TexasCHLforum.com

I do realize the police have a difficult and dangerous job, but the USA is not a combat zone.

Pawpaw wrote:

OlBill wrote: Should we require them to see a weapon before they shoot?

That is precisely what has been required of our troops in a combat zone. At various times, they have been ordered not to fire until after they were fired upon.

I do realize the police have a difficult and dangerous job, but the USA is not a combat zone. If one of our troops had shot an unarmed person in Afghanistan or Iraq, he could expect a very long vacation to that big hotel in Kansas.

carlson1 wrote:

MechAg94 wrote:Did you noticed how far away the cops were from this guy? IMO, they were never under any significant threat no matter what his hands were doing or what he might have had in them. If they were in the yard close to him, I can see giving more leeway, but they were pretty far back. That is too trigger happy for me.

It is not just about rather they are in danger or fear of their lives they have a duty to protect others. There is no way from watching that video (distance and lighting are terrible) to know everything that took place. None of us were there nor have we had the privilege to see and hear all of the evidence. No different the BLM jumping to conclusions. We should not require the police to wait and be shot at first before they can respond and neither do I want to be the one waiting for someone to shoot first.

There are always lessons to learn. Prayers for this dear family and all involved.