“It’s a Catch-22. When someone is holding a petrol bomb and is ready to throw it, if you use your weapon you are in big trouble. If the petrol bomb lands on you before you can use your weapon, you are also in big trouble because you are being burned. So what’s the point of being armed?” – Versailles police officer Nicolas in France pushes to give police greater freedom to use their guns [via france24.com]
A petrol bomb is a deadly weapon. I don’t want to be shot, so I’m not throwing Malotov Cocktails at or around armed people. Makes sense to me.
Obviously you have been reading too many right-wing American gun magazines, where that barbaric American custom known as “self-defense” is thrown about. Those nasty, self-righteous Americans think its o.k. to ballistically perforate someone posing an imminent, credible threat to their own lives, even before that person actually kills innocent people.
European attitudes are much more civilized. The French, especially, would prefer to see innocents die first.
Here here. You are not in danger until you actually start burning. Anything up to that point is just spurious conjecture and reactionary racism.
/sarc (because someone was sure to miss it)
When you can surrender you would consider firing a GUN? Barbaric Hun
Shoot the Molotov Cocktail.
Immolate the thrower.
Done
The problem is that a molotov is an ambush weapon. By the time you know your opponents have them, your position has already taken a few. Most of these clowns light them behind the front ranks of the “protestors” and then throw them over their heads.
You misspelled “Rioters” 😉
Anyone in possession of a lighter but no cigarettes is stood against a wall.
If they are at a left wing “protest”… sure, why not.
I have a lighter as part of my EDC. Doesn’t everyone? Why would you ever be without the ability to make fire?
If we outlaw gasoline, that would surely do the trick.
Too many other flammable liquids availalble. Also, the truck the terrorists used were diesel.
If it saves just one life!
This is the takeaway here. They are afraid they will get fired if they shoot someone who is ready to throw a molotov cocktail at them because until they’ve actually thrown it, they haven’t acted aggressively enough toward the cop.
They are foolish.
This is proof that Natural Selection (both individually and collectively) is alive and well today.
Dispense with linear problem solving thinking. In the original article just below the statement mentioned in this thread, is a salient point.
“Officers also complained of chronic under-funding and being “fed up after decades of neglect by changing governments that have eroded our ability to function properly in a job we love”.
Witness the failure of good governance.
C’est plus mieux être jugé par douze que porté par six.
Vous êtes sacrément raison.
Google translate is a hoot sometimes.
So basically, except perhaps for the cheese and wine, it sucks to be French. Works for me.
Meh, the wine I can take or leave. They make a decent red, but so do the Italians and the Spanish. California whites are actually, in my opinion, better than 99% of French whites.
My bad. I meant to spell it “whine”. 😉
The point is shooting the sumbitch so they can’t do that sort of thing again, because you are a police officer who is supposed to be willing to protect the community regardless of the risks to yourself.
I know the officer probably (hopefully) asked this question rhetorically, but the government that mandates these rules of engagement obviously aren’t getting it. If someone is even holding a molotov cocktail during a riot, smoke ’em. That way they can’t hurt your subjects any more. Dead subjects don’t generate the money live ones do. I hate to think what our European ancestors would think of the state of Europe today.
Interesting theory. Its too bad that the cops need to violate their deadly force policies to protect the community regardless of the cost to themselves. It sounds like your advocating that the french police use “excessive deadly force” (by french standards at least).
This is modern French philosophy?
France is toast.
The answer for Europe is non-state actors – A.K.A. militias. They can do the dirty work cops & military refuse to do out of fear of backlash, prosecution, sanction by other states, etc. Just look the other way when they do what needs to be done. When other nations complain say, “we have no control over them” or “they are actively being investigated”.
Ireland tried that. I’m not saying the current situation isn’t a disaster, but once you cross that line, you end up with “death squads” operating on both sides, conducting summary executions.
It gets real bad, real fast.
Sounds like the inner city gangs we already have…
Yes, with crisp, brown shirts.
Too bad-so sad. Sound like Chiraq…seriously what do the Frogs expect importing Moose-lims? Burn baby burn…
If they actually shot the guy with a lit molotov would they get french toast?
Now, THAT’S funny!
Just snorted my beer…ouch.
So if our chosen (or allowed) self defense method isn’t sufficient for EVERY type of threat that terrorists could envision to use against us, we shouldn’t have any form of self defense? I’m sure they’d say citizens could carry a knife. But wait, the same argument can even more easily be used against that… Sounds like the fatalistic liberal-speak in the US… since you MIGHT BE blindsided in an attack and not come out the winner, you shouldn’t carry a firearm… absolutely stupid logic.
This has been the French position for a century already; guns are not for shooting, simply drop them and retreat. Hmmmm, take out the bomber or let him take out a large crowd? Catch-22? Really Frenchy? See ya at the snackbar…