That's how you Canadian

Yeah, I respect the guy for doing what he did but making this about violence versus nonviolence is kind of insane. By that logic, anyone in the military facing down hostile insurgents shouldn't be armed, correct? I think it's great that this worked in this very specific situation but it very rarely does.

Ok this post isn't saying that it's bad for police to use their guns but sometimes cops have been seen firing on instinct when there wasn't really a reason to do so which results in unlawful deaths, and so this canadian officer is an example of how violence isn't always the answer. Not never, but not always either. Also, the military faces extremely different intense threats and are placed in more stressful circumstances than the average policeman so to compare them doesn't really make sense js

You’re absolutely right guest. I just saw the emphasis on “Not with bullets, not with violence,” as being aggressive to those who choose to use violence in situations where it’s necessary.

@guest Yes and no. There is a reason why different cities and states have militarized tactical teams as well as onsite homeland security personnel at local PD's--especially in areas with high rates of drug-related and gang-related crimes. I'm not disagreeing with you that there are some bad cops out there that have done bad things but I would highly recommend you research some of the things state police/troopers encounter as well as intercity police officers. Since 2001, Chicago has experienced 7,916 murders (as of September 06, 2016). The number of Americans killed in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq was 2,384 and 4,504 respectively since 2001. Respectfully, there are police officers patrolling areas with higher death tolls from gang violence than warzones... they should be armed.