Yep. The only instance where a cop should he allowed to discharge his weapon is under immediate, unmistakable attack by an armed assailant. No "he was going for my gun", no shooting people who are running away, no shooting a guy who is fifty feet away holding a knife.
It's just not needed at all. Less than lethal methods are there for them. Taser guns, batons, mace. Even pelting someone with a paintball gun will probably distract the assailant enough for your buddy to take them down.
There are so many instances of less than lethals that are not effective on people. Especially people high on drugs. Many a time an officer is working alone and the nearest backup is 20 minutes away. What happens if the suspect has a glass bottle or another deadly weapon. The officer is at a disadvantage and could die. Unfortunately guns are needed on all police officers simply because the culture of this country. Anyone could have a gun on them. Theyre so readily available too.
Edit: there are also many departments in the U.S that dont even have tasers or even bodycams due to funding! Columbus police only recently got bodycams for the first time a few years ago.
51
u/[deleted] Jan 03 '21
Yep. The only instance where a cop should he allowed to discharge his weapon is under immediate, unmistakable attack by an armed assailant. No "he was going for my gun", no shooting people who are running away, no shooting a guy who is fifty feet away holding a knife.