Well then he has failed his duty. It is his - #99100702 added by srskate at 13 Rules of Gunfighting

Reply-6

(08/02/2013)[-]

I'm bored so here is my stab at it.
1.) not worth addressing.
2.) I'd rather die than shoot an innocent person.
3.) Cops exist to protect the innocent. Any officer of the law who fails in this duty is not a cop.
4.) This honestly is a good rule.
5.) Why shoot someone if you can scare them?
6.) feet per second isn't a measurement of time.
7.) The first rule of a gunfight is avoid a gunfight.
skip some
10.) something can cause the death of others, while nothing can as well
11.) People taking your guns away.
12.) universal for "violent"
13.) not unless you are CAPTAIIIIINNNNN PLANET!

#162 to #149 - Crusader

Reply+1

(08/02/2013)[-]

1 - N/A
2 - If you are smart, and of good moral fiber then you won't shoot an innocent
3 - Police exist to uphold the law, protecting the public is a secondary concern
4 - Universal policy
5 - It's based off of the theory that if you are carrying and someone manages to make you draw, then they should be scared at the sight/sound of the gun being drawn
6 - To the layman it makes sense, Cops will take 23 minutes, a bullet will take less than a second
7 - The first rule of a gunfight is to win
The first rule of owning a weapon is to try your best to only need it for practice
8&9 - N/A
10 - It is easier to ask forgiveness than risk calamity
11 - Agreed
12 - No, it's universal for stop, universal for violent is hurting someone.
While the Golden Rule of drawing a weapon is to be prepared to use it, drawing does not immediately make it violent, because if you have drawn a gun, the situation was headed there inevitably.
13 - Or Superman

#196 to #162 - ScottishMinor

Reply+3

(08/06/2013)[-]

If someone has the intention to harm me I don't find them very innocent.

#197 to #196 - Crusader

Reply0

(08/06/2013)[-]

Yes, but it's easy to misinterpret someone's actions.
Take Trayvon-Zimmerman.
I am willing to bet all my savings that, Zimmerman approached, thinking Trayvon was a threat, Trayvon hit him because he had a gun, and then it escalated.

Or something more likely, you are walking down an alley short cut, a bunch of drunk guys come up, start cursing at you, and give you a bit of a shove, but you can't tell it's going to stop, so you draw, they get more agitated, and you fire.

#200 to #197 - lifeofliam [OP]

Reply0

(08/17/2013)[-]

you dont approach a threat, you contain the situation at a distance only closing with the it at such time that it is no threat anymore (i.e. back up is there, threat has surrendered etc)

#198 to #197 - ScottishMinor

Reply0

(08/06/2013)[-]

I'm talking about armed robbery.

#177 to #162 - srskate

Reply-1

(08/02/2013)[-]

2. this obviously wasn't made by someone with those characteristics
3. the purpose of the law is to protect the public.
4. we agree here
5. Ahh, confused myself. I read it as the last thing they should hear blah blah blah
6. not if they are over 1400 feet away
7. I'd rather avoid the gunfight
8. & 9. yeah not applicable is a good way to describe these two
10. This is subjective. Morals aren't set in stone.
11. should I just write agreed again
12. Unless you are not of good moral fiber
13. get that weak **** out of hear captain planter runs your life.

I like list format. It makes debating easier.

#183 to #177 - thegamerslife

Reply0

(08/02/2013)[-]

The biggest problem I have with your logic is that you seem to think a cop is going to come to your aid. Supreme court has already ruled it is not an officers duty to protect a citizen, to put his life at risk to save someone. If you're being shot at, hiding behind a dumpster in an alley with the bad guy on one end and the cop at another, the cop can simply run away and claim fear for his life and won't be responsible for leaving you there to die, it's just how it is in America.

#190 to #183 - srskate

Reply0

(08/02/2013)[-]

Well then he has failed his duty. It is his duty to uphold the law. There is clearly aggravated assault occurring, and if he runs he might as well be an accessory.

#192 to #190 - thegamerslife

Reply0

(08/03/2013)[-]

No, by law in America he is not obligated to help that person if he believes his own safety would be put into jeopardy. It's ******* retarded, but that is one of my main reasons for carrying. I'm not going to rely on someone else to keep me safe when it isn't even their job to begin with.

#193 to #192 - srskate

Reply0

(08/03/2013)[-]

It'd be pointless for me to carry though. Never been in a situation where it would've help, nor has anyone I know.

#194 to #193 - thegamerslife

Reply0

(08/03/2013)[-]

different lives. hope you never need one.

#195 to #194 - srskate

Reply-1

(08/03/2013)[-]