Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It might be good practice for the police to try some nonlethal methods first?

What non-lethal methods would you recommend for someone who is actively shooting at you?

Thats right, there are none. So unless the suspect suddenly decides to surrender you have no options other than returning fire. It keeps the most people safe.

exalted for being one of the few people who realize that it is not the job of the police to save the lives of the people actively attempting to Kill them.

There's a difference between an active shooter situation(the initial confrontation) and what amounts to a negotiation with a mentally unstable suspect(when he was holed up in his van in an isolated parking lot).

But really, I think your post on the matter says it all when it comes to your POV:

Just out of curiosity, this guy Shot at a police station, rammed a police car, threatened cops with automatic weapons and bombs and is currently holed up alone in a van in a parking lot, without any chance of civilian casualties. Is their a reason we can't hold a Texas trial ...by fire. and just blow the van up? I mean we can at least give him the option of getting out first but honestly I couldn't care less if this guy dies, call me a heartless, but eh don't really care.

When the suspect was "holed up alone in a van in a parking lot without any chance of civilian casualties" would have been the time for police to start launching tear gas at the vehicle after taking out the glass on the vehicle.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It might be good practice for the police to try some nonlethal methods first?

What non-lethal methods would you recommend for someone who is actively shooting at you?

Thats right, there are none. So unless the suspect suddenly decides to surrender you have no options other than returning fire. It keeps the most people safe.

I must have misread. I thought they had him holed up somewhere where he was effectively boxed in and unable to shoot anyone. If that was the case, I would expect them to wait him out or shoot some sort of tear gas or something at him until he caved. If he was an active danger, then, yes he should be put down as quickly as possible.

Most of the stories I've read lately with the word "Police" in the title tended to share a theme, and apparently this one was an outlier.

When he got sniped did the individual still have hold of his weapon?

Tear gas doesn't work when the guy is in a vehicle, unless your willing to shoot the glass out of the van. of course then he could just you know....drive away. Not to mention that he is still armed and possibly had more explosives with him. To many people view the police as therapists. The job of police is to protect citizens. If you are shooting weapons at people and police and laying bombs you have surrendered your rights as a citizen and a civilian and you have become a target, nothing more. If its possible to detain the target without putting an officers life at risk then by all means make the attempt. This was not one of those situations.

Jihadin wrote:When he got sniped did the individual still have hold of his weapon?

That's a big question that I have yet to see answered.

Ghazkuul wrote:Tear gas doesn't work when the guy is in a vehicle, unless your willing to shoot the glass out of the van. of course then he could just you know....drive away. Not to mention that he is still armed and possibly had more explosives with him. To many people view the police as therapists. The job of police is to protect citizens. If you are shooting weapons at people and police and laying bombs you have surrendered your rights as a citizen and a civilian and you have become a target, nothing more. If its possible to detain the target without putting an officers life at risk then by all means make the attempt. This was not one of those situations.

And yet one of the two Boston Marathon bombers were brought in alive...

Turns out he was into more than a few Conspiracy Theories, and was active in several online discussions involving typical anti-government attitudes:

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/dallas-shooter-was-a-conspiracy-theorist-who-threatened-to-shoot-up-schools-and-churches-reports/

If this guy thought the Texas government was "intrusive????"

MB

 Kanluwen wrote:

Jihadin wrote:When he got sniped did the individual still have hold of his weapon?

That's a big question that I have yet to see answered.

Ghazkuul wrote:Tear gas doesn't work when the guy is in a vehicle, unless your willing to shoot the glass out of the van. of course then he could just you know....drive away. Not to mention that he is still armed and possibly had more explosives with him. To many people view the police as therapists. The job of police is to protect citizens. If you are shooting weapons at people and police and laying bombs you have surrendered your rights as a citizen and a civilian and you have become a target, nothing more. If its possible to detain the target without putting an officers life at risk then by all means make the attempt. This was not one of those situations.

And yet one of the two Boston Marathon bombers were brought in alive...

