[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Byte1

There are many, many reasons for a police officer to shoot a perp in the back. And it appears that every "uninformed" critic in America feels the need to make it worse for them to do their job to PROTECT.
I have a good friend (Deputy) that responded off duty to an armed robbery. The suspect was fleeing from the scene when he arrived first. As he took up the chase, the suspect started shooting at him while running away. He returned fire, shooting him in the back. JUSTIFIED shooting. Did not kill him, though. Too bad. The perp went down. He had been at the shooting range that day, as do many police officers and still had wad cutters in his revolver. Wad cutters are used at the range to better mark the target. At least they used to be used. They punch a nice round hole in the paper target, where a pointed bullet punches through like a pencil and the hole sometimes closes back up, making it hard to see where one shot entered or another. The wad cutter went in the suspects back and hit a rib, following it around to the front. Put him in the hospital, but he was unable to be a threat to anyone else for a while, ten years I think.
If someone is about to shoot you or is threatening you with a gun and the police are behind him, do you want them to ask the bad guy to turn around so he can shoot him, or do you want him to take action immediately? That is a rhetorical question. Personally, if I see a threat to a victim, I plan to take action regardless of what direction the dirtbag is facing.
An officer shot a teenager that was involved in a felony when the suspect reached into his pocket and brought out an object and pointed it at the officer. It was a cell phone. The officer was justified in shooting him. It happened at night and the officer feared that a gun was pointing at him. This stuff happens and then the Monday morning quarterbacks sit there and criticize these great public servants.
I have no sympathy for ANY of these dirtbags with long records of violent behavior. If the officer made a mistake in the heat of the moment, the subject should not have put himself in that situation. I will always give the officer my support if I am on the jury. One less dirtbag, regardless of rehab is one less threat to society. Most of them should not be out on the street anyway. They get way too many "second chances."

Police officers get gunned down when making simple traffic stops. Lets give that job to Social Services.
Police officers get shot or stabbed on domestic calls. Give that to Social Services too.
Police officers might make a bad judgement call and shoot someone that is not a bad guy. Give him rubber bullets so he can't kill anyone.
Police officers should not use choke holds. They have been trained to use them for decades and they are used in the Judo tournaments, but we should outlaw them as they might harm someone.
Police are taught to put a violent and resisting subject on the ground and hold him down while attempting to secure/arrest him. Knees are used, but a person died (of drugs) so they should reason with him or maybe call a Social worker instead of being physical.

Some of us get just a bit impatient with those that are safe in their homes at night, that feel the need to criticize HOW the police perform their duty.

A light weight gun firing rubber bullets in ADDITION to the regular one firing lead bullets. That gives the Police Offiicer one more option. Options are USUALLY considered GOOD not BAD. Why not consider something different? AFRAID to try something new - or because of tradition? What is lost with a new experiment?