• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Should police only have rubber bullets loaded and leave the lethal ammunition to SWAT?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Sounds like a good idea... For mall cops. I. E. for private security in a public space. Not for real cops.
 
Police should definitely be held to a higher standard of accountability than they are now. It is still a grey area, but they need to be held to some sort of reasonable standard that they are under imminent threat of being killed or seriously injured before using deadly force. The tried and true "I feared for my life" just isnt enough. They have to be made to determine that the threat was a real and valid one.
 
If only criminals play fair by acting like real criminals
If only good citizens play fair by not acting like criminals
If only criminals stay still so cops can get a head shot
If only a shot to the heart can instantly kill a person, instead of giving him 30 more seconds to try killing you
If only criminals are permanently disabled they're shot in the leg or arm or chest
If only cops have superhero reflexes and instantly switch from rubber to real bullets
If only all that was true, then maybe, just maybe cops can act like cops.
 
As long as you have a potentially-armed population you are going to get trigger-happy police. I guess there are other reasons as well, to do with police funding, for example (both the lack of it and the methods employed to supplement it). They probably could be held to a higher standard of accountability, and given better training, than they currently are. But am not sure that would make a huge difference as long as they have at least a partly-rational reason to see every member of the public as potentially a lethal threat. US cops sometimes seem to have the mentality of an occupying army among a population of insurgents.
 
Rubber bullets are not a joke, if you get hit in the head with one there is little chance you will remain conscious.
 
I think police have become too militarized.
I also think that police are too willing to use deadly force at times.

But, I think they they are generally well trained, and in order to properly do their job, they are better to "have it and not need it" than the opposite. They should continue to carry semi auto pistols with large magazines in case they need to defend themselves in a firefight.

They should also have a larger weapon available as well (securely locked in the vehicle), perhaps a 12 gage shotgun?
 
ondma said:
Police should definitely be held to a higher standard of accountability than they are now. It is still a grey area, but they need to be held to some sort of reasonable standard that they are under imminent threat of being killed or seriously injured before using deadly force. The tried and true "I feared for my life" just isnt enough. They have to be made to determine that the threat was a real and valid one.
Click to expand...

This is a bullshit lies that need to stop being perpetuated. Simply stating you were in fear for your life or in fear of great bodily harm IS NOT ENOUGH TO LEGALLY JUSTIFY SHOOTING SOMEONE. Please stop saying it is and spreading FUD!

That "fear" that you used as justification to shoot has to be FOUND REASONABLE IN A COURT OF LAW BY A JUDGE AND/OR JURY. You can't just claim you were afraid and it automatically makes it so. Lying that you were "afraid" is not a ticket to murder freely. Also, if you are in illegal possession of the gun, in the commission of a criminal act, or in many other specific circumstances you have no right to defend yourself with a gun no mater what.

So, please, for the love of all rational debates, stop acting like you can kill someone and get away with it just by claiming you were afraid. It's 100% BULLSHIT and a lie used to make it sound like cops or gun owners can get away with murder.

And that determination to shoot or not sometimes has to be made in a fraction of a second by a cop or armed citizen if they want to survive. Failing to shoot to kill can get you, a civilian or fellow cops killed. Less than lethal weapons, (and all departments have a variety of them) are only used if there are more than one cop using a real gun and its safe for an officers to deploy a less-than-lethal weapon because he has backup if that LTL fails.

After a shooting, months later, only then do we get to use our 20/20 hindsight and determine if the split second decision to shoot was justified or not. The penalty for an unjustified shoot is killing an innocent person, loss of career, loss of any personal assets if sued, and imprisonment if found criminally guilty. So stop spreading this BS myth than cops can't wait to pull that trigger or do so frivolous because all they have to do is claim they were afraid.

Maybe there are a tiny few sick/evil/insane cops out there who need to lose they're badges, but the overwhelming majority are regular folks trying to help by doing a damn tough job.
 
BurnItDwn said:
I think police have become too militarized.
I also think that police are too willing to use deadly force at times.

But, I think they they are generally well trained, and in order to properly do their job, they are better to "have it and not need it" than the opposite. They should continue to carry semi auto pistols with large magazines in case they need to defend themselves in a firefight.

They should also have a larger weapon available as well (securely locked in the vehicle), perhaps a 12 gauge shotgun?
Click to expand...
Google the North Hollywood Bank of America Shootout and tell me cops only need sidearms and maybe a shotgun locked in the trunk. I had photojournalist friend who was there on the scene hiding behind cars during the shootout. I believed he helped a woman who had been shot by one of the bank robbers not bleed out, but I might be thinking of someone else as it's been a long time.

Cops represent the executive branch of government and our society's muscle, ready to use necessary violence to enforce laws and stop violent criminals. When, in extreme circumstances, it becomes necessary for us to physically fight for law vs lawlessness and protect society from violent criminals, why do you want to limit the weapons of our law enforcement officers and practically guarantee they lose that fight?

