[LynnieS]

Originally Posted by Jinto

Thats a little too easy. I don't know how it is handled in the USA but there are countries where the law enforcing people basically stay with one leg in prison and the other in their grave when it comes to the use of lethal force as a defence.

I'm not entire sure that I understand this; no offense. Do you mean that in certain countries, the police, if forced to defend themselves with lethal force, would likely end up in prison or dead themselves once the investigation is over?

I can think of a couple of countries that may fit - where the criminals can be just as powerful as the law. If a policeman kills the wrong person - even in self-defense - retaliation is entirely possible.

Originally Posted by Jinto

Time, place and circumstances if you cannot handle them, this profession isn't for you. There is that risk that comes with this kind of profession. No matter how good you are you might have to make a potentially fatal decission where you need to decide in a case of doubt if you just know yourself or take the risk to assume the potential attacker as relatively harmless until proven otherwise which can be a "dead end" if proven otherwise.
Imo the first choice is just about protecting yourself while the latter is about protecting people.
Now if my english was better I could make my point a little bit more refined and precise.

Not necessarily that the 1st is just to protect yourself. If you are faced with a guy with the kind of attitude/mindset/fear that would cause him to pull out a weapon and attack a law enforcement officer, the possibility exists that he would also attack someone who does not have the full backing of society. The only things stopping him, IMHO, are:

- His attitude/mood/etc. at the time.
- The relationship between him and his target, and even that is no guarantee these days.
- Any fear of retaliation, but that means society's rules have broken down in this space.

Unfortunately, "hero cop" stories do not tend to stay long on the front page, and people don't agitate for them - not unless it becomes a human interest story; even that does not stay for too long. Whereas a police officer who shoots someone in self-defense (thinking it was needed at the time, but really was not) ends up being... crucified in news and etc.

As for the choice of weapons, eh. This is the U.S. where you can freely buy a gun at a show without a huge problem so long as you have the cash. There are reputable dealers who won't sell to unqualified people, but greed and need will make sure that under-the-table sales will happen. Unless we are talking fairly exotic weapons that don't usually appear in public like a Barrett or a H&K G11 perhaps.

Obama faces steep challenges in new Afghan policy

WASHINGTON — With eight years of blood and treasure already spent and perhaps his presidency hanging in the balance, President Barack Obama will tell the world Tuesday how he'll escalate the war in Afghanistan — and how he hopes his risky decision will lead finally to a path home for U.S. forces.

Unfortunately and no matter what the policy is, IMHO, Obama is going to get grief about this. Everything from (1) an inability to guarantee success at the end to (2) the prospective cost (human and financial) to (3) the amount of time it took to craft the policy if it is not significantly different. People are also going to want to know when, if this goes into action, the troops will be able to leave.