http://abcnews.go.com/US/watch-arizo...ry?id=30319373
"Michael Rapiejko, the officer involved, was cleared by county attorneys and returned to work after a few days, Rozema said."
Good news.
Some nice police work!
http://abcnews.go.com/US/watch-arizo...ry?id=30319373
"Michael Rapiejko, the officer involved, was cleared by county attorneys and returned to work after a few days, Rozema said."
Good news.
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
http://abcnews.go.com/US/watch-arizo...ry?id=30319373
"Michael Rapiejko, the officer involved, was cleared by county attorneys and returned to work after a few days, Rozema said."
Good news.
I wonder what made him think of that
Seems more like Grand Theft Auto than real life.
Definitely seems like a brave and sensible act by the Officer involved according to the story detailed by the link. Plus the good news is that the criminal survived to face trial and so the Officer doesn't have to carry around the knowledge he'd killed the man. With a rampaging gunman there's a high chance it'd end in gunfire with cops or innocent bystanders wounded or killed in the crossfire (and the criminal dying "suicide by cop"). No lives were lost that day, so great police work.
I guess we agree on the actions taken though if the criminal would have died it would have been better for everyone. I don't actually see a huge problem with 'knowledge he killed a man.' Different people have different morals of course but when it comes to ending an active threat there should be no guilt.
It's not something Police Academies are likely to use in their technical training. If the police car is seen as the most effective "weapon", there'd less need to arm police with guns or tasers.
Speaking from experience are you? How many lives have you personally ended?
I dunno, I die a little inside every time I read one of his posts and I've always believed that whenever Lewk laughs a fairy loses its wings.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Nope but looking at it rationally why would someone be upset about killing someone who was a clear and present threat? I can't speak for all moral systems but lets take a look at two common ones.
1. Christianity - once you are saved by Jesus your sins are washed away. Meaning that you shouldn't feel guilt over them. I'm not even suggesting it would be a sin to act the way the officer did but even if it was once forgiveness has been granted the guilt should go away.
2. A more Agnostic approach could be considered 'Greatest Good for the Greatest Number of People.' Clearly stopping an armed person on a rampage meets this test. Rationally speaking if the actions were appropriate why would you waste time on negative emotions such as guilt?
Since your not at theist I'm sure you believe that there is no metaphysical reason to consider killing bad - it all comes down to culture. And in that case what culture thinks putting down a rabid animal is bad or something worth feeling guilty over? Oh I'm sure liberals will bleat about the criminals and 'what a good boy he was' but in reality the vast majority of the culture would be absolutely OK with killing a dangerous threat that was on a rampage. Just like pretty much everyone was OK with killing Osama. Do you think the shooters there should have felt guilty?
I'm saying shooters do feel guilty.
Most people are not robots. Yes shooting someone on a rampage is the right thing to do. Doesn't make it easy though. It's easy for you to be a keyboard warrior having never done it but I respect a number of serving officers who've said it's a terribly distressing thing they have to live with. Even if it's right.
Doesn't make much sense to me on a rational level. If it was right why would there be issues with it? Two possibilities exist. People around them are *telling* the person either actively or just in the way they talk about it that they should feel guilty. In fact you're probably part of the problem!
Secondly it might be more of a PTSD thing because in those situations THEY might have died if it had gone otherwise and that can be stressful.
Lewk, you're stupid, and people aren't robots (or psychopaths, usually). Even if it was the right thing to do, killing someone is often pretty heavy, emotionally and psychologically. May not be rational bit guess what, people aren't rational in how they feel.
Btw to be fair I haven't killed anyone either.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Third option is most humans simply don't want to have to end another human's life and they feel bad about it. Until you've actually done it yourself, I think I'll trust the countless cops and soldiers who've said its a horrible experience over you.
Luckily this cop doesn't have to go through that trauma.
He's talking about on an emotional level. People experience emotions, especially after traumatic events, which know are not rational but which they nevertheless feel anyway.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
There are biological reasons for emotion that are impacted by the culture a person is raised in. There are PLENTY of examples of people having absolutely no remorse when they kill. Ranging anywhere from children to adults, self defense to brutal murders. The liberal idea that everyone should 'feel bad' because they end a life is stupid and is part of their push to coddle criminals.
Do grow up.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
So what you're saying to soldiers and police who've said that having to kill was distressing is that they're coddling liberals?
I have more respect for them than you it seems.
Now your missing cause and effect - my point was people would only feel guilt for killing people in that situation if there were cultural expectations that killing people in those situations was wrong.
So again are you saying to the soldiers and police who've killed and said that it's distressing that they're in the wrong?
I'm saying that they found it distressing *potentially* due to cultural expectations. Alternatively they have a different moral standard they live by then the more common types.
It isn't an apples and apples comparison at all but if a woman gets raped and feel guilty about it are they in the wrong? Obviously we aren't going to play blame the victim - it is unfortunate that elements of society put that perspective out there. Would we be better off without that perspective? Absolutely! But we aren't going to chastise the rape victim for feeling bad about it.
In the same light when a soldier or cop kills a dangerous threat - we wouldn't want them feeling guilty about it. The fact that some do feel guilty about it is caused by elements of society who put that expectations out there. And I place that square on the ones responsible... liberals who would prefer a dangerous criminal be alive then dead.
Just so we are clear, you don't believe any of the more common moral standards believe that it is better to not take a life in situations other than when it is of the utmost necessity? If you had an opportunity to disarm a potentially dangerous person without killing them, you would instead take the opportunity to kill them because doing so would be removing a dangerous criminal forever?
Last edited by Enoch the Red; 04-20-2015 at 12:54 PM.
Jesus himself would have partied all night after killing someone but that's just how he rolled
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Not black and white as there may be cases were you *might* be successful in taking down someone in a non-fatal way but the risks are greater. In other words any increased risk of the innocent party far outweighs any increased risk that may happen to the criminal. So if a guy comes at a cop with a Machete the cop might succeed in taking him down with his baton or with his hands but I'd rather he shoot and be more likely to come home.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote