I'm not sure. I know of one incident where a man with one arm and one leg in a wheelchair , in a well lit room and armed with a ball point pin was shot and killed because the cops were afraid for their lives. Yes, the cops knew it was only a ball point pen.

 

[BULLDOG]

Dang...... talk about connect the dots issues....

One thing you can always be sure of in life.... when progressive ideas are put into practice more people end up dead. One only need to look at Baltimore after the riots a couple of years ago..... all these engagement restrictions placed on cops by the idiot progressive mayor. The ghetto areas in Baltimore became shooting galleries for bad guys.....who knew no cops were coming to help their victims.

Duh...... no elaboration necessary s0ns....

So you are good with cops shooting people when it isn't necessary? That's all the proposal is. Don't shoot unless necessary.

It's funny that you think cops do that now.

No, they don't have to. The rules now require that any shooting only needs to be reasonable, and he only has to justify that he thought his personal definition of reasonable was met. The proposal will change "reasonable" to "necessary", and he will have to justify why he thought it was necessary. What part of that is not better?

the part where the cop chooses to not risk his life b/c he doesn't have time to determine weather or not he's going to be killed.

Exactly.... but the progressive mind just doesn't understand that dynamic. Their simplification process on that... it's utterly fascinating to me. Thankfully most people do get it.... which is one of the main reasons Trump won in a landslide!!!!

You think that was a landslide. That's funny.