I want to point out Kan. He already used two smaller explosive devices (IED label not in use in the US of A yet). No one knows if the van was in itself a VBIED ,van rig with explosives Timothy style

 Kanluwen wrote:

Jihadin wrote:When he got sniped did the individual still have hold of his weapon?

That's a big question that I have yet to see answered.

Ghazkuul wrote:Tear gas doesn't work when the guy is in a vehicle, unless your willing to shoot the glass out of the van. of course then he could just you know....drive away. Not to mention that he is still armed and possibly had more explosives with him. To many people view the police as therapists. The job of police is to protect citizens. If you are shooting weapons at people and police and laying bombs you have surrendered your rights as a citizen and a civilian and you have become a target, nothing more. If its possible to detain the target without putting an officers life at risk then by all means make the attempt. This was not one of those situations.

And yet one of the two Boston Marathon bombers were brought in alive...

Your right about the Boston Marathon Bomber being caught...of course he had also been shot at that point by Boston Police and was severely injured an cornered in a small boat and completely surrounded and ohh yeah....surrendered.

SO yes in completely different circumstances its possible for police to arrest an armed suspect without killing him. Congrats on cherry picking though

 Kanluwen wrote:

Jihadin wrote:When he got sniped did the individual still have hold of his weapon?

That's a big question that I have yet to see answered.

Ghazkuul wrote:Tear gas doesn't work when the guy is in a vehicle, unless your willing to shoot the glass out of the van. of course then he could just you know....drive away. Not to mention that he is still armed and possibly had more explosives with him. To many people view the police as therapists. The job of police is to protect citizens. If you are shooting weapons at people and police and laying bombs you have surrendered your rights as a citizen and a civilian and you have become a target, nothing more. If its possible to detain the target without putting an officers life at risk then by all means make the attempt. This was not one of those situations.

And yet one of the two Boston Marathon bombers were brought in alive...

Because he surrendered.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Jihadin wrote:When he got sniped did the individual still have hold of his weapon?

That's a big question that I have yet to see answered.

Ghazkuul wrote:Tear gas doesn't work when the guy is in a vehicle, unless your willing to shoot the glass out of the van. of course then he could just you know....drive away. Not to mention that he is still armed and possibly had more explosives with him. To many people view the police as therapists. The job of police is to protect citizens. If you are shooting weapons at people and police and laying bombs you have surrendered your rights as a citizen and a civilian and you have become a target, nothing more. If its possible to detain the target without putting an officers life at risk then by all means make the attempt. This was not one of those situations.

And yet one of the two Boston Marathon bombers were brought in alive...

Because he surrendered.

After he had been shot, multiple times.

Kanluwen, keep your facepalms. This man had one goal. Kill police officers. He wasn't going to surrender peacefully.

Jihadin wrote:

I want to point out Kan. He already used two smaller explosive devices (IED label not in use in the US of A yet). No one knows if the van was in itself a VBIED ,van rig with explosives Timothy style

They shot him while he was in the van; are you really trying to say they haven't inspected the van yet?

Ghazkuul wrote:

Your right about the Boston Marathon Bomber being caught...of course he had also been shot at that point by Boston Police and was severely injured an cornered in a small boat and completely surrounded and ohh yeah....surrendered.

SO yes in completely different circumstances its possible for police to arrest an armed suspect without killing him. Congrats on cherry picking though

The Boston Marathon bomber wasn't armed when arrested.

The point you espoused was:

Ghazkuul wrote:Just out of curiosity, this guy Shot at a police station, rammed a police car, threatened cops with automatic weapons and bombs and is currently holed up alone in a van in a parking lot, without any chance of civilian casualties. Is their a reason we can't hold a Texas trial ...by fire. and just blow the van up? I mean we can at least give him the option of getting out first but honestly I couldn't care less if this guy dies, call me a heartless, but eh don't really care.

Keep saying it was cherry-picking, but if you really want to pretend that it was somehow more appropriate for a police marksman to shoot this guy than it was for them to kill a suspect who ran over his own brother while they were fleeing the police, after detonating multiple devices at a public event and killing/maiming a hell of a lot more people than this idiot did?

