Police Need “Offensive” Weapons!
BY Herschel Smith
4 years, 1 month ago
Video: https://t.co/zT9RJYizwy pic.twitter.com/EhTJUX2fxE
— Rob (@2Aupdates) October 9, 2020
Because police need offensive weapons, while you only need defensive weapons.
Idiots. It has to do with how the weapon is used. Besides, I’m surprised the judge didn’t say something like, “You’re flat out wrong according to Supreme Court precedent. Tennessee v. Garner says police can only use firearms for the same reason all other citizens can use them – for self defense.”
On October 9, 2020 at 12:43 pm, Chris Mallory said:
“Because police need offensive weapons”
Reminds me of the police shooting in Maryland a few years ago where they ended up shooting another unarmed man. It was a semi domestic dispute and they deployed a SWAT team. One of the “operators” (sic) was laying on a perfectly mowed lawn in a ghillie suit with a .50 sniper rifle. What this guy thought he was going to shoot with an anti material rifle in the middle of a crowded residential apartment complex I don’t know. But I don’t see a standard apartment doing anything to stop a .50 BMG round. Everyone down range was in danger from this idiot. But hey, he thought he looked cool.
On October 9, 2020 at 5:36 pm, X said:
We are constantly subjected to the left-wing harangue that “weapons of war don’t belong on the streets of America.”
If that’s so, why do all the cops “need” them? When did the cops become soldiers? Who are they at war with???
On October 9, 2020 at 5:55 pm, Fred said:
How can police conduct offensive combat operations against their neighbors without offensive combat equipment, you slaves? Don’t you understand that police need to engage in combat against you for your own good, safety, welfare, and protection? You just don’t adequately appreciate and worship the thin blue line…but… You. Will. Learn.
On October 11, 2020 at 7:51 am, Matt said:
The police only need offensive weapons when they plan on playing gestapo.
On October 14, 2020 at 10:38 am, Gary Griffiths said:
… I’m surprised the judge didn’t say something like, “You’re flat out wrong according to Supreme Court precedent. Tennessee v. Garner says police can only use firearms for the same reason all other citizens can use them – for self defense.”
That’s probably because that’s NOT what Tennessee v. Garner says. Tennessee v. Garner has to do with use of deadly force on fleeing felons, restricting police to using deadly force only if the suspect has used deadly force or the threat of deadly force in (1) the commission of the crime, or (2) his or her escape attempt, and then only if lesser force is unlikely to result in a successful apprehension.
On October 14, 2020 at 10:52 am, Herschel Smith said:
@Gary,
Yes, that is PRECISELY what Tenn. v Garner says. The fleeing felon is a placeholder for everyone. Police can’t use deadly force on a fleeing felon because the felon poses no danger to the cop. He’s fleeing.
If the cop believes the felon poses a danger to someone else, that’s a different story (the SCOTUS followed up Tenn. v Garner with another ruling to that effect).