Do Police have a right to Murder?

ElectricFetus

ElectricFetus

Sanity going, going, gone
Valued Senior Member
In the USA police are granted to right to kill anyone if they feel threaten, that is they "fear for their lives" or believe that a suspect is an imminent danger to themselves or anyone else. Is this morally correct?

I would say from a practical standpoint it is wrong, for these days every person a police officer kills (particularly if they are black) can lead to riots and even further deaths, it would have been more economical for the police to take that risk and take a bullet for the stability of society, which we would assume is their job, to uphold the public trust first and foremost.
 
ElectricFetus said:
In the USA police are granted to right to kill anyone if they feel threaten, that is they "fear for their lives" or believe that a suspect is an imminent danger to themselves or anyone else. Is this morally correct?
Click to expand...
Killing another human would have to be considered morally wrong particulary if you obtain your morals from the bible.
However I do not think we can generalise.
One would think you could arm police with guns that have a "stun" setting.
Alexi
 
ElectricFetus said:
In the USA police are granted to right to kill anyone if they feel threaten, that is they "fear for their lives" or believe that a suspect is an imminent danger to themselves or anyone else. Is this morally correct?
Click to expand...
Yes - provided they _realistically_ feared for their lives, or thought other people were similarly at risk.
I would say from a practical standpoint it is wrong, for these days every person a police officer kills (particularly if they are black) can lead to riots and even further deaths, it would have been more economical for the police to take that risk and take a bullet for the stability of society . . .
Click to expand...
Cop killings can cause riots as well.
 
spidergoat said:
If actually justified, yes.
Click to expand...

How is that determined?

billvon said:
Yes - provided they _realistically_ feared for their lives, or thought other people were similarly at risk.
Click to expand...

Elaborate what you mean, if I realistically fear, say cats, I can kill cats?

One would think you could arm police with guns that have a "stun" setting.
Click to expand...

It is called a taser, and police are not required to use that first before using a bullet shooting gun. Certainly when examining the police killing rates of other developed countries, not having patrol police armed with guns is correlated with drastically lower rates of police killing people.
 
ElectricFetus said:
Elaborate what you mean, if I realistically fear, say cats, I can kill cats?
Click to expand...
Yes. If a large cat (say, a mountain lion) is charging you or your family, and you reasonably believed it was going to try to kill you (or someone else) you could justifiably kill it. (Of course, you might then be in hot water for trespassing and being in his territory, or not taking enough care to avoid him etc.)
 
spidergoat said:
There are plenty of Christian cops who feel that enforcing the law, even with a gun, is a moral good.
Click to expand...
That does not surprise me. Thou shall not kill (unless they are really bad people).
Killing someone is often justifiable but I would rather a stun function.
Many people get killed because theyhave momentarily lost it, drunk, on drugs or other things can see someone get themselves shot in a situation that would ease given time and they return to being normal.
I think it is so sad to see someone killed for whatever reason.
Alex
 
billvon said:
Yes. If a large cat (say, a mountain lion) is charging you or your family, and you reasonably believed it was going to try to kill you (or someone else) you could justifiably kill it. (Of course, you might then be in hot water for trespassing and being in his territory, or not taking enough care to avoid him etc.)
Click to expand...

Why not a small cat? It is a mammal so it could carry rabies.

spidergoat said:
Rapidly and imperfectly.
Click to expand...

And that is the problem. Apparently alot of people are not pleased with courts of law letting police off for high profile shootings (rightfully or not), leading to additional damages and deaths. Would it be ok for Police to take more risks and shoot last in order to prevent these riots and racial vendetta killings?
 
ElectricFetus said:
Why not a small cat? It is a mammal so it could carry rabies.
Click to expand...
If you REASONABLY believe that the cat is about to kill you, then yes, you are justified in killing it.

No court I can imagine will believe you if you claim that your fear of death by small cat was reasonable. So they would decide that your fear was not reasonable, and you would be prosecuted for it.
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
Killing another human would have to be considered morally wrong particulary if you obtain your morals from the bible.
However I do not think we can generalise.
One would think you could arm police with guns that have a "stun" setting.
Alexi
Click to expand...


That knocking the bible gives you pleasure.?
Cops are part of the society . As the society becomes more violent , so do the cop.
There are charts that shows a declining attendance of people in churches , that means to me the youth is less exposed to the commandments of God .
 