I think you might need to go back and actually read what I wrote in reply to your posting.

Grey Templar wrote:
Because he surrendered.

He also wasn't armed, was wounded, and had just killed/maimed a hell of a lot more people(bystanders and civilians at that) than this guy who targeted LEOs did.

Yet Boston's Police Department brought the Boston Marathon suspect in alive to stand trial, but somehow the Great State of Texas can't bring in one guy who parked his van?

djones520 wrote:
After he had been shot, multiple times.

Kanluwen, keep your facepalms. This man had one goal. Kill police officers. He wasn't going to surrender peacefully.

Yet it doesn't change my point. Ghazkuul's post that I initially replied to is a perfect example of the nonsense that commonly gets espoused by police departments to justify excessive violence when bringing in suspects that have targeted LEOs.

 Grey Templar wrote:
What non-lethal methods would you recommend for someone who is actively shooting at you?

Thats right, there are none. So unless the suspect suddenly decides to surrender you have no options other than returning fire. It keeps the most people safe.

Obviously if he’s in the act of shooting at you at that very moment, or running through the streets and likely to fire at people he comes across you shoot, and shoot straighter than he does.

But real life isn’t like GTA, running gun battles don’t go on for very long. People will naturally hole up in some kind of cover, and from there police will almost always move to containment and negotiation.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Jihadin wrote:

I want to point out Kan. He already used two smaller explosive devices (IED label not in use in the US of A yet). No one knows if the van was in itself a VBIED ,van rig with explosives Timothy style

They shot him while he was in the van; are you really trying to say they haven't inspected the van yet?

Ghazkuul wrote:

Your right about the Boston Marathon Bomber being caught...of course he had also been shot at that point by Boston Police and was severely injured an cornered in a small boat and completely surrounded and ohh yeah....surrendered.

SO yes in completely different circumstances its possible for police to arrest an armed suspect without killing him. Congrats on cherry picking though

The Boston Marathon bomber wasn't armed when arrested.

The point you espoused was:

Ghazkuul wrote:Just out of curiosity, this guy Shot at a police station, rammed a police car, threatened cops with automatic weapons and bombs and is currently holed up alone in a van in a parking lot, without any chance of civilian casualties. Is their a reason we can't hold a Texas trial ...by fire. and just blow the van up? I mean we can at least give him the option of getting out first but honestly I couldn't care less if this guy dies, call me a heartless, but eh don't really care.

Keep saying it was cherry-picking, but if you really want to pretend that it was somehow more appropriate for a police marksman to shoot this guy than it was for them to kill a suspect who ran over his own brother while they were fleeing the police, after detonating multiple devices at a public event and killing/maiming a hell of a lot more people than this idiot did?

I think you might need to go back and actually read what I wrote in reply to your posting.

Grey Templar wrote:
Because he surrendered.

He also wasn't armed, was wounded, and had just killed/maimed a hell of a lot more people(bystanders and civilians at that) than this guy who targeted LEOs did.

Yet Boston's Police Department brought the Boston Marathon suspect in alive to stand trial, but somehow the Great State of Texas can't bring in one guy who parked his van?

djones520 wrote:
After he had been shot, multiple times.

Kanluwen, keep your facepalms. This man had one goal. Kill police officers. He wasn't going to surrender peacefully.

Yet it doesn't change my point. Ghazkuul's post that I initially replied to is a perfect example of the nonsense that commonly gets espoused by police departments to justify excessive violence when bringing in suspects that have targeted LEOs.

Im sorry what is your point? because from what I read of your posts you think that its the police officers jobs to die trying to get an armed suspect to give himself up. You tried to compare this situation to the Boston Marathon Bombing suspect getting arrested. You clearly didn't know the circumstances behind his detainment prior to posting that because you started back tracking pretty hard. There is no loss of prestige by admitting you are wrong.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
exalted for being one of the few people who realize that it is not the job of the police to save the lives of the people actively attempting to Kill them.

