|
Police "not responsibe" for raiding wrong house | by DesertRat66 | 2007-08-13 11:20:49 |
|
Sigh, well time to mark yet another state I will | by Imp | 2007-08-13 11:22:58 |
|
Why? | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 11:26:06 |
|
No, the taxpayers should not. | by JPaganel | 2007-08-13 12:51:22 |
|
Why? For following orders? (n/t) | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 12:55:36 |
|
No, for doing a shoddy job. | by JPaganel | 2007-08-13 13:25:48 |
|
yeah, they should be. | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 13:37:08 |
|
Every lead should be validated. | by RetiQlum2 | 2007-08-13 13:56:06 |
| To what degree? |
by subbywan |
2007-08-13 14:01:53 |
You want 100% iron-clad guarantee?
What if your suspects are leaving in 6 hours and you'll lose them?
Consider the red tape the police *already* have in place, and that *we're* responsible for that.
They are prepared that not everyone is a criminal. However, they have to treat everyone the same, because lives can be lost if they don't. Live are already lost as is it. Doing it differently would cost even more.
And yes, you likely be shot if you went for a gun in such a situation. You were the one who posted about the cops should be able to process information like your machines -- shouldn't the same apply to you? Once you see it's the cops, drop your gun (if you've reached it by then), and submit completely, and sort things out after the fact, while you're still alive?
|
|
[ Reply ] |
|
SWAT teams don't advertise that they... | by RetiQlum2 | 2007-08-13 14:18:35 |
|
Then you're going to die. (n/t) | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 14:20:26 |
|
So might a few good cops | by DesertRat66 | 2007-08-13 14:30:58 |
|
Such is the risk *they* take. Every day. (n/t) | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 14:32:06 |
|
Believe me I know | by DesertRat66 | 2007-08-13 14:39:15 |
|
Verified to what degree? | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 14:40:52 |
|
Known violent person on premises | by DesertRat66 | 2007-08-13 14:46:20 |
|
seems like all the more reason to me | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 14:50:55 |
|
Oh, I can see it now... | by JPaganel | 2007-08-13 15:57:25 |
|
Any responsible gun owner isn't going to have | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 16:05:25 |
|
A prudent one will | by DesertRat66 | 2007-08-13 16:45:44 |
|
Then you risk getting shot. | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 17:08:54 |
|
That's a risk regardless of who came in | by DesertRat66 | 2007-08-13 17:18:41 |
|
then you can't hold them responsible for doing | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 17:48:48 |
|
Cops aren't trained to do that | by DesertRat66 | 2007-08-13 18:22:11 |
|
Then the onus is on you, the gun owner | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 18:24:50 |
|
Oh the target is identified | by DesertRat66 | 2007-08-13 19:28:25 |
|
Some times, yes (n/t) | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 19:56:54 |
|
You don't get it: | by RetiQlum2 | 2007-08-13 21:18:50 |
|
You really don't get it, do you? | by RetiQlum2 | 2007-08-13 14:43:16 |
|
I do get it, just fine. | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 14:44:29 |
|
No one in this specific case... | by Menetlaus | 2007-08-13 15:50:36 |
|
I don't know if you're advocating the idea or the | by subbywan | 2007-08-13 16:03:22 |
