Purple wrote:And that I feel is the reason for all these police related murders. It's not that the officers in question are evil. But that they place their lives before the lives of suspects. In fact the word suspect in your post is telling. "Suspect", as in a person suspected off but not convicted off any crime. Your officers are trained to fight back when they suspect there is danger. So when they suspect that there is a threat they act on it. And this quite often leads to innocent people getting harmed because their suspicions were wrong.
Clearly, the solution is to put this man on the job.
You can be assured that anyone he kills is guilty, and he won't shoot your dog or flashbang your baby.
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me. Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either.
Ghetto edit: That first post came out like garbage, so lets try typing that again. Only with grammar and stuff.
@KS:
Not to get into this again with you, but police elsewhere seem to have less issues with allowing the suspect to get the first shots in. Thanas has reported this time and time again about German police firing warning shots and aiming for limbs. American police have a very me first mentality, and while I don't expect them to be completely selfless, I do expect better of them. After all, it seems that police in other places are able to do their jobs with less incidents of shoot first, dodge questions later and more convictions for police brutality. I know that the sheer number of guns in the US make the job of American police harder, but that can't entirely excuse the us versus them mentality that some police forces seem to have.
Purple wrote:
And that I feel is the reason for all these police related murders. It's not that the officers in question are evil. But that they place their lives before the lives of suspects. In fact the word suspect in your post is telling. "Suspect", as in a person suspected off but not convicted off any crime. Your officers are trained to fight back when they suspect there is danger. So when they suspect that there is a threat they act on it. And this quite often leads to innocent people getting harmed because their suspicions were wrong.
Suspect is not the correct word. You can't articulate "I suspect" this. Officers are suppose to use force based off articulate facts. They can take precautions against suspected threats but the actual use of force against a person must be due to an articulated threat. I should say is suppose to be...obviously in some cases my training and reality don't match up.
And here we go again with the guilt and innocence thing. You are looking at this from the wrong perspective. Everyone is innocent until convicted by a court of law. So yes, someone who flat out shoots a police officer in the head is innocent until convicted. What does that have to do with anything?
You're the one that brought guilt and innocent into this discussion. You said "it's in their job description to die rather than let an innocent die for them". Someone pointing a gun at a cop is not engaged in innocent activity. That doesn't mean that if they surrender they can still be shot or they don't deserve a trial after surrendering because they do but due process doesn't mean people should die to satisfy that.
And a living cop that's failed to save the guy he just killed due to bad judgment?
That cop should be treated like any other criminal that killed someone. That's the problem is lack of accountability and politicians playing both sides of the field.
Jub wrote:Ghetto edit: That first post came out like garbage, so lets try typing that again. Only with grammar and stuff.
@KS:
Not to get into this again with you, but police elsewhere seem to have less issues with allowing the suspect to get the first shots in. Thanas has reported this time and time again about German police firing warning shots and aiming for limbs. American police have a very me first mentality, and while I don't expect them to be completely selfless, I do expect better of them. After all, it seems that police in other places are able to do their jobs with less incidents of shoot first, dodge questions later and more convictions for police brutality. I know that the sheer number of guns in the US make the job of American police harder, but that can't entirely excuse the us versus them mentality that some police forces seem to have.
I agree to a degree. For example I'm not against those solutions being applied in certain situations with US police either. In that discussion I posted a video of a man with a knife moving towards a US police officer. The man was walking towards this officer and the officer fired a single shot directly into this mans chest. He died. I think a wounding shot would have been preferable to a shot in the chest and should probably be required in such a situation. Now, if that same guy was actually in a full on charge at officer than I would say fire center mass.
Another example would be Michael Brown. Michael Brown was unarmed. Now I've always said that trying to disarm a police officer raises the use of force to deadly force but I think Wilson should have tried something else when Brown started to charge at him unarmed. He should have transitioned to a different tool while keeping his firearm at the ready just in case that failed.
Kamakazie Sith wrote:I agree to a degree. For example I'm not against those solutions being applied in certain situations with US police either. In that discussion I posted a video of a man with a knife moving towards a US police officer. The man was walking towards this officer and the officer fired a single shot directly into this mans chest. He died. I think a wounding shot would have been preferable to a shot in the chest and should probably be required in such a situation. Now, if that same guy was actually in a full on charge at officer than I would say fire center mass.
