Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: JoeProBono
Wow, that's not going to encourage criminals to carry weapons and drive fast... :-/

How about a different policy, one that might actually reduce crime? Something like:

From now on, we are going to take all the money we would've spent on sensitivity training, diversity training, language training etc. and redirect it. Said funds will be applied to upgraded weapons, body armor, and range time for all officers. Additionally, the marksmanship requirements for all officers will be raised. These actions will back our new policy of "shoot immediately, shoot to kill" any armed criminal who does not disarm after one, and only one verbal warning. If the suspect is threatening anyone with a weapon, no warning will be given.

This kind of policy should reduce legal costs, and recidivism. Yes, there may be some initial additional risk to the general public. But after the criminal element has been dissuaded and/or eliminated, overall crime will go down.

4 posted on 02/17/2010 11:37:13 AM PST by ThunderSleeps (obama out now! I'll keep my money, my guns, and my freedom - you can keep the change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: ThunderSleeps
"Yes, there may be some initial additional risk to the general public."

With all due respect - DON'T SHOOT ME - I believe having fewer armed criminals on the streets will REDUCE risk to the general public. But, you probably knew that.
7 posted on 02/17/2010 11:43:43 AM PST by Darteaus94025
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson