Police Shootings

Guilty as charged. While my posts back then were clearly homophobic, it didn't violate any forum rule. As I recall, I was pretty measured whereas you, Dan, and Berberry were out for my blood and spewing your own invective.Kind of amazing to see you holding on to a grudge for so long towards Modulous, who himself is gay, and clearly wasn't "siding with the bigot [me]" for ideological reasons.He did his job, and he did it well. Mod has always been able to set aside personal differences to remain objective and fair when it comes to the rules of the board.

Being a cop is tougher than it has ever been in the history of law enforcement. No respects you and you are held to an almost impossible standard - a standard that most people simply don't understand. But... that's what it's going to take to gain the trust of the public. Many agencies were very dirty not all that long ago. Things are changing though and it is important that people recognize it. There's no way to be a cop without a gun... at least in the U.S., because it is so inundated with firearms. There would be daily assassinations. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

How would you propose officers dealing with an active shooter situation without the use of law enforcement being armed? Because currently we have a situation where guns are legal in the US, guns being prevalent in the US, and a penchant for people using them. By eliminating police using guns you have a situation where it is functionally impossible to stop the threat. And as we have seen, in times past, they don't stop until someone stops them.

It's always best to quote someone else when they can explain it better than you can.

quote:

---

"Don't credit me with the mongrel prose: it has many parents-at least 420,000 of them: Policemen.

​

A Policeman is a composite of what all men are, mingling of a saint and sinner, dust and deity.

​

Gulled statistics wave the fan over the stinkers, underscore instances of dishonesty and brutality because they are "new". What they really mean is that they are exceptional, unusual, not commonplace.

​

Buried under the frost is the fact: Less than one-half of one percent of policemen misfit the uniform. That's a better average than you'd find among clergy!

​

What is a policeman made of? He, of all men, is once the most needed and the most unwanted. He's a strangely nameless creature who is "sir" to his face and "pig" to his back

​

He must be such a diplomat that he can settle differences between individuals so that each will think he won.

​

But...If the policeman is neat, he's conceited; if he's careless, he's a bum. If he's pleasant, he's flirting;if not, he's a grouch.

​

He must make an instant decision which would require months for a lawyer to make.

​

But...If he hurries, he's careless; if he's deliberate, he's lazy. He must be first to an accident and infallible with his diagnosis. He must be able to start breathing, stop bleeding, tie splints and, above all, be sure the victim goes home without a limp. Or expect to be sued.

​

The police officer must know every gun, draw on the run, and hit where it doesn't hurt.He must be able to whip two men twice his size and half his age without damaging his uniform and without being "brutal". If you hit him, he's a coward. If he hits you, he's a bully.

​

A policeman must know everything-and not tell. He must know where all the sin is and not partake.

​

A policeman must, from a single strand of hair, be able to describe the crime, the weapon and the criminal- and tell you where the criminal is hiding.

​

But...If he catches the criminal, he's lucky; if he doesn't, he's a dunce. If he gets promoted, he has political pull; if he doesn't, he's a dullard. The policeman must chase a bum lead to a dead-end, stake out ten nights to tag one witness who saw it happen-but refused to remember.

​

The policeman must be a minister, a social worker, a diplomat, a tough guy and a gentleman.

​

And, of course, he'd have to be genius....For he will have to feed a family on a policeman's salary." - Paul Harvey

---

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

The only legal way to shoot someone who is running away from you is that this person has presented an imminent threat to self or others. The only exceptions may be that this person has already gone on some kind of killing spree and still has the means to continue on.The legal standard is objective reasonableness.

1. Judged through the perspective of a reasonable officer
   1. Officer with same or similar training and experience
   2. Facing similar circumstances
   3. Act the same way or use similar judgment
2. Based on the totality of the facts known to the officer at the time the force was applied
   1. No matter how compelling the evidence is to be found later
   2. No hindsight evaluation
3. Based on the facts known to the officer without regard to the underlying intent or motivation
4. Based on the knowledge the officer acted properly under established law at the time

You can't shoot someone in the back without some very compelling articulable reason that passes an objectively reasonable standardEdited by Admin, : Fix horrible list formatting.

