Entering academy soon, just wondering.
2006-09-27 10:16:19 · 10 answers · asked by miguel.g.gonzalez@sbcglobal.net 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
I am referring to them shooting themselves in the bulletproof vest. It would sting and bruise, not kill. (Iraqi vet who knows!)
2006-09-27 10:30:50 · update #1
Two different situations, TASERs and firearms.
The TASER is used as a "less-lethal" instrument on the force continum, in order to avoid using lethal (aka "deadly") force as with a firearm.
To be TASERed is a common training experience (been there myself) , for the officer to gain confidence in the tool and be able to use it without the hesitation that an otherwise unresolved question on it's use might bring.
Shooting with a firearm though is deadly force, and is only justified if the death of the perp is justified (although one shoots to STOP, with the killing part being a "side effect").
Two different tools, for different situations. Shooting oneself in a vest serves no purpose other than the sale of new vests.
2006-09-27 13:21:01 · answer #1 · answered by Oldragon 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Are you a serious? A handgun is lethal force, meaning that to be shot with one would probably kill you. Tasers and mace are less than lethal, meaning unless you are in that 1% of people that die from these weapons, you most likely will have no lasting effects.
I do not know of an officer that willing wants to have any of their tools used on themselves. The only reasons we use the tasers and mace on ourselves is to give us confidence in them and to know just how the effect a human target. I'm sure most everyone knows how a handgun will effect a human target.
If we were required to be shot with a handgun in a ballistic vest, what would that prove? It does not give us the real effects of a handgun now does it? That would be testing the vest not the gun.
Even wearing a ballistic vest and being shot in a controlled environment is dangerous. There is always a chance with a handgun for something to go wrong.
2006-09-27 17:49:31 · answer #2 · answered by thanson73 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hey when you drive your car does it have a seat belt and an air bag? Under your logic you should drive your car into a wall at 50mph before you continue to take the wheel.
There is a vast difference between getting tazed and getting shot, especially in likelyhood of death from one or the other.
2006-09-27 17:23:47 · answer #3 · answered by jasonzbtzl 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I can not believe someone that wants to be a law enforcement officer would ask a question this incredibly stupid. Maybe instead of getting shot with a vest on, all police officers should get shot in the leg, or maybe in the foot, to know what the pain really feels like. ;-)
2006-09-27 18:19:10 · answer #4 · answered by JB 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
vests don't always work ( sadly) they do often take the old vests which are out dated to the range and prove that point.
And you havd never lived till the mace gets you and the tazer gets you.
2006-09-27 23:03:54 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The cost of recovery from a gun shot wound would probably preclude police depts. from doing that. Not to mention the costs to workers compensation and health benefits...
2006-09-27 17:21:21 · answer #6 · answered by cheyennetomahawk 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Interesting concept, i know they have to get sprayed with mace too before they can carry it.
I definitly wouldnt want to experience either.
2006-09-27 17:19:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you are even asking this, you are unfit to be a cop. I sure hope to hell, you are not in my state, cuse you might be my partner some day.
2006-09-27 18:01:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
we can only hope thay pass that as a test let them aim for there heads
2006-09-27 17:24:44 · answer #9 · answered by mrmiketattoo 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
No they should do it to people like you!!!
2006-09-27 17:24:08 · answer #10 · answered by Jessie 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