The police, very fething obviously, have every right to use lethal force to keep their own lives safe, as well as the lives of civilians. No-one has said otherwise.

Don't really have a huge problem with the way this particular incident was handled, but Kan, don't sweat it, the cops do such a fabulous job of screwing things up on a regular basis that there's no shortage of ammunition available for you to make your point.

 sebster wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
exalted for being one of the few people who realize that it is not the job of the police to save the lives of the people actively attempting to Kill them.

The police, very fething obviously, have every right to use lethal force to keep their own lives safe, as well as the lives of civilians.

But you appear to be working on the assumption that the idea that once a person has attempted lethal force then they will forever and always be a lethal threat until shot and killed, and that is a very long way from reality. A guy who is lethally dangerous when he comes out of nowhere to fire on a police station is, more often than not, going to end up holed up somewhere. In that situation it is not only the moral thing to attempt to negotiate the guy out, it is often also the safest thing for the officers involved.

It isn’t always going to play out that way, but the claim you’re making here that it is just a case of shoot the guy no circumstances considered is miles away from the reality.

If you read the after action, the target was still being actively aggressive and the decision was made to remove the threat from the public before he tried something else.

As far as my earlier post in regards to your post, yes you can make the attempt to negotiate and bring them in peacefully after the hostile act, but when they "hole up" and are still being aggressive FETH HIM UP!

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Don't really have a huge problem with the way this particular incident was handled, but Kan, don't sweat it, the cops do such a fabulous job of screwing things up on a regular basis that there's no shortage of ammunition available for you to make your point.

And that's one of the biggest reasons why I opted out of going into law enforcement at this point in time, sadly.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
If you read the after action, the target was still being actively aggressive and the decision was made to remove the threat from the public before he tried something else.

As far as my earlier post in regards to your post, yes you can make the attempt to negotiate and bring them in peacefully after the hostile act, but when they "hole up" and are still being aggressive FETH HIM UP!

Yeah, I edited my post after I read a later comment of yours, and it became clear you were talking only about this case, and recognised in other situations police have other methods. I was too slow on the edit, my bad.

 sebster wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:
If you read the after action, the target was still being actively aggressive and the decision was made to remove the threat from the public before he tried something else.

As far as my earlier post in regards to your post, yes you can make the attempt to negotiate and bring them in peacefully after the hostile act, but when they "hole up" and are still being aggressive FETH HIM UP!

Yeah, I edited my post after I read a later comment of yours, and it became clear you were talking only about this case, and recognised in other situations police have other methods. I was too slow on the edit, my bad.

Not a problem Thank you btw for being mature with your posts its kind of a breath of fresh air in these forums

They inspected the outside of the van but not inside the van.

Ohh, I forgot about that to in regards to the police not fully inspecting the van yet. Trust 2 OEF/OIF veterans when we say you don't rush to inspect vehicle that may be full of HME with random triggers. you let the experts handle that BS

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It might be good practice for the police to try some nonlethal methods first?

What non-lethal methods would you recommend for someone who is actively shooting at you?

Thats right, there are none. So unless the suspect suddenly decides to surrender you have no options other than returning fire. It keeps the most people safe.

exalted for being one of the few people who realize that it is not the job of the police to save the lives of the people actively attempting to Kill them.

It is, though, so I'm not sure why you'd claim otherwise. Sure, if there's no option then take him out, but when all you have is a hammer... Considering the discrepancy between the US number of people shot by cops per capita and the rest of the "West", calling the US police trigger-happy is generous at best.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It might be good practice for the police to try some nonlethal methods first?

What non-lethal methods would you recommend for someone who is actively shooting at you?

Thats right, there are none. So unless the suspect suddenly decides to surrender you have no options other than returning fire. It keeps the most people safe.

exalted for being one of the few people who realize that it is not the job of the police to save the lives of the people actively attempting to Kill them.

It is, though, so I'm not sure why you'd claim otherwise. Sure, if there's no option then take him out, but when all you have is a hammer... Considering the discrepancy between the US number of people shot by cops per capita and the rest of the "West", calling the US police trigger-happy is generous at best.