Another example would be Michael Brown. Michael Brown was unarmed. Now I've always said that trying to disarm a police officer raises the use of force to deadly force but I think Wilson should have tried something else when Brown started to charge at him unarmed. He should have transitioned to a different tool while keeping his firearm at the ready just in case that failed.
Okay, I see what you're saying and it seems like we'd both like to see a well informed moderate reform of American policing practices. This is where a national rather than state/county/city level police force would come in handy as you could ensure that areas doing a good job can easily lend instructors and ideas to areas that need additional training. It also helps keep standards the same across the board and means that police from well away from the area can come in and make unbiased calls when controversy comes along.
I think there's also a complex of other issues (among them racial tension and the War on Drugs) that create this state of near warfare between police and those they suspect of being criminals. A small but non-negligible minority of the American population* are more or less forced into career criminal status by the way the US criminal justice system operates. Since the police are constantly in contact with this minority, and said minority has many reasons to be aggressive toward the police, there's a steady stream of ordinary citizens being caught in the crossfire.
*(I'd guesstimate 3-5% of the population, for reasons I can detail if anyone wants)
Simon_Jester wrote:I think there's also a complex of other issues (among them racial tension and the War on Drugs) that create this state of near warfare between police and those they suspect of being criminals. A small but non-negligible minority of the American population* are more or less forced into career criminal status by the way the US criminal justice system operates. Since the police are constantly in contact with this minority, and said minority has many reasons to be aggressive toward the police, there's a steady stream of ordinary citizens being caught in the crossfire.
*(I'd guesstimate 3-5% of the population, for reasons I can detail if anyone wants)
You have to wonder if this issue was always going to be inevitable given the US's history, culture, and population density, or if a nation governed differently would have avoided these issues. Europe has similar population densities to the US, but each nation tends to be smaller and more cohesive as a nation rather than a collection of states, some of which can hardly stand the others. Then you look at the 80's and Regan's bright idea about the drug issue, the right to Bear Arms never being checked or reevaluated while it was still possible to fix the issue easily, the south in general with the religious nuts and the racial tension.
Really the issue is that the US doesn't really seem to want to be a single nation all that strongly. Everything is always state's rights this and small government that. It almost seems like the US should be several nations, the South East, the North East, the fly overs, and the West coast. They're each so politically and socially different from one another that an solution to fix a national issue can't possibly work across the nation, and even if it would each states implementation would ruin things anyway.
Kamakazie Sith wrote:Another example would be Michael Brown. Michael Brown was unarmed. Now I've always said that trying to disarm a police officer raises the use of force to deadly force but I think Wilson should have tried something else when Brown started to charge at him unarmed. He should have transitioned to a different tool while keeping his firearm at the ready just in case that failed.
This. Finally someone who understands. A police officer should have as his duty to go that extra mile, try other means, try wounding shots, warning shots, shouting, punching etc. before deciding that he will shoot to kill. They should be held to a higher standard than the regular civilian. And yes, this might some times get them killed. It will certainly get them killed more often than if they had not done so. But that's part of the job.
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.
You win. There, I have said it.
Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
Kamakazie Sith wrote:Another example would be Michael Brown. Michael Brown was unarmed. Now I've always said that trying to disarm a police officer raises the use of force to deadly force but I think Wilson should have tried something else when Brown started to charge at him unarmed. He should have transitioned to a different tool while keeping his firearm at the ready just in case that failed.
This. Finally someone who understands. A police officer should have as his duty to go that extra mile, try other means, try wounding shots, warning shots, shouting, punching etc. before deciding that he will shoot to kill. They should be held to a higher standard than the regular civilian. And yes, this might some times get them killed. It will certainly get them killed more often than if they had not done so. But that's part of the job.
I want to make sure you understand. The use of force depends on the situation. I only expect officers to do those things when they have a reasonable expectation of not dying. Wilson had a reasonable expectation of not dying had he tried to use a taser, OC, or baton because he could have still had his firearm at the ready.
