I got this from Lew Rockwell’s site. Rockwell and I disagree on principle, but his guest writers make some very good points.
In this one A.D. Lelong explains why police shoot first then ask questions.
In the article Lelong is correct in stating that training indicates a three round burst, then assessment. I know this to be correct from talking with current and former police officers. I’ve actually learned a lot.
I’ve learned that not everyone can be an unthinking automaton. As the posting explains, when adrenaline starts flowing, and you’ve got a weapon that’s not only easy to reload but easy to fire, you’re just asking for trouble. Not only that but mixing in proactive policing makes it that much worse.
My version of proactive policing is to get the cops back on the beat again. Get them to know the people in their patrol area, and in some cities they’re doing just that. But we’re rapidly crossing a line, where intelligence gathering is the name of the game. In essence, someone like me who is openly critical of those in power would be seen as a threat. Police are moving from tactical to strategic.
It’s just that I don’t trust my fellow human beings to make the correct judgment in times of emotional stress. Is the answer automatons? We’ve seen the ire that our current batch of automatons creates. Those would be red light cameras and speed cameras. But what about taking it further and using robotics? Would that be acceptable? After all a robot doesn’t experience adrenaline surges, or get emotional for that matter. Companies are already creating prototypes of patrol robots, including Samsung’s latest that will patrol the border between North and South Korea. A basic google search on ‘patrol robot’ turns up a few interesting links.