RE: Recent Red Dot Transition
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I am intrigued by the idea, but not sure I would want it on an EDC CCW due to the bulk.
I initially bought an off-duty concealable holster for it, but it is just too cumbersome for me. My edc is a Glock 26 or a Smith & Wesson M & P Shield. I just can't beat those two for comfort and I usually opt for the Glock (old habits and whatnot...lololol).
I'd like to hear your department's use of force policies. When would you aim at another human? What laws are you unwilling to enforce with lethal firepower?
Man, I could write a book or an entire post just on this one questions..lololol The most basic short version is that our Use of Force policy, which include use of deadly force,(like most in the US) is based upon several key SCOTUS rulings as follows:
- Graham v. Conner (1989) Established "objective reasonableness " and factors that should be considered such as severity of crime, how immediate the threat is, actively resisting arrest, and if they are attempting to evade arrest by flight
- Tennessee v. Garner (1985) Established that using deadly force to prevent escape was unlawful unless they pose an immediate threat of death or bodily harm to the officer or public. Prior to this is was justified and legal for officers to shoot fleeing people in the back to prevent escape.
- Scott v. Harris (2007) Addressed that it is justified and not a violation of the 4th Amendment for officers to use force that could result in bodily injury or death during a pursuit if the offender is posing a threat to the general public
Additionally, there are several State of Georgia laws that address the use of force (including deadly) that pertains to the general public and also specifically geared towards law enforcement.
Basically, officers can only intentionally use deadly force to protect themselves or others from serious bodily injury or death, to prevent a forcible felony ( Murder, Rape, Robbery, etc.), or to apprehend a felon they reasonably believe possess a deadly weapon ( or object that when used offensively is likely to cause serious bodily injury or death) or when they have probable cause to believe they have committed a crime that involved inflicting or threatening to inflict serious bodily harm or death.
Sorry for the lengthy response, but I'm also a police firearms instructor, general instructor, and a training coordinator so I have to be careful when stating my views with regards to use of force, firearms, etc.
Thank you so much for taking the time to read and for the interesting questions about use of force. Let me know if that wasn't clear or if you want me to drill down a bit more on any aspect of this.
I think it could be a worthwhile post series. We could even have a civil debate on the necessity of government monopoly policing, the nature of malum prohibitum versus malum in se crime, police accountability, etc.
We could discuss the Peelian Principles and whether modern police procedures match up. What is the nature of rights and responsibilities? What is lawful and legal, and is there some principle outside court decisions and legislation?
I am an anarchist, but not the black-hoodie-and-molotov-cocktail stereotype. I believe in an ordered society, and I see a need for security and investigation services, but the structures in place now strike me as rife with abuse and perverse incentives.
There is quite a bit to discuss with all of these topics to be sure.
I would say that there is a great deal of malum prohibitum that is completely unnecessary and that boils down to a literal money grab by government. My belief is that this is a legislative problem, not necessarily a policing problem. Law enforcement swear an oath(we obviously see many situations where they do not abide by it) to uphold law unless it is immoral or unconstitutional. Within the confines of our federal and state constitutions are the foundations for the structure of government and elected officials wield the power of legislation, of course they often forget who they work for and do not put enough contemplation in the laws they draft and pass into statue. Therefore if the elected legislative body were to be more mindful of the laws passed, and more importantly rejected, the less malum prohibitum crime would need police intervention.
I love that an anarchist and a cop (moderate, mainly libertarian btw lolol) can have open honest communication and an exchange of ideas without hostilities. Thank you so much for commenting and interacting on my post!
The failures of mainstream politics led me to libertarianism, which in turn led me to anarchism of the Austrian economics and decentralized authority variety.