Law Enforcement Empowerment

[markyj987]

A while back, I was talking to one of my friends whose other friend is a police officer in a Chicago suburb.

What they're doing in his department is taking away real bullets and replacing them with rubber bullets.

Last night, I met a homicide detective for the Milwaukee Police Department and he told me about a murder suspect who tried to run the night before--but of course, it would not have been okay to shoot him unless he pulled a weapon on them.

As a society, we complain about crime but at the same time do not give police what they need to do their jobs.

I just want to throw this out there, but police are not supposed to use deadly force unless absolutely necessary. If they have to use deadly force, then why the heck is this department only givng them rubber bullets? If I was a cop and someone threatened my life, they certainly wouldn't see tomorrow.

In the other case, this guy ran! To me, if you run from the cops, they should be able to treat you as if you are guilty. They SHOULD have been able to shoot him and kill him or even in the leg to stop him.

Specifically regarding the rubber bullets, it's clear to me lawmakers aren't only restricting the public from protecting themselves, but the police as well. Are we going to go the way of Europe here? Where cops get a funky helmet and a baton? Where ONLY the criminals...and NOT EVEN the cops have weapons to protect the public?

Certainly, I'm preaching to the choir here, but talking to that detective last night really wound me up.

[fisherguy]

Bottom line is you cannot use potentially lethal force unless teh suspect is going to cause death, or greivous bodily harm to another person, or you. As far as shooting in teh leg...never! If you need to shoot, then do it like you mean it. The big factor is the media jumps on any police shooting so fast, even in a case where it is the cop or the suspect gonna die, themedia put teh officer through the ringer.

[wtnhunt]

[ QUOTE ]
Are we going to go the way of Europe here? Where cops get a funky helmet and a baton? Where ONLY the criminals...and NOT EVEN the cops have weapons to protect the public?


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure hope not Mark, but am certainly concerned that things are without a doubt headed in the wrong direction. Sending a cop out unable to fully defend him/herself in Chicago just does not make sense to me.

[horst]

I seen a deal on tv a month or so ago where the police were getting thier Tazers taken away because a couple crackheads that were behaving violently and resisting arrest had heart failure after the cops used their tazers on them.I really couldnt believe it was even an issue, thier not only recomending non lethal force but now thier trying to limit the number of non lethal devices they have to work with just because a couple freaks with bad hearts were resisting arrest and hopped up on drugs http://www.realtree.com/forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gifWont be long the cops will be throwing rocks at fleeing criminals, but just little rocks, nothing heavy enough to leave a bruise http://www.realtree.com/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[fisherguy]

The taser one really gets me. Like horst said, it is a way to avoid having to use the gun in some cases. So what if a few people died, far more avoided getting shot.

[stevebeilgard]

why don't the police keep the real bullets, and we'll give the rubber bulletts to the criminals. anyone coming into my home won't find any rubber anything....

[6sixpoint_nobrows]

well i tell you what, a rubber bullet is pain that no mad can take, i dont care how tough you are, you get shot with one of those to the leg or chest, your not going any were, i think the chicago police are just trying to cut down on paying for the injuries of the criminals that they shoot in the leg, or paralyze..its kinda makes sense if you think about it. it cost the tax payers money because a cop had to shoot a guy, and now hes in the hospital...thats just my point of view