If a man is pointing a gun at them then I have zero problem with them shooting center of mass. If a man is reasonably believed to be armed and makes an aggressive movement - such as moving his hands rapidly towards his waist band then again I have no problem with them shooting center mass. If a man is charging an officer with a knife again I have no problem with them shooting center mass.
Kamakazie Sith wrote:Another example would be Michael Brown. Michael Brown was unarmed. Now I've always said that trying to disarm a police officer raises the use of force to deadly force but I think Wilson should have tried something else when Brown started to charge at him unarmed. He should have transitioned to a different tool while keeping his firearm at the ready just in case that failed.
This. Finally someone who understands. A police officer should have as his duty to go that extra mile, try other means, try wounding shots, warning shots, shouting, punching etc. before deciding that he will shoot to kill. They should be held to a higher standard than the regular civilian. And yes, this might some times get them killed. It will certainly get them killed more often than if they had not done so. But that's part of the job.
I want to make sure you understand. The use of force depends on the situation. I only expect officers to do those things when they have a reasonable expectation of not dying. Wilson had a reasonable expectation of not dying had he tried to use a taser, OC, or baton because he could have still had his firearm at the ready.
If a man is pointing a gun at them then I have zero problem with them shooting center of mass. If a man is reasonably believed to be armed and makes an aggressive movement - such as moving his hands rapidly towards his waist band then again I have no problem with them shooting center mass. If a man is charging an officer with a knife again I have no problem with them shooting center mass.
We disagree than. I personally feel that an officer should only ever shoot to kill if absolutely every other reasonable option has been exhausted. And this among other things mean not shooting first. Simply put I see the situation as a tradeoff. We either accept more police officers being killed by bad people or more people overall (good and bad) being killed by police officers. And I am willing to say that we should strive to minimize #2 and pay the price.
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.
You win. There, I have said it.
Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
Purple wrote:We disagree than. I personally feel that an officer should only ever shoot to kill if absolutely every other reasonable option has been exhausted. And this among other things mean not shooting first. Simply put I see the situation as a tradeoff. We either accept more police officers being killed by bad people or more people overall (good and bad) being killed by police officers. And I am willing to say that we should strive to minimize #2 and pay the price.
So hypothetically speaking, if a gunman has a hostage, the police officer has to let that hostage get shot before he can shoot the gunman?
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me. Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either.
Purple wrote:We disagree than. I personally feel that an officer should only ever shoot to kill if absolutely every other reasonable option has been exhausted. And this among other things mean not shooting first. Simply put I see the situation as a tradeoff. We either accept more police officers being killed by bad people or more people overall (good and bad) being killed by police officers. And I am willing to say that we should strive to minimize #2 and pay the price.
So hypothetically speaking, if a gunman has a hostage, the police officer has to let that hostage get shot before he can shoot the gunman?
At that point it's a tradeoff between two civilians so my reasoning, as stated above does not cover it.
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.
You win. There, I have said it.
Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
Purple wrote:[quote="aerius"So hypothetically speaking, if a gunman has a hostage, the police officer has to let that hostage get shot before he can shoot the gunman?
At that point it's a tradeoff between two civilians so my reasoning, as stated above does not cover it.[/quote]
And if the hostage happens to be another police officer, then by your logic the cop dies.
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me. Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either.
It all comes down to how you define 'reasonable'. I'm with KS on somebody pointing a gun at you-unless you have very good reason to suspect it's fake, you treat it as a real gun and shoot before he does. Same for charging an officer with a knife. If the guy with the knife starts doing so from 200 metres away, yes, by all means. Warning shots, yell halt, throw stuff at him, anything a cop is legally entitled to do. But there's a point where it comes down to 'shoot' or 'risk being stabbed to death' and there are 'very' few situations where somebody rushing you with a knife in hand does not mean you harm.
What I DO have a problem with is the 'aggressive movement' part, especially in combination with the 'reasonably believed to be armed'. By and large, that's a reasonable precaution...for sensible definitions of 'aggressive' and 'reasonably'. If what I read on this board is to be believed, for a noticeable fraction of the US police force 'aggressive' means 'not immediately and uncomplainingly submitting to your every whim' and 'reasonably' means 'well they were holding something that, if you didn't look at it too closely, could have been a firearm so we shot him'.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
Purple wrote:
We disagree than. I personally feel that an officer should only ever shoot to kill if absolutely every other reasonable option has been exhausted. And this among other things mean not shooting first. Simply put I see the situation as a tradeoff. We either accept more police officers being killed by bad people or more people overall (good and bad) being killed by police officers. And I am willing to say that we should strive to minimize #2 and pay the price.