Perhaps so, but that's an entirely different argument. Presumably Percy would want these changes today, if he could, whereas it would not allow for a massive de-arming of everyone.

Or they just don't understand the complexities involved.

Well, because I was responding to the post that I did view. But to your point about special units... I think you have a very unrealistic view of the way things work in most large cities in America, possibly because you don't live in one. There would be no one to police any city if you disarmed police officers in America. It's already outrageously dangerous just by the nature of the job. Adding an additional stressor of everyone being armed, except you, would end catastrophically. And in terms of time to activate said special unit in a time of a crisis, it would be a bloodbath. Crime would increase tenfold overnight. I think you are very naive about how things work in reality. Ridiculous. Because as we all know, corrections officers who are unarmed have never been murdered. Also as we already know, murder only happens when guns are involved. You're also rather conveniently discounting the obviously lopsided statistic of cops that weren't murdered because they were armed. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : edit to add italics

Well, that may or may not be, but the prevalence of guns in the US is separate debate. But in light of the reality, it's only sensical to have an armed police force to adequately be able to stand up to an armed society. I'm saying if you disarmed cops tomorrow 1. there would be mass people quitting, and 2. crime would skyrocket. For every outlier scenario you could find, there's thousands upon thousands of instances where that didn't happen given similar circumstances in similar conditions. Sooooo..... Yeah, and that's an absurd argument. That's like saying if you didn't buy a toaster, there would have been no way for little Timmy to have been electrocuted by it, therefore 1. you're a piece of shit for buying the toaster and, 2. all toasters should be outlawed as a consequence of it. I'm referring to the countless times they've been used appropriately. Surely, without even looking in to it, it surely heavily outweighs it. That may be, but in light of their existence, wouldn't it be more prudent to deal with reality? And empowering rank-and-file policers by giving them guns in what makes a justified police shooting possible.... We could all agree that lawnmower accidents are the result of lawnmowers and accidents in tandem with one another... that's basically your argument in a nutshell while glossing over 1. the utility of lawnmowers and 2. the use of lawnmowers that don't result in accidents is exceedingly higher than those that do. I've never shot anyone... ever. Never had to. And know the difference between a reasonable and unreasonable time to use them. Bad officers using bad tactics need to pay society for their egregious lapse in judgment just as anyone else would. I would agree with you all day long if your argument was geared towards protectionism against bad cops... but your solution though is one that advocates throwing the baby out with the bathwater. As it should! No one wants a dangerous, rogue cop with them less than a good cop who knows the law, knows departmental policy, and actually has common sense and sound judgment. Because there has never been this high of transparency before thanks to technology. That's a good thing.

Imagine showing up to every nasty little thing that happens in your city and what kind of effects that has on one's psychology. One, you're exposed to such a higher degree of what-ifs because you know, better than Joe Citizen ever could, the hidden dangers that Joe just really cannot fathom. We're not faulting Joe for his ignorance in that instance, but we might take exception to Joe insisting we're being "paranoid" for taking reasonable precautions.Then you have the simple law of averages, that intentionally showing up where danger presents itself obviously increases one's risk by orders of magnitude. That's just common sense.I'm not saying being a police officer is more dangerous than being a deep-sea fisherman off the coast of Alaska... I'm just recognizing that its still dangerous and giving you reasons why being alert, if nothing else, is a natural response. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

