The New Exchange » Weapon Confusion and Civil Liability

Rongone · 4/15/2015 11:25 am

I vote "NO" in the poll.

tennyson · 4/15/2015 11:26 am

Goose wrote:
Common Sense wrote:
Police depts. and Sheriff’s depts. across the country use reserve officers every day!
And it’s not going away. Just a fact today.

I haven't seen any comments here suggesting that we do away with reserve officers.
But there are a lot of questions about how they are being used, assigned, evaluated, etc.
And those questions aren't going away either.

That is exactly the point.

I imagine most of us agree that it is a good thing that people want to do this. The question, as many of us have pointed out is how they should be used. Hopefully this situation will shed more light on it. Certainly it will if it winds up in civil court which it likely will.

Just Fred · 4/15/2015 11:33 am

Common, I just asked for a 'yes' or 'no' vote on the specific question:

Do you think that an undercover op with a dangerous criminal is an appropriate assignment for a 73 year old volunteer reservist?

This has nothing to do with whether or not volunteers can be useful to a police department. It has more to do with what activies should they be assigned to do. Geez.

flowergirl · 4/15/2015 12:15 pm

No--no 73 year-old should be anywhere that has danger involved.

Conspiracy Theory · 4/15/2015 2:17 pm

Again, I'm asking:

HOW does someone draw and fire a gun without realizing they're drawing and firing a gun?

Is this the kind of person who should be armed?

Index
» National News
» Weapon Confusion and Civil Liability

4/15/2015 11:25 am #11

Re: Weapon Confusion and Civil Liability

4/15/2015 11:26 am #12

Re: Weapon Confusion and Civil Liability

Goose wrote:

Common Sense wrote:

4/15/2015 11:33 am #13

Re: Weapon Confusion and Civil Liability

4/15/2015 12:15 pm #14

Re: Weapon Confusion and Civil Liability

4/15/2015 2:17 pm #15

Re: Weapon Confusion and Civil Liability

Index
» National News
» Weapon Confusion and Civil Liability

Board footera