“Excluding war efforts, only cowards shoot someone in the back.”
So it’s more on principle or machismo than just plain common sense. To not be a coward one should take the chance of
the known violent criminal getting away and possibly killing
some one in their flight. Would you be willing to let someone
go that has the full potential as a fugitive in flight from
justice go because you think it’s cowardly to try to stop them. In your words all a criminal would have to do is
keep his back to the fuzz and no one would shoot him.
Don’t glom on my use of the word fuzz either. Would you
let a known criminal with an outstanding warrant and a
history of violent crime possibly get away and do more
harm. Don’t get me wrong I agree with you to a point,
but there are times when there is a chance someone else
could get hurt or killed even during the pursuit or when
cornered he could grab a hostage.
Just off hand, who do you blame for all the wetbacks
in America? The government or the criminal employers
who hire them?
This very thing happens every day, and is allowed to happen by good cops who would rather the bad guy get away than being perceived as a coward for shooting someone in the back. There are many instances, every day, where the cops lose the bad guys to avoid further bloodshed.
Just off hand, who do you blame for all the wetbacks in America? The government or the criminal employers who hire them?
Squirrel! Lol. I blame both.