this is confusing me, help?

Question

if lets say a robber, robs a bank and some police step in to take him away. But useally the robber has the gun, so the police have to beat him down to get the gun away. But lets say an another robber beats up a man to take away,lets say his wallet. wouldn't the police be no help if they beat up the robber that doesn't give in. Cause the officers would be arrested for beating down a man, that only had a gun that useally have no bullets in it for just imatation. So the other robber therefor would be arrested but not the police?


Don't be offended police men cause i have been thinking about this for only 2 minutes. This might be confusing to ppl who are under the age of 13...which really shouldn't be on here.

this is why i said it was confusing to me

i will ask this question again later, so i can figure out what i am trying to say. cause i can see it is confusing to all of you that said huh

Answer 1

i am 13, but i have an IQ of 135, so lets begin,

fit of all even if the gun had no bullets in it the police don't know that, so they r in fear of they're life along with everybody else n the bank, and you can look at any law book, the cop's job is to protect and defend, so according to that, if someone is in fear of they're life for any reason they can call the cops, but the crook on the street, if he has a gun it is the same story, and they police dont just go around beeting up anybody that is crazy with a gun, they first try to calm down the perpertraitor to where he can put down the gun and walk out safely, but if he threatns a life or puts anyone in danger the police have permission to fire. there, hope you pick my answer as the best.

Answer 2

It is confusing me too. Are you trying to say that because the crime is against a bank rather than a person that the police officer will automatically be charged with brutality?
If so this is very untrue. Police are trained to unarm perps if at all possible. Shooting is the last resort. The media and society only see one side of intense situations like these. They forget that the gunman just terrorized the victim with a gun and that maybe physical force (by the police) to get the gun away from the perp is better than shooting him. This does not include kicking and punching the perp excessively after he is disarmed-- which does count as police brutality.
Also robbing a bank is a federal crime. Robbing a person is a state offense.

And as for the weapon all the victim has to do is believe it is real for the robber to be charged with using a gun. It could be rubber or plastic but if the vicitm felt threatened by it then the charge is the same- robbery.

Otherwise the police would have to take a chance and tell the nice robber to stay still while they walk up take the gun away and inspect it first to determine if it is real. Then they could decide whether they shoot or dont shoot based on their close inspection of the gun....hahahahahahaha. What a perfect world criminals live in.

Answer 3

Ok, first off the police have not committed a crime, the bank robber has. However, the police cannot just go around beating on people even if they have committed a crime. If the person give them self up, the police are required to do only what they have been trained to do to defend themselves. This does not include a beat down. Second, if the police go beyond defending themselves, including once they know the person is unarmed and not trying to hurt them, then they can and are often subject to punishment. However, remember they do not know the gun in your situation is unloaded. If that gun is pointed at them, they can shoot the person if they feel their life is in danger. They are allowed to use reasonable force to protect the public and themselves up to and including killing a person if that person is trying to kill others. Police don't like to kill people no matter what you see on TV etc. But their job is to protect people from those who do not want to obey the law.

Answer 4

let me tell u summin'
the law is run by the police, so no policeman could get arrested for beating up a robber even if the robber hasn't got a gun.
whether or not the gun was real is another matter. police would beat him up as a precaution and to prove they are doing a good job.

dont be this confused--this is how the world runs!!

Answer 5

1st, if a robber was holding a gun, the police would assume the gun was loaded (unless it was obviously a toy gun). They would be authorized to use necessary force to subdue the robber. Also, if police saw a gun, they would draw theirs, they wouldn't risk "beating up" the suspect. They would disarm him.
If you were the robber holding an "imitation" gun and you were confronted by police with real guns, I'm sure you would give up and not risk them shooting you.
In the second case a robber who "doesn't give in" you can refer to the necessary force idea.
The police are charged with our safety they are not arrested for doing things within the scope of their job.

Answer 6

don't matter what the robber has or if there are bullets in the gun. The robber obviously didn't intend to do something good. Cops should have shot him on the spot. One less criminal. Anyways, cops have every right to bring someone down regardless of weapons or ammunition the suspect might have. All the man has to do is say no, resist, act like he is going to do something to the cops, or threaten them, and they have the right to beat him down.

Answer 7

The police men beat the robber for maintaining the peace of the society, which the robber tries to rob.
Their nature of works are different. And there is no confucion in this...it is clear as black and white.

Answer 8

The part where you say the gun isn't loaded is totally wrong, it is. and officers don't beat a person down unless they resits. an officer will draw his gun on a person holding a gun and order them to the ground, if that person raises that gun at the officer the officer will fire his weapon so that his wife and kids don't get a call that he is dead. and the thing with the other robber...... you would only see that in some funny slapp stick movie.

Answer 9

A simple and understandable explanation: if a man is gunned and appears to be threatening people, the police have the right to take all the measures they find necessary in order to disarm him (no matter whether the gun turns out to be real or an imitation) and protect the other people.

Answer 10

I'm surprised you spent as much as two minutes thinking of this. I realised it was moronic rubbish in about 5 seconds. Maybe you should think about this a little bit more and then come back here when you've resolved it. It would take a person of average intelligence probably about a minute at the most, so it might take a little bit longer for you to resolve it.

See you in 2026.