How about we train our officers better which will result in a minimization of both instead of developing unreasonable use of force requirements. You say "every reasonable option" but you don't define what that means then you say things like "it will certainly get them killed more often than if they had not done so" but what you don't realize this means is that they exhausted every reasonable option and tolerated unreasonable actions. Do you want them to tolerate unreasonable behavior? Should a police officer be shot at first before being able to return fire. Should a police officer have to survive a knife attack before being able to shoot? Define what you mean because if you don't you're just like every other armchair quarter back that says "you're wrong but I don't know the right answer".
Batman wrote:
What I DO have a problem with is the 'aggressive movement' part, especially in combination with the 'reasonably believed to be armed'. By and large, that's a reasonable precaution...for sensible definitions of 'aggressive' and 'reasonably'. If what I read on this board is to be believed, for a noticeable fraction of the US police force 'aggressive' means 'not immediately and uncomplainingly submitting to your every whim' and 'reasonably' means 'well they were holding something that, if you didn't look at it too closely, could have been a firearm so we shot him'.
Based off the training I've had it is suppose to be the latter.
Scenario 1 - I stop a guy for a traffic violation. He jumps out of his car and quickly reaches for his waist.
Appropriate Resolution - I take defensive measures but I do not fire until I reasonably believe he has a firearm such as holding an object the looks like a firearm and behaving in a manner that one would expect of a person holding a firearm.
Scenario 2 - I stop a guy who just robbed a bank at gunpoint. He jumps out of his car and quickly reaches for his waist.
Appropriate Resolution - I take defensive measures and open fire. I'm under no obligation in this situation to wait for gunfire or to be sure he actually has a firearm.
Kamakazie Sith wrote:How about we train our officers better which will result in a minimization of both instead of developing unreasonable use of force requirements.
Better training is part of the equation yes. It allows officers to better gauge what options they actually have and to better exploit them.
You say "every reasonable option" but you don't define what that means then you say things like "it will certainly get them killed more often than if they had not done so" but what you don't realize this means is that they exhausted every reasonable option and tolerated unreasonable actions.
You aren't really getting what I am talking about. To use your scenario from just now:
Scenario 1 - A police officer stops a guy for a traffic violation. He jumps out of his car and quickly reaches for his waist.
An average civilian in this situation (he stopped to talk to someone, that someone starts doing what looks like drawing a gun) might be tolerated to immediately draw his gun and fire. But I would argue that the police officer should not only wait until the last moment but try and do other things such as wrestle the guy to prevent him drawing the weapon, fire warning shots, warn him and generally perform a number of things that might work but also might get him killed before resorting to lethal measures. In other words that he should take that extra risk to him self before resorting to murder.
It has become clear to me in the previous days that any attempts at reconciliation and explanation with the community here has failed. I have tried my best. I really have. I pored my heart out trying. But it was all for nothing.
You win. There, I have said it.
Now there is only one thing left to do. Let us see if I can sum up the strength needed to end things once and for all.
As a rule, the life of a person who actually attempts to kill a policeman is, in my opinion, less valuable than the life of that policeman.
If a policeman has reason to think their life is in danger (a suspect acts exactly as an armed attacker would act), they have reason to take steps toward lethality (such as drawing a firearm).
If a policeman knows their life is in danger (e.g. arresting a criminal they know to be armed), they have reason to take steps toward lethality, AND to react in a lethal fashion.
While the police might reasonably be said to have a duty to accept risk to their lives to protect innocents, they are not justly required to accept risk to their lives to protect criminals. Or to present themselves as target practice for someone who is obviously trying to kill them.
Simon_Jester wrote:As a rule, the life of a person who actually attempts to kill a policeman is, in my opinion, less valuable than the life of that policeman.