ElectricFetus said:
And that is the problem. Apparently alot of people are not pleased with courts of law letting police off for high profile shootings (rightfully or not), leading to additional damages and deaths. Would it be ok for Police to take more risks and shoot last in order to prevent these riots and racial vendetta killings?
Click to expand...
I don't believe taking more care not to shoot people will result in greater risk. It takes better training, especially around the subject of inherent bias. The shootings that people riot over are generally mistaken one, such as shooting a child for a fake gun, or shooting people that are unarmed.
 
billvon said:
If you REASONABLY believe that the cat is about to kill you, then yes, you are justified in killing it.

No court I can imagine will believe you if you claim that your fear of death by small cat was reasonable. So they would decide that your fear was not reasonable, and you would be prosecuted for it.
Click to expand...

Aaah so it is a court to decide after the fact if you had a right to kill.

spidergoat said:
I don't believe taking more care not to shoot people will result in greater risk. It takes better training, especially around the subject of inherent bias. The shootings that people riot over are generally mistaken one, such as shooting a child for a fake gun, or shooting people that are unarmed.
Click to expand...

I would agree, mostly, inherent bais is questionable, and regardless irrelevant, rather a general "shoot first ask questions later" result of poor training, tactics and legal privilege alloted to police is the cause.
 
ElectricFetus said:
Aaah so it is a court to decide after the fact if you had a right to kill.
Click to expand...
To be specific, you have a right to kill if you think your life is in danger. The court decides after the fact if it was reasonable to consider your life in danger. If it was, then you are off the hook - because you have that right.
 
timojin said:
Cops are part of the society . As the society becomes more violent , so do the cop.
Click to expand...
Yes one can't blame them given the situations they come up against.
I just think there should be a way that they could stun offenders.
I think folk can make mistakes in the moment and in that moment stun them rather than kill them.
I don't kill anything if I can help it I am so crazy I catch insects inside the house and release them outside.
I don't just kill them I respect their right to life ... There is no insect spray in my house.
Killing a human is not right in my universe but admit for some capital punishment is too good for them.
I see no problem with following any of the ten commandments be they from a God or man, and they say not to kill....
Alex
 
ElectricFetus said:
In the USA police are granted to right to kill anyone if they feel threaten, that is they "fear for their lives" or believe that a suspect is an imminent danger to themselves or anyone else. Is this morally correct?

I would say from a practical standpoint it is wrong, for these days every person a police officer kills (particularly if they are black) can lead to riots and even further deaths, it would have been more economical for the police to take that risk and take a bullet for the stability of society, which we would assume is their job, to uphold the public trust first and foremost.
Click to expand...

Think you would run out of police very quick if they were required to take a bullet for society

You would have the

dead group and the
left the force group and
I'm stupid still in the force group (and a sub group in this group who only ride in army tanks group)
 
ElectricFetus said:
In the USA police are granted to right to kill anyone if they feel threaten, that is they "fear for their lives" or believe that a suspect is an imminent danger to themselves or anyone else. Is this morally correct?

I would say from a practical standpoint it is wrong, for these days every person a police officer kills (particularly if they are black) can lead to riots and even further deaths, it would have been more economical for the police to take that risk and take a bullet for the stability of society, which we would assume is their job, to uphold the public trust first and foremost.
Click to expand...

If you look at a place like Chicago, where the murder rate is very high, the vast majority of the deaths are not caused by cops. In 435 shootings over a recent six-year span, officers killed 92 people and wounded 170 others. On the other hand, in 2016 alone, there were 762 deaths by shooting in Chicago, compared to about an average of about 16 per year by police. The focus of the left is on the wrong place.

If you were a cop on patrol in Chicago, and you are aware of the violence and crime, but you need to help the innocent people caught in the cross fire, your job becomes very stressful. due to the heartless bad guys. This is compounded by the left painting the police with invisible ink; emperors new clothes, that also ignores shooting and murder data coming from the criminals, who are part of their voter base. The left never blames the criminals, since they don't wish to alienate this voter base. The added stress either results in the police looking away, for self preservation, overcompensating to overcome the odds stacked against them. But even so, the police show 50 times less shootings.

The way I look at this is, the police should begin their day with a higher standard of behavior. However, if the criminals insistent on cheating, using street rules and a revolving court door, the police don't have to the turn the other cheek. They get to play by the same rules as the predators.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top