Could it be that some of us dream of a perfect, safe world where everyone gets along, but aren't willing to actually fight for it when violent criminals refuse to play nice?
 
Last edited:
Paladin3 said:
Google the North Hollywood Bank of America Shootout and tell me cops only need sidearms and maybe a shotgun locked in the trunk. I had photojournalist friend who was there on the scene hiding behind cars during the shootout. I believed he helped a woman who had been shot by one of the bank robbers not bleed out, but I might be thinking of someone else as it's been a long time.

Cops represent the executive branch of government and our society's muscle, ready to use necessary violence to enforce laws and stop violent criminals. When, in extreme circumstances, it becomes necessary for us to physically fight for law vs lawlessness and protect society from violent criminals, why do you want to limit the weapons of our law enforcement officers and practically guarantee they lose that fight?

Could it be that some of us dream of a perfect, safe world where everyone gets along, but aren't willing to actually fight for it when violent criminals refuse to play nice?
Click to expand...

What do you think regular officers should carry in their patrol car?
If a pistol and shotgun is insufficient, then at least explain what you think is sufficient.


Also, I know SWAT teams, FBI, and other highly trained and disciplined "special" type officers will of course be more heavily armed (M4, AR, or even 50 cal to penetrate armor or disable vehicles)
But, where do you draw the line, I am not sure?


My point is that officers should be armed, and they should have access to larger arms than their regular sidearm if the situation calls for it.
 
Fuck that. Issue them all exploding bullets...or at a minimum, hydraulic bullets. Stop the costs of treating criminals after they've been shot. A quick pauper's burial is MUCH cheaper than hospital bills...
 
The problem with removing deadly force from officers is we've already let the cat out of the bag with weapons. Law enforcement has to be able to provide a superior response to threats, and removing their guns would create a situation where the public has more enforcement capability than officers.

The only way disarming officers would work is if guns were banned from the general public. Fat chance of that happening- Americans demand the right to blow holes in things from a distance.
 
BoomerD said:
Fuck that. Issue them all exploding bullets...or at a minimum, hydraulic bullets. Stop the costs of treating criminals after they've been shot. A quick pauper's burial is MUCH cheaper than hospital bills...
Click to expand...

Unfortunately most cops aren't smart enough to tell the difference between a criminal and an honest citizen or even to really understand the difference.
 
BurnItDwn said:
What do you think regular officers should carry in their patrol car?
If a pistol and shotgun is insufficient, then at least explain what you think is sufficient.


Also, I know SWAT teams, FBI, and other highly trained and disciplined "special" type officers will of course be more heavily armed (M4, AR, or even 50 cal to penetrate armor or disable vehicles)
But, where do you draw the line, I am not sure?


My point is that officers should be armed, and they should have access to larger arms than their regular sidearm if the situation calls for it.
Click to expand...
I've never seen a cop today without a shotgun and an AR platform rifle in their car. A handgun is a terrible tool to have to resort to in a gunfight. The only advantage of a handgun is that they are small, portable and easily carried so you are never without at least two.

But it doesn't really matter what *I* think is appropriate, what maters is that we stop with this idea that cops are running around killing folks just for shits and giggles. It's not true.

Cops make contact with the public hundreds of thousands of times each day across this nation. They stop cars in traffic, go on calls for service and respond to various crimes. Sometimes it results in a citation or an arrest, but it statistically almost *NEVER* ends in a cop pulling a weapon, let alone firing it. And in the rare instance a cop shoots someone it's only a tiny fraction of those shoots that are deemed unjustified. It's so rare that it makes the news and we post about it here. But we act like it's the norm for some idiotic reason, as if cops are out to kill for fun.

I completely understand how terrible it is when *ANYONE* gets shot. I've seen people who've been shot and watched at least one die while paramedics worked on him. Gun violence is bad. But we will never solve it by trying to disarm cops. Or advocating cops respond to lethal violence with anything less than lethal violence.
 
Paladin3 said:
I completely understand how terrible it is when *ANYONE* gets shot. I've seen people who've been shot and watched at least one die while paramedics worked on him. Gun violence is bad. But we will never solve it by trying to disarm cops. Or advocating cops respond to lethal violence with anything less than lethal violence.
Click to expand...

Not sure if video games or television play a role in this, but most people don't have a true appreciation of the emotion impact this type of violence can have on people.

"Horror grips us as we watch you die: All we can do is echo your anguished cries."
 
Fritzo said:
The problem with removing deadly force from officers is we've already let the cat out of the bag with weapons. Law enforcement has to be able to provide a superior response to threats, and removing their guns would create a situation where the public has more enforcement capability than officers.

The only way disarming officers would work is if guns were banned from the general public. Fat chance of that happening- Americans demand the right to blow holes in things from a distance.
Click to expand...

I hope you're not saying lawful Americans demanding constitutional gun rights is a bad thing, are you? If so we need to instead be pointing the finger at those who abuse gun rights, not those who exercising them lawfully "blowing holes in things from a distance." Anyway, this is why I believe we have little chance of ever having a gun ban in America.

America was theoretically founded by folks looking for freedom and economic opportunity. Basically folks who were looking for the freedom to exploit this land and they weren't afraid to use violence to do so. Just ask the Native Americans. And every little kid is told this is the land of opportunity. This is where you can achieve anything, where you have rights, where nobody can tell you what to do because you are one of the free and one of the brave.

Culturally, many Americans are drunk on rights and conveniently forget about their responsibilities to society, IMHO. Most folks handle those rights within the bounds of lawfulness, but a small number do not. So we can either try our best to keep guns out of the hands of those who abuse them criminally, or we ban them completely from the lawful as well.

Now here's the big question: exactly how do you do than in a country founded on the principle of innocent until proven guilty? In America a person has certain rights unless they violate the law and those rights are revoked via due process in a court of law. That due process is essential if we want to limit the tyranny of government as much as possible. So, exactly how many rights are we willing to surrender because a small portion of folks abuse them? When is enough enough? And if we do sacrifice those rights and it doesn't achieve the safety we think it would, what then?

But, as I've said repeatedly, if someone thinks they've got the votes to change the constitution then go for it. I'll give up my guns when it's no longer my right to have them. Until then I'll continue to enjoy the shooting sports, hunting and know that in the unlikely event I should ever need to protect myself or my family that I have the means to at least attempt to do so.
 
gill77 said:
Not sure if video games or television play a role in this, but most people don't have a true appreciation of the emotion impact this type of violence can have on people.

"Horror grips us as we watch you die: All we can do is echo your anguished cries."
Click to expand...

I somewhat agree with you. Some folks have a very myopic view of the world and don't acknowledge anything exists outside of their own experiences. If you live in a safe suburban neighborhood like the one I grew up in, there is no need for guns. When you hear about gun violence you naturally want some way to end it. It's hard to solve the eternal problem of the evil/sickness in the hearts of some human beings, so the seemingly easy answer is to ban guns. I live in a safe neighborhood. Cops will come protect me. There's never a reason to fight. There can be no possible legit use for a firearm! Ban 'em all!

Obviously, if we can just get rid of the guns everyone will play nice.
 
gill77 said:
Not sure if video games or television play a role in this, but most people don't have a true appreciation of the emotion impact this type of violence can have on people.

"Horror grips us as we watch you die: All we can do is echo your anguished cries."
Click to expand...

After I quit newspaper work I went to work for a public school district in Los Angeles County doing tech support and running a middle school library. I've had parents ask me about their kids and video games at times. Some kids, and adults as well, absolutely cannot differentiate well enough between fantasy and reality to be exposed to violent media of any kind.

This is where good parents need to do some damn parenting and limit their child's exposure to violent music, TV and video game. And it starts with long talks and teaching your child the difference. Children aren't born with natural empathy and some never develop it at all. But, in my experience, some parents don't want to accept that their child may have a problem. Some actively fight their child getting the help they may need to grow into sane, compassionate adults.

I've talked about this with various teachers and educators and it's overwhelmingly the toughest part of the job when you want to help a child but their parent is actively working against you. But it's your right to reproduce no mater how ill prepared you are to parent and nobody can stop you.

If you plan to fuck without birth control you'd better be able to at least not raise the next school-shooter. All these children having children has got to stop.

EDIT: But that's not to say I'm not all about parent's rights. But within reason. I covered a trial once where a couple were found guilty of starving their developmentally disabled daughter to death. They were praying for God to help when what she really needed was a fucking sandwich.

Shit like that makes me want to commit some violence of my own.
 
Last edited:
Never. Cops have to respond to situations where criminals have guns with real bullets, not rubber ones. Cops should be able to meet fire with fire not be put into a situation where they bring a knife to a gun fight. I want police to be prepared and able to maintain control. Not put them into a situation where they will be hurt.
 
GearFace said:
Both perpetrators dead, no other casualties. Sounds like the cops did OK even in this extreme situation.
Click to expand...
The cops did a fantastic job. Though several folks were shot, nobody died other than the suspects. And those two suspects were able to hold out so long against so many because they were wearing armor and better armed. And the SWAT officers eventually stopped them because they arrived armed with rifles and were able to match the suspect's firepower.

The incident proves that the better armed combatants usually win gunfights. So, why exactly are we discussing cops only being armed with rubber bullets? IMHO, only someone who wants dead cops would suggest something so foolish.
 
BudAshes said:
Unfortunately most cops aren't smart enough to tell the difference between a criminal and an honest citizen or even to really understand the difference.
Click to expand...
If you want to be taken seriously you need to stop making ridiculous statements and speaking in hyperbole.
 
Question: once the cops start shooting, does it only end with the suspect dying? Or can they still surrender and be taken alive?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top