If a policeman has reason to think their life is in danger (a suspect acts exactly as an armed attacker would act), they have reason to take steps toward lethality (such as drawing a firearm).
If a policeman knows their life is in danger (e.g. arresting a criminal they know to be armed), they have reason to take steps toward lethality, AND to react in a lethal fashion.
While the police might reasonably be said to have a duty to accept risk to their lives to protect innocents, they are not justly required to accept risk to their lives to protect criminals. Or to present themselves as target practice for someone who is obviously trying to kill them.
Purple wrote:
You aren't really getting what I am talking about. To use your scenario from just now:
That's why I asked you to break it down.
An average civilian in this situation (he stopped to talk to someone, that someone starts doing what looks like drawing a gun) might be tolerated to immediately draw his gun and fire. But I would argue that the police officer should not only wait until the last moment but try and do other things such as wrestle the guy to prevent him drawing the weapon, fire warning shots, warn him and generally perform a number of things that might work but also might get him killed before resorting to lethal measures. In other words that he should take that extra risk to him self before resorting to murder.
Did you mean to quote the first scenario because if you did then we are in agreement because deadly force is not an appropriate immediate response with the first scenario. With the second scenario deadly force is an appropriate immediate response because it is reasonable to suspect he has a firearm.
Anyway, your statement about "wrestle the guy to prevent him from drawing the weapon" makes it pretty clear you don't have a realistic concept of combat with firearms. Such an idea is only in the movies. You run away from people with guns you don't run towards them. You also aren't considering the big picture. If the suspect manages to kill the officer or incapacitate him then he is free to leave and with have to be confronted again by other officers. Maybe this time he kills one, or two, or three. Hell, maybe he kills six. Those figures are based off actual events in the US by the way...
My position on utilizing immediate deadly force is based off action versus reaction. An untrained individual can pull a firearm and put several rounds on target before a trained individual with a drawn firearm can respond if said individual is required to wait until he knows the object is a firearm. Which I am presuming is what you mean by "wait last minute". In my trained and experienced opinion last minute has come and gone when a likely armed individual makes a grab for his waistband.
Kamakazie Sith wrote:Anyway, your statement about "wrestle the guy to prevent him from drawing the weapon" makes it pretty clear you don't have a realistic concept of combat with firearms. Such an idea is only in the movies. You run away from people with guns you don't run towards them.
You'd think the Michael Brown case would have illustrated this, if nothing else.
Jub wrote:Really the issue is that the US doesn't really seem to want to be a single nation all that strongly. Everything is always state's rights this and small government that. It almost seems like the US should be several nations, the South East, the North East, the fly overs, and the West coast. They're each so politically and socially different from one another that an solution to fix a national issue can't possibly work across the nation, and even if it would each states implementation would ruin things anyway.
This is not true to the extent that you think it is- it's true recently but was considerably less true even a few decades ago. As economic conditions and racial balance in the US continues to evolve, regional divides can get stronger or weaker, and alliances can shift quite sharply.
Jub wrote:Really the issue is that the US doesn't really seem to want to be a single nation all that strongly. Everything is always state's rights this and small government that. It almost seems like the US should be several nations, the South East, the North East, the fly overs, and the West coast. They're each so politically and socially different from one another that an solution to fix a national issue can't possibly work across the nation, and even if it would each states implementation would ruin things anyway.
This is not true to the extent that you think it is- it's true recently but was considerably less true even a few decades ago. As economic conditions and racial balance in the US continues to evolve, regional divides can get stronger or weaker, and alliances can shift quite sharply.
So you're saying that a solution to gun crime that works for Chicago and Detroit would be equally valid in Wichita or Billings? Not to mention the red vs blue divide in how certain states poll on certain major issues like immigration reform, LGBT rights, and gun control.
What I'm saying is that a lot of these issues are profoundly unpredictable. Don't mistake the present (very divided) political status quo for the way things will look in 2030 or 2050, is all I'm saying.
Dividing a country is the sort of thing you do permanently, not in reaction to a temporary ideological deadlock that just happens to break down along regional lines.
Also, since was complete regional conformity an essential requirement of nationhood? The fact that there is a need to consider contextual factors in determining policy is the exact reason there is a division of power between the state and national governments.
