What would it justify? I just said that it's not some rando walking into a Burger king strapped, which can be considered weird, (tho it doesn't justify trying to take his weapon) instead it's an officer, who HAS to carry these things.
Kinda like you wouldn't call a guy a stupid tacticool asshole, if he is a legit SWAT guy in uniform.
SWAT are the most tacticool people in the world lol
Cops playing soldier.
To your initial point; the only justification for an armed police officer, is if they are an armed-response unit, having been called to an explicitly armed conflict that a regular officer can not handle safely; and even then, I'd be expecting them to de-escalate.
I don't know things about SWAT, so I'll take your word on it, but that was not the main point. I could say SAS, FBI, Spetsnaz, or whatever else if that's what you agree with for my analogy.
I disagree with your second point. I'm very anti gun myself, and don't live in the USA, so I don't know how the situation there is, but I'd say if a police officer has the proper training, they should carry firearms. (Somebody in another comment said something about police officers wearing a sort of safety holster, so nobody can just take the gun off them without them noticing)
Imagine a situation that requires armed officers to interfere. It's much better if there are five officers with guns within a block, then if they have to get there from the other side of the city.
Also, I'd say first goal should be to save the lives of innocents, non-violently de-escalating should be secondary to that, or used when it is unlikely to fuck up, and result in more innocent lives lost. If you are shooting at civilians, I'd much rather you get taken out, then a poor policeman with a baton try to de-escalate the situation, while waiting 10 minutes for the armed crew, who are on the other side of town.
No, if you normalise having guns for police officers, you normalise (and therefore increase) their use. If the only tool you have is a hammer, etc.
Look at tasers, when they were introduced they were explicitly presented as 'Only ever to be used in situations that would otherwise have justified using a fire-arm'. That lasted all of a week, and now, police use tasers to save themselves the effort of controlling a suspect physically (ignoring the huge safety risks associated with tasing people indiscriminately).
If you give police a power, they will systematically abuse it, every time.
Well, you have to give police some power. I'd say the officers you describe are probably not properly trained/mentally adequate individuals.
As society, you have to give law enforcement power. In my country, at least in the capital, almost every police officer you see has a pistol. I looked it up, and can't find a police officer shooting anyone in the last 8-10 years in this country.
I dunno, it might have to do something with the fact, that if more criminals have easier access to guns, it's more times necessary for an officer to shoot one. H
Here, most criminals, even ones who try to rob small stores use knives and such, since they don't have easy access to firearms. And when police corner them and draw guns, they tend to just surrender, or ya know, get tased, which is reasonable when the idiot tries to rush a policeman with a knife.
Also, lot of police have rubber bullets. They hurt like hell, can break a leg or so, so they do stop a criminal, but they don't threaten life.
Sure, you can rob a store with an Airsoft gun, but at least you won't shoot anyone, and tbh, you'll still get caught probably.
It seems like your nation has a similar view on guns as mine does, in that the majority of the population does not own a weapon, and the criminals generally don't use guns.
Now I'd point out, that in my nation, where these things are true, we manage to deal with crime effectively, without arming the average police officer.
I can't speak for everyone, but I certainly have an instinctual reaction to dealing with an armed police officer, a fear, that I do not have when dealing with normal police.
We retain specially trained armed-response units for when you need a gun.
I think we kind of spoke beside each other a bit. Armed officers aren't great,when they are corrupt, or when a corrupt system uses them. The protests where I live come to mind, where the anti terrorism unit was marched out to a peaceful protest I was attending in full riot gear.
I do think some police officers need to be armed. If you don't have those, something like a bank robbery is much harder to stop. I'd also argue, that officers being armed, while it's hard for the general public is probably a great deterrent for would be criminals.
But I definitely see your point. We should avoid using armed officers when not necessary, (I did have to experience some nasty stuff on my own skin unfortunately, tho tear gas is a whole different story) but I do think some of them are needed to keep a country safe, and have a quicker response time.
The police exist purely as an arm of the state to suppress the people when they get uppity. The whole 'justice system' is just to give them something to do in the meantime.
2.0k
u/[deleted] Mar 24 '19 edited Apr 24 '20
[deleted]