Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: driftdiver
The point is, if he HAD refused commands while holding a weapon, then deadly force would be authorized. Real life does not demand that an officer wait until a weapon is pointed in his direction before he can use deadly force.

If a suspect is holding a weapon and does not comply with commands, (IE: does anything other than what they are told) then deadly force would be permissible and expected. It wouldn't matter if the suspect were legally armed or not.

26 posted on 12/28/2009 4:59:45 AM PST by freedomwarrior998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: freedomwarrior998

I understand what you are saying. I’m saying that the post in question was apparently written by someone too unstable to make that judgement call.

Case here just last week. A domestic at the supermarket led to the cops being called. The woman waved the cop off and they drove away. Cop followed them until they stopped to argue some more. Guy went for a gun to shoot the cop and possible the woman and 3 young kids in the back. Woman wrestled with the man for the gun. Cop tried the tazer but failed to control the guy. The cop fired one shot and the guy was dead.

Heck of a Christmas memory for those three kids but he didnt have much choice.


27 posted on 12/28/2009 5:05:38 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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