It is not the job of the police to try and save a gunmans life when he is actively shooting at a cop or civilian, it is his job to protect civilians. As for the death count, I agree it is to high, but we as a country also face a very unique problem that few other countries have. We are an amalgamation of races, ethnic groups and religions, tension can be high at times and add to that our wonderful border with Mexico which sees running gun battles from time to time and the picture becomes a bit clearer.

If your going off the recent media trend to show every single black person killed by police then I would ask you to read the actual reports of those incidents, so far I think two or three of the 10-15 published nationally so far has shown the police being found guilty of foul play. (which btw I think is 2-3 to many)

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Don't really have a huge problem with the way this particular incident was handled, but Kan, don't sweat it, the cops do such a fabulous job of screwing things up on a regular basis that there's no shortage of ammunition available for you to make your point.

And that's one of the biggest reasons why I opted out of going into law enforcement at this point in time, sadly.

Honestly it's for the best...it's a career for guys who got Cs in high school and played it straight enough to pass the background check. You seem better than that.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Don't really have a huge problem with the way this particular incident was handled, but Kan, don't sweat it, the cops do such a fabulous job of screwing things up on a regular basis that there's no shortage of ammunition available for you to make your point.

And that's one of the biggest reasons why I opted out of going into law enforcement at this point in time, sadly.

Honestly it's for the best...it's a career for guys who got Cs in high school and played it straight enough to pass the background check. You seem better than that.

So because a person chooses to go into law enforcement they must immediately be either average or below average intelligence......that is a great mindset to have. I guess everyone who joins the military just does it because they couldn't get into college or because that was the only job open to them to huh?

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It might be good practice for the police to try some nonlethal methods first?

What non-lethal methods would you recommend for someone who is actively shooting at you?

Thats right, there are none. So unless the suspect suddenly decides to surrender you have no options other than returning fire. It keeps the most people safe.

exalted for being one of the few people who realize that it is not the job of the police to save the lives of the people actively attempting to Kill them.

It is, though, so I'm not sure why you'd claim otherwise. Sure, if there's no option then take him out, but when all you have is a hammer... Considering the discrepancy between the US number of people shot by cops per capita and the rest of the "West", calling the US police trigger-happy is generous at best.

It is not the job of the police to try and save a gunmans life when he is actively shooting at a cop or civilian, it is his job to protect civilians. As for the death count, I agree it is to high, but we as a country also face a very unique problem that few other countries have. We are an amalgamation of races, ethnic groups and religions, tension can be high at times and add to that our wonderful border with Mexico which sees running gun battles from time to time and the picture becomes a bit clearer.

If your going off the recent media trend to show every single black person killed by police then I would ask you to read the actual reports of those incidents, so far I think two or three of the 10-15 published nationally so far has shown the police being found guilty of foul play. (which btw I think is 2-3 to many)

I was actually going to put in a snide remark about how the likely response was going to be "but America's special!", but decided I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. I see now that doing so was an error.

The gunman is part of the public (I'll not go into why categorizing the public as "civilians" is part of the problem, that'd take way too long) that the police is supposed to protect. It becomes a situation where the protection of the greater public outweighs the responsibility to protect the individual, but at no point in this example does the responsibility of the police to protect end.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It might be good practice for the police to try some nonlethal methods first?

What non-lethal methods would you recommend for someone who is actively shooting at you?

Thats right, there are none. So unless the suspect suddenly decides to surrender you have no options other than returning fire. It keeps the most people safe.

exalted for being one of the few people who realize that it is not the job of the police to save the lives of the people actively attempting to Kill them.

It is, though, so I'm not sure why you'd claim otherwise. Sure, if there's no option then take him out, but when all you have is a hammer... Considering the discrepancy between the US number of people shot by cops per capita and the rest of the "West", calling the US police trigger-happy is generous at best.

It is not the job of the police to try and save a gunmans life when he is actively shooting at a cop or civilian, it is his job to protect civilians. As for the death count, I agree it is to high, but we as a country also face a very unique problem that few other countries have. We are an amalgamation of races, ethnic groups and religions, tension can be high at times and add to that our wonderful border with Mexico which sees running gun battles from time to time and the picture becomes a bit clearer.

