Public learns how Phoenix police officers decide to shoot, or not shoot

[Meiko]

This looks like a good idea. I might be fun to attend one of their sessions. I don't think anyone would say cops don't have a tough job but most cases it is a job that was chosen through free will. Please don't come to me wanting hero recognition. You want my respect? Then be an honest person and treat me with respect. Don't taser me for no reason and don't slam my face first into the asphalt. I think LE and the general population could benefit from these types of programs. Perhaps let us know what is expected during a traffic stop. The more communication the better.

PHOENIX - Deciding whether to shoot or not is a challenge Arizona officers face everyday, and now regular people have a chance to experience those very same situations.
The Phoenix Police Department used the same simulator their officers practice with to let volunteer participants decide how they would react if they were a real member of the police force.
The advanced computer system put participants in scenarios such as domestic abuse calls, armed robberies, and more.
Actors played out the situations which were projected on to a screen. It was up to the participants to choose if, and when to fire their fake guns and kill the suspected bad guys in the video scenarios.
As many people found out, police have to make some pretty tough decisions.
The Phoenix Police Department let the public into the training sessions so the average citizens could gain a better understanding of the life and death choices officers have to struggle with.

**MORE AT LINK**

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/central_phoenix/Public-learns-how-Phoenix-police-officers-decide-to-shoot-or-not-shoot-

[Lurks Often]

1. I've been through similiar training

it is useful, it is also an eye opening in how very, very little time one has to make a decision on when to shoot or not to shoot, usually under 2 seconds.

[Hoyt]

2. Yet people still leave home with a gun ready to make that decision in less than 2 seconds.

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. Many of them cops.

[Hoyt]

5. 1% police maybe. The rest are just people who can't be separated from their guns without withdrawal.

[GreenStormCloud]

4. And we very rarely make the wrong decision.

Please note that "very rarely" is NOT the same as "never". You can keep that strawman in the barn. The official Texas statistics show that we make the correct decision almost all the time.

[Hoyt]

6. Sorry, but we don't know that. A "perp" might not have needed shooting. We might have a Zimmerman

situation without the public outcry that brought charges. Or, the incident might not have been reported. Or some little gun toter used his gun for intimidation without charges. Or perhaps gunner uses a lethal weapon (and the associated callousness) to intimidate a spouse.

But, you keep believing those inaccurate datebases to rationalize gun abuse.

[GreenStormCloud]

10. The discussion is about shoot/no shoot decisions.

The Texas stats are compiled by the Texas Dept. of Public Safety and are based on actual convictions so they are accurate. CHLers rarely commit any of the other offenses that you list. I have posted the stats before. You ignore them because they prove that CHers save more innocent lives than we take.

In Texas, all homicides, even justified ones, must go before a grand jury. You don't get a situation of the local LEO not investigating a homicide.

You have admitted to having been an armed robber. You are now projecting the way you used weapons onto the rest of us. But very few of us have a past that includes violently victimizing innocent people, as you did.

[Hoyt]

12. No, I have not admitted to being a "robber" - you guys are really too obtuse to trust carrying guns.

Go back and read that post, and try to think for a change.

[GreenStormCloud]

13. Here is what you said:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45338

"As a former robber, I locked the door to keep people out, especially police."

Sounds like an admission to me.

[oneshooter]

14. You have to understand, he is a liar too, so can not be believed.

[Hoyt]

16. I suggest that you quit reading one word at a time while pointing.

Not to mention obvious context considering previous posts.

[GreenStormCloud]

17. So now you are trying to backpedal.

You said what you said. You claimed to have been an armed robber. Your words are quite plain.

Context? You were trying to justify why an armed robber might lock the door, and you claimed that you did so in your past.

[Hoyt]

18. Greenstone, go talk to your guns.

[GreenStormCloud]

19. Your insults don't change what you said.

You have claimed to have been an armed robber and I won't forget.

[Hoyt]

20. And you claim you are green.

[PavePusher]

21. If you stop lying...

people might give you some credibility.

Just a passing thought.

[Hoyt]

22. I'm not looking for agreement from those that think guns are good for society.

[GreenStormCloud]

23. You appear to not know what a green storm cloud is.

Has nothing to do with enviormentalism. Try googling green storm cloud .

[sarisataka]

24. As a spotter...

I would say I have positioned myself in the wrong place and better start looking for shelter

[Meiko]

7. You betcha

I can't wait to get out there everyday packing heat to the max, just waiting, no hoping that someone will look at me the wrong way or cut me off in traffic so I can mow them down. The only thing I regret is not being able to carry a machine gun. [sarcasm off/]

[DonP]

8. There's a 2 gun minimum requirement - stuffed in your pants

To fulfill the childish stereotype, so beloved of some gun control/ban fans, a minimum of two guns jammed in your pants is needed. No holster is preferred but not required.

I personally prefer the Colt 1877 Bulldog Gatling Gun Colt is offering again, since with 6 barrels, it easily qualifies as two guns.

Ah, if only George Custer had heeded that advice.

[ManiacJoe]

9. Oregon is a class 3 state.

You can have the machine gun.

[Meiko]

11. So is Arizona

N/T