When I read benefit of the DOUBT I think dubious.
Right. Would you say, more often than not, rookie cops are not involved with lethal encounters before encountering a number of non lethal encounters? I think “rookie cops” would be considered a “necessary evil” in the sense that the hope would be most gain said experience before something of huge importance occurs.
If we’re talking about arming teachers, they’re (en masse) statistically never going to have an appropriate amount of experience to make those snap decisions.
All of which sounds great. Maybe it’s the sources I’m reading/hearing, but so far I’m yet to hear anything like this as a requirement as being in the bill. Nothing (to my knowledge) of a “defensive position” or anything of the sort. I guess we’ll find out for sure when the verbiage of the bill drops, I haven’t found it yet.
I’m talking about stuff like
As LEOs tend to have more experience with violent circumstances than your average layman, the law will often side with an LEO that feels there may be danger, even when after the fact he/she was wrong.
Society grants them that, I think, because they know the alternative would be to discourage LEOs from being willing to act when called upon.
I would think that if teachers are going to ultimately be armed they will also be taught specific tactics and guidelines. I have no idea who would have a voice in determining what those were, but I would certainly advocate for teachers securing their classroom and taking up a defensive position rather than actively seeking to engage the threat. Safeguard your herd and allow the professionals to enter the school and play their part as well. If the threat comes to you before the professionals arrive, you stand ready to engage but there is no reason for teachers to be looking to get in a shootout.
As for rookie cops being dispatched to lesser situations, ideally that is the plan but it isn’t always the reality. If necessity requires sending a rookie to a potentially hostile situation, they are still getting sent. And even if they are riding with an experienced patrolman, it doesn’t mean that they may not be in a position that requires them to make the kind of judgement you’re talking about without having had much or any previous experience to prepare them. The classroom portion and understanding the laws regarding preconditions for use of deadly force is just as important as the actual field experience. Of course, experience is king, but everyone starts somewhere. In the case of the hypothetical arming of teachers, as I mentioned above, my hope would be we’re starting them in positions where they will never have to use it, but if they do it is in a defensive stance where some range time and understanding of the legal considerations is adequate to see them through safely.
1 Like
100% agree. My fingers are crossed things such as this are included in the bill, but just haven’t broke the news yet. Maybe I’m a skeptic, but it seems a weird thing to leave out of the stories.
Civilians also “get away” with shooting people who weren’t armed or who may not have posed a serious threat.
I actually think cops are held to a higher standard when it comes to justifying a shooting.
1 Like
Lawmakers aren’t the best informed bunch. I would make the training and tactics (hopefully defensive) the responsibility of the state police, and leave it at that, rather than having a tactical doctrine written into the law.
1 Like
Yeah, people that want citizens to have a right to arms are so backwards. If only we were more enlightened. Like the Cubans, or the Venezuelans.
So we’ll never see another world war? USA will maintain sole superpower status forever?
1 Like
I’m not saying it has to be stated to the letter, but laws are wrote to give clear direction. If they aren’t informed, they should change that. It’s why we give them billion dollar budgets and zero realistic oversight.
Do people really believe the US is the sole superpower?
Or, we could leave it to the judgement of the professionals.
You seemed to have missed the “fetishists” part of the category. Not talking about people who favor rights to firearms, I’m talking about that portion of them who live in an alternate reality and who thinks everything revolves around their fetish. Vegans, Crossfitters, tactical bro 2A fetishists. Same genus, different species.
We’ve had two world wars - tell me, out of those two, how many required citizens to defend home and hearth against invading land forces with their secondary market AR-15s?
Because fuzzy laws scream to the teacher “hey guys if you take up arms let’s hope you don’t miss, because some judge that disagrees is sending your ass to jail.”
Why in God’s name would we ask teachers to bear the responsibility of ending a life if we can’t guarantee them protection under the right criteria. Leave it up to some judge’s discretion? Fuck that
To be fair, ww2 woulda gone so different if the French nationals had AR-15s
1 Like
If they felt they were in danger, I don’t think it’s fair to call it accidental. If an unarmed person acts as though he’s armed, then it would be unfair to expect someone to treat him as though he’s unarmed. There’s an action/reaction gap to consider, as well as the totality of the circumstances.
You mean like when we dropped liberator pistols and machine guns on France so the resistance could fight? Or when we armed the Mujahadeen against the Russians (woops). Or when the Viet Cong fought the French and later Americans? The FARC in Columbia?
Determined guerilla peasants, given even just small arms are a hell of an annoyance to an occupying force.
And what superpower is going to be backing up our resistance force?
You didn’t answer my question - when we did we have to do that? When was the last time we faced a land invasion requiring that citizens fight in their own towns and counties? Did either world war require that?
I don’t disagree, and I think we should start doing that if we start seeing Canada give us the stinkeye from up North.
1 Like
God, these threads make me want to pull my non-existent hair out.
Ok, let’s dispel some long standing myths.
First we’ll start with the French Revolution to illustrate in which environment the FFs actually lived and phrased their 2A.
In 1793, after chopping off heads of Louis XVI and his wife, the French revolutionary government found itself in war against all major (royalist) European powers. Upon finding out that armies of Prussia, Austria, Russia and a small British contingent of Hessians are marching towards the territory of France proper, they enacted the world’s first mass mobilization - the levee en masse.
In a short time the French mobilized roughly 800 000 people, gave them muskets (the original decree specifically stipulated what to do with “fowl hunting weapons”), learned them to load, fire and march in formation in a matter of weeks. And voila, they got themselves a revolutionaryarmy which spectacularly defeated in pitched battles Austrians, Prussians and Hessians in turn.
Notice the parallels with the “well regulated militia” of the nascent US of A - a peasant/worker conscription army with a smattering of regulars could defeat (albeit with numerical superiority) regular enemy troops in a conventional battle, thus establishing the dominant military paradigm for the next century and a half - that sheer numbers and conscripts matter.
Roughly two centuries later, does anyone think that the mustered tactical bros or NRA militiamen could defeat an armored division with artillery/drone support of the People’s Liberation Army in a conventional battle like the French did two centuries ago against the Prussians?
But the US is still clinging to a late 18th century solution to a specific problem - the cost of a standing army.
Second of all, the French have a lot of weapons in the hands of private individuals, even more so in WW2. A despite the “French surrendering monkeys” stereotype, the French collapse in 1940 was primarily due to the pathetic failure of the political and military elites and their fatalistic defeatism. Wherever adequately led (De Gaulle’s counterattack at Arras, for example) the French soldier fought bravely.
Which brings us to the third point - resistance. The French were pretty gung ho at the start, carrying out some notable success in fighting the Germans, including high profile assassinations, to which the Germans institute the infamous 50 to 1 policy - for every German killed, they shot 50 French civilians. And being pedantic, they followed in to the letter.
At that’s the point - guerilla resistance can occasionally cause trouble for the invader, but if he’s ruthless enough the civilian population will pay a terrible toll. The only successful WW2 guerilla resistance (in Yugoslavia) resulted in a 24% reduction of the pre-war population.
But back to France, here’s how the SS reacted when one German officer was captured:
But what if they had guns? Well, in the infamous Battle of Saint Marcel in Brittany they did. Around 4000 French maquis civilians armed with hunting rifles and parachuted weapons from the Allies managed to kill around 500 Germans in a pitched battle before being overrun by Panzers - thousands of civilians were executed in the reprisals. And that was after D-Day, just mere days before Patton’s tanks broke out and liberated Brittany.
The situation was even more pronounced on the Eastern Front - the Soviets had over a hundred thousand partisans in the German rear areas, harassing lines of communication and carrying out isolated attacks on German garrisons.
Their most notable achievement was tying around 200k German troops on policing duties in what is now Belarus and Western Russia. And there was another small detail - around one million civilians perished as a consequence of German reprisals.
I strongly suggest watching come and see - a famous Soviet film showing the practical realities of taking up arms against the invader - you simply have to accept that both you, your family and everyone you ever knew will end up dead.
1 Like
Accidental in the sense that they intended to kill an armed person, and accidentally killed an unarmed person. I don’t feel the need to dance around the verbiage though, so feel free to replace key words with whichever ones you want
So the Viet Cong/NVA did not hold out and keep fighting until the US lost its will to fight? Didn’t matter that the US military was superior in every way.