If your going off the recent media trend to show every single black person killed by police then I would ask you to read the actual reports of those incidents, so far I think two or three of the 10-15 published nationally so far has shown the police being found guilty of foul play. (which btw I think is 2-3 to many)

I was actually going to put in a snide remark about how the likely response was going to be "but America's special!", but decided I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. I see now that doing so was an error.

The gunman is part of the public (I'll not go into why categorizing the public as "civilians" is part of the problem, that'd take way too long) that the police is supposed to protect. It becomes a situation where the protection of the greater public outweighs the responsibility to protect the individual, but at no point in this example does the responsibility of the police to protect end.

The police should make every effort to save the persons life but not at the risk of their own. You don't join the police force with the intent to die trying to save a gunmans life

As far as your "Snide" remark about America being special. Sweden has a population of around 9million, of which 87% is the same religion and I would venture that somewhere around 95% of the country (if not more) is white. Your racial diversity is you have some finns living their as well. Sweden as a country literally knows nothing about racial, ethnic or religious tensions.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Don't really have a huge problem with the way this particular incident was handled, but Kan, don't sweat it, the cops do such a fabulous job of screwing things up on a regular basis that there's no shortage of ammunition available for you to make your point.

And that's one of the biggest reasons why I opted out of going into law enforcement at this point in time, sadly.

Honestly it's for the best...it's a career for guys who got Cs in high school and played it straight enough to pass the background check. You seem better than that.

So because a person chooses to go into law enforcement they must immediately be either average or below average intelligence......that is a great mindset to have. I guess everyone who joins the military just does it because they couldn't get into college or because that was the only job open to them to huh?

Military service is completely different. Harassing your nation's citizens and generating revenue for politicians to waste while getting jocked up and strutting around pretending like your job is dangerous is far different than protecting your nation's citizens and interests as a silent professional. I think you've got me pegged wrong here...I'm a combat veteran and current DoD research scientist. The military community is essentially my life and my drive to get up in the morning and go to work.

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ghazkuul wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
It might be good practice for the police to try some nonlethal methods first?

What non-lethal methods would you recommend for someone who is actively shooting at you?

Thats right, there are none. So unless the suspect suddenly decides to surrender you have no options other than returning fire. It keeps the most people safe.

exalted for being one of the few people who realize that it is not the job of the police to save the lives of the people actively attempting to Kill them.

It is, though, so I'm not sure why you'd claim otherwise. Sure, if there's no option then take him out, but when all you have is a hammer... Considering the discrepancy between the US number of people shot by cops per capita and the rest of the "West", calling the US police trigger-happy is generous at best.

It is not the job of the police to try and save a gunmans life when he is actively shooting at a cop or civilian, it is his job to protect civilians. As for the death count, I agree it is to high, but we as a country also face a very unique problem that few other countries have. We are an amalgamation of races, ethnic groups and religions, tension can be high at times and add to that our wonderful border with Mexico which sees running gun battles from time to time and the picture becomes a bit clearer.

If your going off the recent media trend to show every single black person killed by police then I would ask you to read the actual reports of those incidents, so far I think two or three of the 10-15 published nationally so far has shown the police being found guilty of foul play. (which btw I think is 2-3 to many)

Hello! I work with the mentall ill(people are probably tired of hearing about that) and did you know, if one of them attacks me with a deadly weapon, if I inflict more harm on them than is required for me to get away safely, I can still be charged and end up in prison? Why are cops special but I am not?

 Dreadwinter wrote:


Hello! I work with the mentall ill(people are probably tired of hearing about that) and did you know, if one of them attacks me with a deadly weapon, if I inflict more harm on them than is required for me to get away safely, I can still be charged and end up in prison? Why are cops special but I am not?

We should all get to beat the gak out of the mentally ill! Or let them fight each other on TV!

Oh, we already have the MMA. Nevermind...