My point is as long as they exist, there is an equal incentive to also own one to level out the playing field. You don't go into a sword fight with chop sticks and you don't go into a gun fight with a sword. This topic is dealing with specifics, namely, do police need guns. Answer: Yes. That's true, I might be placed in that situation and will respond appropriately. You may not; kill or be killed. Whatever you choose is your choice. The discussion as you lead it was the assumption that police departments are littered with homicidal maniacs. While I would admit that some really bad people slip through the cracks, it is certainly the exception, not the rule. And I could say that non-gun owners assume murder over legitimate self-defense far too often. We're really dealing with preferences this far into the minutia. I wouldn't call an extensive background checks, psychological screening, polygraphs and thousands of required mandatory hours of training in the law and tactics "willy nilly." You make it sound like Deputy Dog just shows up and they give him some bullets and a gun. Yeah, and? So long as it's a million justified times... you sound mad that we don't live in a Nerf world. Bad crap is going to happen. Not sure what to tell you. Police are simultaneously the most needed and most unwanted people on the planet. It's standard to protocol to put cops on leave after a critical incident for a lot of reasons. 1. it's incredibly stressful and there's no need to add more stress when they need to get their mind right before serving the public again. 2. in the event it was a bad shoot, you've already pulled their commission. 3. they need time to consult with legal council just as anyone else involved in a shooting would. Mayhem? You're brushing with awfully broad strokes here based on your own preconceived notions. Imagine if you substituted your character assassination for "cop" with "minority." How do you think that would go? You're vilifying an entire profession based on a few turds. Every job has people that slip through the cracks. I understand that this a public trust position and their is decidedly a much higher expectation... and that is reasonable. But I wouldn't want you to make a decision on someone a priori without examining the actual content of their character. After all, that's what makes racism so distasteful and unfair.

Percy, we're discussing whether or not it is reasonable to keep an armed police force. We're not trying to figure out if it is justifiable to shoot 18 bullets at someone; especially since every scenario is different. There are some people who should not be cops... they just don't possess the kind of temperament necessary. But that doesn't invalidate the entire profession or their need to take reasonable measures. A handgun is very reasonable in the United States. If we were at the stage where the UK or Australia is, we could have a vigorous debate. But this is the US and that change in geography and laws matter. So now that you've invalidated the entire profession, what do you suggest in its place?

I actually laughed... that was pretty good. No, they just know that not carrying guns isn't going to make it better. Crime, after all, is a sociological problem above all. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

So in the Las Vegas massacre, the police should have sat idly by? No, just a solution to a very specific problem -- solving a dilemma where deadly force is the last or only viable option. Guns don't make good bottle openers. Guns and carpentry don't mix. Guns don't do well for putting out fires. But guns do make for an adequate form of defense. Your position infantilizes people and reduces everyone armed to knuckle-dragging troglodytes. Cars are responsible for infinitely higher mortality rate, but that doesn't seem to stop you from driving them. Most states rightfully have statutes that place the onus and responsibility of the gun on the owner, but there are practical methods to keep a gun secured and still readily accessible within seconds... some gun safes are operated by biometrics such as fingerprints, others a pin pad. What, like 3% of all police-involved shootings? You keep alluding that I'm being extreme but you're acting as if the overwhelming officer-involved shootings are unjustified when they clearly are not. Perhaps your understanding of what legally constitutes homicide versus justifiable homicide is terribly skewed. Based on your bizarre and irrational fear of guns, I would wager that it is. And there is a statistical propensity for people falling down stairs... or ovens catching homes on fire... or people crashing their cars. Again, it's weighing the utility of something versus the liability of it. Uh, no, take guns away and you're left defenseless in a deadly force encounter in a profession where lots of people want you dead. Ah, well, that explains a lot actually. Why not? They might need protection from cops You already concede that specialized units should be afforded the opportunity to carry weapons so what really is the difference if training means fuck all to you? Should the military be disarmed too? When, in your estimation, is a gun a necessary evil? I understand you don't like guns, I understand you think they cause more problems than they solve, but surely there must be instances in your mind that they be a necessity. So then what should get them up to standard?

Yeah, I don't disagree with any of that. There's no question that if guns were never invented that homicide by guns would never exist. The problem that seems to be glibly overlooked though is the fact that guns DO exist. In light of that, I'm all ears for how an unarmed subject can effectively deal with a person armed with gun. Until that time, and short of the univention of the gun, we're just gonna have to deal with reality as it is... not as we want it to be.As to your well-phrased analysis of when "defending" becomes "attacking," that goes for anything really. You can substitute gun with fist, pepper spray, baton, or anything else designed for protection that can also be used to attack. Of course, that's also why we have laws that delineate between justified and unjustified.