Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 02-13-2020, 08:07 PM
GreysonCarlisle's Avatar
GreysonCarlisle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 1,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
How does three anecdotes over 12 years disprove "And cops rarely have second hand shooting victims, they know their back drop."?

Or were you agreeing with me, that it rarely happens?
What, you need me to post every single incident that's ever happened? Three is sufficient, and they're hardly anecdotes.

Last edited by GreysonCarlisle; 02-13-2020 at 08:08 PM.
  #102  
Old 02-14-2020, 12:43 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 11,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
Right. No rolleyes. Better than the current situation in which the police get to execute civilians with impunity.
So that Florida Deputy that did nothing while children were getting gunned down is a hero rather than a coward complicit in their murders?
  #103  
Old 02-14-2020, 01:16 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
...
I think any police officer who shoots a civilian should be as thoroughly investigated as if I would be if I were to shoot someone. This includes prosecuting and jailing them if the shooting cannot be fully justified.

If this drives people away from policing, so much the better. ....
They are. But you see- you usually have a motive. Police officers have no motive in a police shooting- they want to protect themselves and the public. Yes, a error of judgement can be made- and is made too often. But they dont go out thinking "Today I will find and shoot Robby."


We have a police shortage.
  #104  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:23 AM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
So that Florida Deputy that did nothing while children were getting gunned down is a hero rather than a coward complicit in their murders?
Of course not. That was certainly a situation in which deadly force would have been justified. But there are far too many cases in which it is not, like the unarmed woman who was shot and killed for startling a police officer -- after calling 911 to report a possible assault; or the 12-year old boy holding a toy gun who was shot and killed by police within seconds of arriving on the scene; or the unarmed man executed by police at close range with an AR-15 while obeying their orders and begging for his life.
  #105  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:45 AM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
...Police officers have no motive in a police shooting- they want to protect themselves and the public.
It's telling that even in defending the police, you prioritize the police wanting to protect themselves before protecting the public.

And you're wrong. Police do often have a motive. They were disrespected. Or someone didn't follow their contradictory and/or unheard and/or unintelligible screamed commands quickly enough. Or they were startled, or fearful that someone was going to hurt them first. And since in nearly all cases, police officers are not punished for killing an unarmed civilian, they have little reason for restraint. After all, all they have to do is to recite the magic phrase, "I was in fear for my life," whether that is true or not, and even if true, whether that fear is justified or not...and they get off scot-free.
  #106  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:59 AM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 11,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
But there are far too many cases in which it is not,
Actually there aren't. You are cherry picking a few cases out of the overwhelmingly majority police shootings over the decades that are deemed justified by prosecutors and outside agencies that investigate. And those shootings themselves are a rarity among the millions of public contacts law enforcement officers make every year. A police involved shooting is a very rare occurrence.


Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
It's telling that even in defending the police, you prioritize the police wanting to protect themselves before protecting the public.
An officer can't protect anyone if he/she themselves get gunned down.

Can you please tell us what your training and experience is in law enforcement, rules of engagement, public safety dynamics, self defense laws and policies & procedures regarding lethal force applications before you continue to impress us with your expertise in the way things ought to be? I am fascinated by your grasp of reality of how more dead cops equal a safer populace.
  #107  
Old 02-14-2020, 11:35 AM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Actually there aren't. You are cherry picking a few cases out of the overwhelmingly majority police shootings over the decades that are deemed justified by prosecutors and outside agencies that investigate.
First off, the "prosecutors and outside agencies that investigate" police are inherently biased in favor of the police, so their finding that a given shooting was supposedly justified doesn't hold much water. Even when a particularly egregious shooting is deemed unjustified and a police officer is charged, it is more likely than not that the officer will be acquitted.

Of the three police shootings I supposedly cherry-picked (actually they were just the first three that came to my mind), only one officer was actually convicted (the minority officer who shot and killed a white woman). The officer who shot an killed the 12-year old boy was never even charged, and the officer who executed the man begging for his life was charged but acquitted.

In any event, it's not like these are the only three shootings by police in recent years. Over 1,000 people were shot and killed by U.S. police in 2019. Police shootings are a leading cause of death for young men in the United States, especially young black men. American police shoot and kill far more people than their peers in other countries, dwarfing the rate of other industrialized countries.

I'm astonished that you would seriously argue that there aren't too many police shootings in America today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
...And those shootings themselves are a rarity among the millions of public contacts law enforcement officers make every year. A police involved shooting is a very rare occurrence.
There are over 44,000 flights serving 2.7 million airline passengers every day in the U.S. That's over 16,000,000 flights in the U.S. every year. In the last 20 years, just four (4) of these millions of U.S. flights were hijacked. Those four flights were an infinitesimally small percentage of the flights that weren't hijacked -- no one could argue they weren't a very rare occurrence (four hijackings out of millions and millions of flights). Yet we completely revamped security procedures, created a new federal agency, and invaded a country in response. Rare or not, we as a country decided that four hijackings out of millions of flights was not acceptable.

