austinrealtor wrote:Gigag04, I have your back on this one. The "you knew what you were getting into when you signed up" argument is ignorant and borders on repulsive in my book. The fact that police officers, firefighters, military know good and well how dangerous their jobs will be is exactly WHY we should give them the benefit of the doubt, show them respect, and honor their sacrifice for our collective safety and security. Obviously there are bad apples in every bunch. And obviously civil servants of all stripes (usually) sign up for these jobs willingly. But that does not discount the sacrifice the good ones make for YOUR benefit.gigag04 wrote:suthdj wrote:To me the police should never put the life of a citizen in a threatening situation such as handog described for their own safety, sorry if that make the Leo's here upset but they signed up for the job and knew the dangers involved just like when people join the Military they knew the dangers.
Any response I actually have will be deleted so I'll use pictures.
Anyone who thinks a police officer should go into a potentially dangerous situation against a purportedly armed "suspect" without an aggressive guns-drawn posture needs his head examined. The life of the civilian is NOT more important than the life of the cop, nor is the cop's life more important than the civilian's. But, if the cop is acting on good faith that the civilian is a potential danger, the cop must act accordingly to minimize that danger by approaching ready to neutralize any potential threat.
And before anyone jumps on this, none of what I wrote above should be construed as taking sides one way or the other on the original Round Rock cuffed-n-stuffed matter. I don't have enough facts to make a decision on that matter (and frankly neither do the rest of you, even handog who was there but doesn't yet know what sparked the RRPD response). IF (big if) the RRPD officers were responding to a "man with a gun" call, then they have every right and responsibility to approach handog with their guns drawn. Obviously, once it was revealed that handog had a CHL they should've taken it down a notch to condition yellow or whatever and they should've known the unconcealed laws better. But just remember folks, if someone calls the police and points to you as "man with a gun" there is a VERY GOOD chance you will see the muzzle end of a police weapon. Until the police know who/what they're dealing with, they must respond with due diligence as if there is a very real and lethal threat.
To ask them to do otherwise is to ask them to unnecessarily and callously risk their lives beyond what they "signed up for". Look at it this way: police are tasked with patroling and protecting all public property. If you were told there was a "man with gun" on YOUR PROPERTY, would you respond with gun holstered and a polite "hi there, how are ya? Whatcha up to?" or would you approach with extreme caution and at least your hand on your weapon if not drawn and aimed at COM?
Well written, My grandfather and uncle both retired from being LEO's. However I am not saying the LEO's should place themselves in unnecessary danger however they should not place the citizens in unnecessary danger either. When I was in the Army I did a border tour on the Czechoslovakia border with Germany during our briefings everyday we were told if we see a defector and he is being fired upon while on the German side we could not engage to protect his life we had to place ourselves in the line of fire then we could act in self defense and return fire. That was not explained when I signed up however I knew by signing on the dotted line I could lose my life and yet I signed. Police have the same responsibility.