Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (14125)	5/24/2001 1:27:49 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Ok, you have a point, and perhaps the words "trigger-happy" have been thrown around too often and too easily. I'm not sure the characterization is totally invalid, though, and I don't think your point in any way excuses what was done. A few specific objections: (These guns spit out bullets very fast-- 41 bullets take mere seconds to be released.) ...Amadou Diallo was now lying there with 19 bullets in his body... I don't buy this. Cops don't carry automatic weapons. If 41 shots were fired, triggers were pulled 41 times. That's a lot of shooting. If 19 bullets out of 41 hit Diallo, that is really exceptionally good shooting: a near 50% hit ratio in a combat situation is astonishingly high. These guys were not blazing away in a panic. That was deliberate, aimed fire, probably at fairly close range. That alone comes close to justifying "trigger-happy". There is more, though. Being a cop gives you advantages and disadvantages in the battle with the bad guys, as every cop knows from day 1. The cops are the good guys, they go around openly armed, can call for almost unlimited support, and have all kinds of support and resources that the bad guys generally don't have. In real life (though not in movies) they almost always have superior numbers, training, and armament. They also have disadvantages. They are supposed to be trained, and if they are in a situation like that they are supposed to be experienced. Their actions are supposed to reflect training and experience. They must put the protection of innocent life first: if they have a choice between risking their own lives and risking those of the citizenry they have to risk their own, and if they can't make that deal they don't put on the uniform. They are not supposed to shoot people because they are scared. They are not supposed to shoot people because they look like a bad guy (meaning that they are the same color and approximate age). They are not supposed to shoot people because they think the people are armed, or because someone says they are armed. They have to make sure, even if that means risking themselves. That's the job. These guys didn't make sure. They put their own safety first, and broke their most fundamental promise to the people they are there to protect. OK, they were scared. If they were civilians, that would justify the decision to fire, but they were cops. They were not under fire, they were worried about possibly becoming under fire. That's not good enough. I wouldn't say that if I hadn't had certain experiences. I have been shot at, with automatic weapons, without the option of shooting back. I've made the rational (if somewhat hurried) decision to act in a manner contrary to self-preservation under those conditions. I know very well that it can be done, and I would expect a cop, or a soldier, to do it, just as I would expect a fireman to be able to make a rational decision in a smoke filled room. That's what they do. That's a long-winded way of saying that I see your point, but I still disagree.