Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
What are you talking about?
You find it hard to aim a gun at the range, so cops shouldn’t be expected to be better? That’s your response to Finnish police actually being better?
You’re missing the point on lethal force. If police are taught strict rules for use, those rules are too relaxed in Canada and (especially) the US, that’s the point people are making.
As far as the 911 call, it was for a welfare check, not someone running around with a knife. If that’s not the situation to bring in people actually trained to help, what is?
I agree that people are making some pretty strong assumptions about a situation we don’t know everything about (and never will). But some people are also relying on the false narrative that cops did what’s right, or what they had to do, or the only thing they could do, while many of us are trying to point out that North America’s version of “right, necessary, the only option” isn’t any of those things. If you want to gloss over how Finnish police do it, or U.K. police, or one of the many other police forces that do it better, that’s fine. But it CAN be done better, and the resources are there, they’re just used to make the police tougher and stronger, not better at protecting life.
|
I was trying to explain what its like to shoot a handgun, your eyes can't focus on the sights and the target. It's not about me having a hard time, which I don't. It's just a different type of shooting.
Handguns are not a sharpshooting tool, especially in a stressful situation.
I actually have no problem with most of what you say, and sure it would be nice if forces worked on their use of force policies.