Quote:
Originally Posted by ctd
As for the Officer pulling his gun on me because he was alone and close to retirement. He had been attacked 6 or so months earlier during a traffic stop and was almost killed during a simple not so simple traffic stop. So I think he is justified in his actions. As many on here state better to be Judged by 12 then carried by 6.
.
|
To me, if the Police Officer is that nervous about every traffic stop- to the point that he points his pistol at people whenever he is alone, then he is not fit for duty. What if someone accidentally scratches their stomach or answers their phone? "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six" would dictate that he takes no chances and shoots the person; regardless of if they are armed or not.
It would seem that his priority was to make his retirement, not to perform his job properly. If that mindset is okay for him, then would you be okay if every routine encounter by Police across Canada is carried out in the same manner he does it? Would you be so understanding if homeowners answered their doors by pointing firearms at people because they had a previous home invasion? If anything, he is more of a liability because he is the one choosing to escalate situations to that level. If he feels that every single person on the road is out to get him and he needs to hold everyone at gunpoint until they prove themselves, then he is more of a liability to the public than any sort of benefit he provides.
There are inherent risks with every job and it seems as though modern day policing has turned into reducing risks at all costs and following protocols that were developed based on absolute worse case scenarios. There are a lot of people who use firearms in this country and I am not comfortable knowing that Police handle every case of "man with a gun" as an active shooter. I understand that if the RCMP received a call of "a person being shot at" then they do have to treat it as an active shooter. However, it would seem to me that it should have been fairly obvious that there was no active shooter situation once they arrived. If they really believed that was the case, then why did they handle it themselves and not wait for a trained SWAT unit from Calgary to deal with it?
I am going by what the person claimed in his video and I would not be the least bit surprised if he is telling the absolute truth. The RCMP are not giving anything to counter his claims, so at this point, I am taking him at his word. I am not going to suggest that he is: "a criminal", "known to police", "a liar", "fishing for gofund me cash" or anything else to disrespect him. Someone else posted in this thread that the police have to treat everything as a worse case scenario. Well if that's the case, then I guess we had all better get ready for a Police State where everyone is considered a well armed terrorist by Police Officers and treated as such. If Police Officers consider every Citizen to be an armed criminal, then why shouldn't Citizens consider every Police Officer to be just like the ones who kill people at airports, steal firearms from an entire community while playing: "who can kick in the front door the best", who soccer kick people in the head when they are fully compliant and on their hands and knees on the ground, who curb stomp people, etc, etc. There has to be some level of trust between the Police and the Citizens until it is broken. Everyone seems to take the side that the number one priority for Law Enforcement is:"To make it home safely at the end of the shift."... and if they screw up, that's what the union and the lawyers are for. What about making sure that innocent citizens make it out of Police encounters safely??
Btw, ctd. I hope that this does not come across as disrespect in any way as that is not my intent at all. I am just having a debate regarding a situation that has several different opinions.