I am tired of hearing about police killing animals and humans for ridiculous reasons. I understand that sometimes it is necessary for them to go on the offensive but I think they must be more careful. For every shooting that makes sense there is another one that doesn't--Like the groom that was shot and killed on his wedding day and police offered no explanation as to why. Or the deer that got caught in someone's backyard. There was no reason to take their lives!!! They cannot get that back. I would like an intelligent, informative answer as to why police do not carry extremely powerful tranquilizers to put suspects down, (without killing them) and to get animals where they need to be. It seems that police are trigger happy and the entire idea is to shoot-shoot-shoot- and then ask questions after everyone is dead. sorry I wrote so much, I just want to understand.
2007-01-28 12:18:08 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
I would reccomend a taser. In Canada we thought about using taser,particularly in Toronta, when a deranged man was gunned down by the cops. A taser simply stuns a person long enough to arrest them. It is also ranged.
2007-01-28 12:29:08 · answer #1 · answered by bob 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Until you have worked in their shoes, do not judge. Media has always blown things way out of sorts. You must have never been a victim of a brutal attack or crime, or you would not be so judgmental. As for as the deer in the fence, it is also humane to put it out of it's misery, since it was so near death. I hope you are never in a situation like this, but if you are, I guarantee you that you will want lots of police there to help you. If Police carried extremely powerful tranquilizers to put a suspect down, some would still have reasons to find something wrong with that too. Police can encounter a situation to where they have to make a split, fraction of a second decision, if you were, could you? If you have a local Citizens PD academy in your area, sign up and take the course, then later, let us know what you think. I understand your concerns, but unless your there, never totally believe what you see on TV. Knowledge is power.
2007-01-28 12:35:02 · answer #2 · answered by m c 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The idea is to immobilize the suspect before they can harm you. If you can find a tranquilizer that will immobilize someone in one second or less, it may be considered.
Tazers are the closest thing right now and they immediately put the suspect down. They don't have a great range though.
Research has been done on many things and that's why we have tear gas and rubber bullets, but those don't gaurantee the safety of the police and those around them.
2007-01-28 12:32:35 · answer #3 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Police in the US are only allowed to shoot people if there's a perception of imminent danger. In that case, the strongest and fastest-working tranquilizer would be both too slow and too unreliable. And what dose of what drug would be used? You'd have small people die of respiratory depression and large bad guys killing cops after they were unsuccessfully tranked. The jury's still out on the guy in New York, but the cops apparently thought he was trying to kill them by running them down with his car. No alternative would have been feasible in that circumstance. Animals can be darted, but in any particular jurisdiction that sort of thing is very rare, and it would be impractical for everybody to keep a dart-gun on hand for that once-in-a-blue-moon event.
2007-01-28 12:37:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know, what about phasers on stun
2007-01-29 04:46:11 · answer #5 · answered by watchman_1900 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