Lawful revenge or unacceptable?

[WhiteSteve]

I wouldn’t be into that. Honestly, it kind of irritates me that if you’re in a peaceful arrest scenario, you might be screaming “I didn’t do it!”, professing innocence or special circumstances that led to the offense. The cop will often calmly say “I’m not a judge, you can argue all that in court. I’m just enforcing the law.” So in that scene, the cop throws their hands up like “buddy, I’m not here to figure out if you were right or wrong, you just did something the law says you can’t and I’m the one tasked with arresting you for it.” So when they’re chill, they don’t have much to say about the infraction.

So why is it that they’re the be-all, end-all authority when it comes to applying force, particularly deadly force? Then all of a sudden it’s all up to them, no lawyer or judge will save you in that moment. Above all else, cops are just other human beings, and even the most logical human beings operate off of their emotions more often than not, whether they admit it or don’t. Obviously, if you see a couple of your buddies get dropped, you’re no longer thinking with your rational mind. I don’t really blame police for anything as much as just the concept of having an armed force of people with special privileges to control your behavior, maybe we just can’t successfully have that kind of system, as much as many people want it. But that very concept is what needs to be explored and probably reformed. People are all jacked up mentally, some of them become cops, others become some employee of a business that fucks up our day in some less impactful way, but the baseline of flawed human psyches is still there, certain occupations just allow those flaws to do more harmful things. But really it just comes down to people not being understanding and compassionate for one another, at the end of the day.

[Dragonpurple]

He should get his rights, but I can understand with the system so messed up that if someone like that might get out early on parole that it could be better to end him. However this does bring up the question of, if someone is serious threat and then they ditch the weapon should they still be treated as a serious threat or as just a regular thug?

Law enforcement however has to assume they are still a threat, they do not know if the person is still armed, has a weapon behind them, etc... if the criminal complies then no lawful killing but if they do not, it could end that way.

[Hanoi_Jane00]

Constitutional rights, but should be brought to justice. When unarmed WPC Nicola Hughes and Fiona Bone were abushed with 32 shots fired from a glovk & a grenade used after responding to a 999 call placed by their killer their killer was brought for justice and locked up for the rest of his life. Of course killer Dale Cregan turned himself in by walking into a police station probably because he knew after that his next encounter would be with an armed response unit who would take no chances with him.

[Anonymous]

The police dont keep the bad guy alive for fun. This guy is so important to stay alive for investigation. They need information of him. If he has other partners. Or if he is part of bigger group. Who are planning to strike again. Many questions will be left unanswered if the guy died. Also they might get the wrong guy. Believe it or not, the justice system still get the wrong guy and put him in jail unjustly by mistake. And this is after a “fair trail”

[hahahmm]

Depends on the situation. If you're in a group with a history of pretending to surrender just so you can do a sneak attack or your friend can do a sneak attack then nobody's going to show you mercy because it's not worth the hassle. Every situation is different. Ideally laws would be followed & also ideally laws would be reasonable. In reality things can be messy.

If a cop has a history of killing people he claims deserved it.. but we don't have evidence that he's telling the truth, I'd bury him under the prison.

[rjroy3]

Only once we give the death sentence to officers who kill unarmed individuals.

When that law is in place then I'd be willing to consider this proposition. Because then we'd be holding police to a far higher standard. Which we want when you give someone the power to be judge, jury and executioner.

[CalmYourTits]

No, they are not suppose to kill him. It's the courts job to decide what to do with him. We gave Saddam Hussein a trial. It's not a cops job to judge death. Only if their own life is being attacked.

For instance, if the killer is shooting at the cops and the cops shoot back and he dies, I get it.

However, if the killer turns to run away, you do not shoot him. You taser him.

[John_Galt]

Of course not, that’s insane. A cop is not a judge or jury, their job is to arrest people that they believe are breaking the law and the allow our judicial system to do its job.

[Jjpayne]

They should only be taken out if they pose a significant threat to others. If saving them is not worth the risk for other peoples lives and people will die if no force is taken against them. So in other words, no

[Daniela1982]

Only if he resists or else he has the right to a fair trial. Special Note: All cop killers are armed and put up a fight and are killed by the cops, according to police reports.

[normalice]

"Lawful revenge" is an oxymoron. Protection is the only valid excuse for deadly force. Acting out of anger is what the criminal did in the first place, thus making the cops no different besides the clothes.

[RolandCuthbert]

Why limit it there? What if the criminal forcibly raped a child? Or what if the criminal killed people worshiping at a Church? Why would we let cops exact vigilant justice, if the citizens who pay their salaries could not do the same?

[SlightlyEccentric]

If they are not actively shooting at police, police must make an arrest attempt. If a standoff ensues, the police must be patient and make them surrender. If the suspect opens fire again, police have every right to return fire.

[Jack9949]

I’d rather have the guy suffer years behind bars. Just for being an ass. However the Bible does say ““Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” Genesis 9:6

[Hydra6544]

They usually get the death penalty or life anyway but they do deserve their constitutional rights even though in my mind the only thing that would save you from me is the fact that you are a human being.

[ObscuredBeyond]

I'd leave him barely alive, but still able to talk. A freak show, perhaps.

[slatyb]

We have arrests and trials partly to prevent someone being incorrectly identified as the perpetrator.

[collie22]

i think to make that call i would have to witness. but they are police and there upholding the law so we can be safe. so send them to Jesus let him decide

[DeathJack]

The only thing I have to say to this is.


And eye for An eye leaves the world blind.


Letting your emotions control your thinking in circumstances like this, usually will lead to poor decision making.

[KrakenAttackin]

"Justice" can be different from "lawful". Killing someone who killed friends of yours is "justice" in my mind.

[DizzyDesii]

I've been watching chicago pd lately and those crooked ass cops stay killing people as revenge. Its unacceptable but understandable

[Anonymous]

This happened in Seattle. A governor granted clemency to a killer in prison. A few days later the killer went into a coffee shop and murdered four cops having lunch. There was a statewide manhunt for the killer. The cops caught him late that night during a traffic stop. The cop blew his brains out.
90% of the citizens were very happy about it.

[888theGreat]

I kind of thought that was what has been going on now.

[OddBeMe]

No because trials are required to get at the truth- if possible. What happens if the cops's revenge kills the wrong people?

[COMMODOREII]

You are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

[msc545]

The killer gets his constitutional rights. That's the way our system works. Your feelings about the perpetrator don't count.