Austreylia wrote:Dogmeat wrote:Well that's certainly the dumbest take I've heard on police work in a while.
You clearly haven't paid attention to some other posters here.
I saw one prominent anti-cop poster say that cops should try to use non-lethal force on a man who was ramming them with a car whilst firing a machine-pistol at them.
That's not really what anyone said, though. San Lumen was saying that the police should use a non-lethal option if it exists. Which you seemed to disagree with, saying that if someone shoots at the police then that person should expect to die, which would suggest that the police should use lethal force even when a situation can be resolved non-lethally. It has happened plenty of times that someone has shot at police but ultimately been taken alive, sometimes even been talked into surrendering.
This was also around the time that you were getting very upset at me for suggesting that the response to being shot at should be to take cover, which I still think is very funny. I'm confident that if it had been presented to you by someone else that you would have easily understood that taking cover really is the most sensible thing to do first when one is being shot at. But because it was me saying it, an anti-cop lefty, you apparently couldn't let yourself accept the simple common sense of my post. You had to try and invent a reason that it's bad to take cover.