- 2,360
- Ventura, California
What the Supreme Court has to do with what a retired detective's opinion on what police should be, I don't know.
And just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn't mean that I or anyone must agree, or that it is how it should be.
An opinion of a retired LEO means nothing in regards to actual modern day police tactics and protocol. Moral obligation is one's own obligation. Constitutional obligation are the key words. As someone myself who took an oath to the Constitution, I realized the importance of carrying a firearm at a very young age. It's a big responsibility. The decision to use lethal force has to happen extremely quickly. There is no time to debate the pros and cons. It must happen fast. Self justification is really all you have. Under stress or duress, whatever you want to call it, your human mind will make the decision and the actions that follow. It's easy to judge from a 3rd party perspective. I make no excuses for Police. I'm not happy with the direction this Country is going in with Police militarization. The fact still still stands that the Supreme Court has decided that LE have no Constitutional obligation to protect anyone.
Some of you have unrealistic ideas of Police standards. One would imagine a Police Officer is highly trained in self defense, making quick decisions without stress or fear, highly trained in marksmanship etc. Forgetting that human beings are all inherently wired the same way. Police officers do fear for their lives like any Joe Blow would. Most Police are not as highly trained as the movies would suggest. Stop glorifying the job.
Last edited by a moderator: