Shouldnt the Police Have a Do Not Fire Unless Fired Upon Rule?Eric Blair Its gotten to where I despise watching, posting, and sharing police brutality videos. I may stop clicking on them altogether for the same reason I dont watch horror movies: you cant un-see something, and I dont enjoy knowingly exposing myself to fear or hate. In one sense I feel a duty to inform people of the growing tyranny, but in another sense I think it feeds exactly what the establishment wants outrage and retaliatory violence to justify its own brutality. The swelling police state is like a fat bully on the playground who pokes you over and over again with a stick until youve finally had enough and rip the stick out of his hand and beat the shit out of him with it. The government seems to be bullying citizens into responding in kind. According to a new report, Since 9/11, about 5,000 Americans have been killed by U.S. police officers, which is almost equivalent to the number of U.S. soldiers who have been killed in the line of duty in Iraq. At this point, I could really spice up this article with individual examples of police abuse and some explicit videos, but Im not going to. If you are reading this then you already know theyre out there including on this site. Most importantly, you understand it is a top-down vision that guides the abuse, not a few bad apples. Not anymore. We should return the countrys lawmen to this policy. You take fire, you can fire back. If not, keep the safety on. Call it gun control for law enforcement. All it would take is a very simple law or even just the vision to implement this through public pressure. In our current court system, the police are always given the benefit of the doubt in any mistaken shooting case. After all, theyre supposed to be the good guys. But, remember, good guys dont shoot first even if threatened. Who said being a cop wasnt dangerous? Sorry, cops, but thats the sacrifice you must make for the honor to patrol a civilized society at our expense. You may one day take a bullet, although its highly unlikely, but you will still be the good guy. Probable cause, a warrant, and even a threat of deadly force is not enough reason to strike first. If youre like me, youre past the outrage phase of the police state but dont know what else to do for solutions besides informing people of whats happening. Petitions and politics are almost useless. However, all campaigns can be used to inform people so theyre never futile. I propose that we turn our rage into crowdsourcing a simple law that would prohibit domestic law enforcement from firing the first bullet in any dispute. We, the people, write the actual law and lobby for it. Pressure someone like Rep Justin Amash to introduce it in Congress to bring some publicity to it. I dont necessarily care if it ever becomes a law, I just want to make enough noise so the first thing everyone thinks when they watch a police abuse video is cops should never be allowed to strike first in any situation. Police should not be a strike force. Those that are should be shunned and replaced. As Americans, we were promised the right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The pursuit to Happiness is largely subjective, but the root and mechanics to success have largely eroded this right. Meanwhile, there are very few individual Liberties remaining. But you would think we can must up some energy to preserve our right to Life for goodness sake. Something must be done to stop police abuse or it will boil over into more violence. At this point Im willing to try anything to peacefully end the police state. Let me know your thoughts and how you would write this law. Oh, for those of you not aware of or outraged by the police state yet, go watch this video and come back to comment your ideas to stop this. Recently by Eric Blair: Maybe they should wait until the gun is pointed right at them or at another person or child..then shoot. Or, shoot back after the criminal has shot first. Hard decisions for an officer to make. What would you do if you were in the position of the law enforcement officer, but not being onejust you (a citizen).would you wait until you are shot to shoot back.or would you shoot when they pointed their gun at you and are ready to shoot you? If you taze a person with a gun in their hand.they may just shoot wildly and hit a bystander, or a child in a house. Is their a safe approach to a person who has a gun? Hmmm, maybe if they are not pointing it at you.you can talk them out of their act.maybe they are just stressed or upset (not really wanting to kill or shoot anyone) but when does the officer make that decision..sometimes he only has moments. But better yetwhy not supply our law-enforcement officers with the top of the line, lightweight body armor? (Not that heavy, bulky uncomfortable bullet proof vests they wear) Then they could take the first bullet before they shoot back. Unless it is a head shot. Some say that it would be too expensive.(and yesthe best body armor is expensive) but, lives may be saved, riots may not happen (Which for that matter are very very expensive, and some may never recover from what riots have done to them or their businesses, property or homes) If people want the law enforcement officers to protect them, their families, their businesses, property, homes and so on and so forth.then we as the people must protect them. The safer they are, the better they will be at making those decisions, that everyone is yelling about, rioting about, and destroying their neighborhoods about. Duh..think about it. Protect those that protect us!!!!!~ I wouldnt shoot unless fired upon. Esp if i have 5 other pigs behind me with all of us having bullet proof vests and medics that will respon ASAP vs shooting first and kicking him in the head with no CPR or medics nah cops are abusing their power and just shooting fast to take the easy road. They dont appreciate life cuz they know they can kill 