Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
rudatron
May 31, 2011

by Fluffdaddy
We have to build a wall around Oregon.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

rudatron
May 31, 2011

by Fluffdaddy

Man Whore posted:

Because lethal force shouldn't be used except in response to lethal force?
Absolutely not - the threat of lethal force is the appropriate response to non-compliance, and in fact is what police officers are supposed to do. If you resist arrest or attempt to escape custody (in cases where you are armed and violent) for example, you're not technically using lethal force, but the use of lethal force against you is still acceptable.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 09:23 on Jan 4, 2016

rudatron
May 31, 2011

by Fluffdaddy
An officer is expected to use the appropriate level of force to overcome resistance - that means they have a 'right' to escalate, something normal citizens don't have. That's why they're the police. That's obviously not justifying pointless killing, or using more force that is appropriate, but you are dead wrong if you think that lethal force can only be used in response to lethal force. That's not how it works.

edit: Though I'll admit your response is technically understandable - I didn't but should have qualified the terms about overcoming resistance. That's my mistake.

rudatron fucked around with this message at 09:37 on Jan 4, 2016

  • Locked thread