Over the last 50 years or so, we also decided that the number of automobile fatalities were unacceptable. Fatalities per capita have decreased steadily since the last peak around 1970, mainly because of the billions of dollars we have spent building safer cars, with airbags and other safety features now required, along with mandatory seat belt usage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
An officer can't protect anyone if he/she themselves get gunned down.
It's only in the minds of police that they are convinced that they will be "gunned down" if they don't shoot first. That's a war zone mentality that should have no place in a supposedly civilized society.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Can you please tell us what your training and experience is in law enforcement, rules of engagement, public safety dynamics, self defense laws and policies & procedures regarding lethal force applications before you continue to impress us with your expertise in the way things ought to be?
I'm not going to get into a fallacious argument from authority with respect to dueling credentials. I know you are a police officer. Instead of simply defending police shootings, why don't you use your expertise to address the problem and propose possible solutions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
I am fascinated by your grasp of reality of how more dead cops equal a safer populace.
Sure you are. This is another false dichotomy. The choice is not "dead cops" vs. "safer populace." If police weren't so quick to shoot people, they might counter-intuitively actually increase their own personal safety. It's not necessarily in their own best interest to so frequently escalate interactions with the public to the use of deadly force, and it would surely reduce tensions in the community. The populace would also surely be safer if the police would stop shooting them.

The bottom line is that policing is broken in this country. As I noted above, I fear and distrust the police today, and I'm a middle-aged white male. Is that really the kind of country we want want to live in?
  #108  
Old 02-14-2020, 12:43 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
.

I'm not going to get into a fallacious argument from authority with respect to dueling credentials. I know you are a police officer. Instead of simply defending police shootings, why don't you use your expertise to address the problem and propose possible solutions?...
If you had read Argument_from_authority you would have learned that a expert in the field under discussion is a exception. If we are talking Physics, you can use Einstein as your authority and it's not a fallacy. So, pkbites is a expert, and thus no fallacy.
  #109  
Old 02-14-2020, 02:38 PM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
If you had read Argument_from_authority you would have learned that a expert in the field under discussion is a exception. If we are talking Physics, you can use Einstein as your authority and it's not a fallacy. So, pkbites is a expert, and thus no fallacy.
On the contrary, it doesn't appear that you actually read the linked article:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority as authority has no place in science. Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority:

"One of the great commandments of science is, 'Mistrust arguments from authority.' ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else."
The closest the article comes to mentioning a possible exception to the fallacy is if all parties to the argument agree that the authority in question is an expert (like Einstein in the case of physics), but even this is fraught. Too many supposed experts have been proven wrong throughout the history of science.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
An argument from authority (argumentum ab auctoritate), also called an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam, is a form of defeasible argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though some consider that it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context. Other authors consider it a fallacy to cite an authority on the discussed topic as the primary means of supporting an argument.
I don't doubt that pkbites, as a police officer, is knowledgeable about policing. But with respect to the subject matter under discussion (the problem of excessive use of deadly force by police), I don't agree that his being a police officer necessarily makes him an expert, to the point that the discussion is over solely because of his credentials. Indeed, one might argue that, being a police officer, he is so close to the issue as to be unable to step back and see the problem with unbiased eyes. For example, I would be surprised if his training has included a detailed comparison of the use of deadly force in the U.S. versus that of other countries -- especially since his knee-jerk response to any suggestion that police in the U.S. should limit their use of deadly force will surely result in "dead cops."

This being Great Debates, it would be nice to actually debate the issue. Instead, in his last post, pkbites attempted to short-circuit the debate by mockingly questioning my credentials.
  #110  
Old 02-14-2020, 03:15 PM
Manwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Japan
Posts: 409
The problem is that cops are deliberately selected to be stupid and aggressive.

It's not a bug it's a feature.
  #111  
Old 02-14-2020, 07:56 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 11,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manwich View Post
The problem is that cops are deliberately selected to be stupid and aggressive.

It's not a bug it's a feature.
Cite?

I’ve served on hiring committees for several different large metropolitan departments. Candidates who tested on the advanced psych tests as highly aggressive as opposed to assertive are routinely rejected even if they passed every other test and assessment. My cite is my own experience. What is yours, please?

Would those of you who insist an officer not fire at an obvious lethal threat until actually fired at hold regular citizens to the same standard? An articulated fear of imminent death is a justifiable reason to apply lethal force regardless of who you are. Grand juries are comprised of common citizens and yet they routinely decline to indite officers or anyone else who use force to defend themselves and/or others. Where is their bias?
  #112  
Old 02-14-2020, 11:56 PM
robby's Avatar
robby is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 5,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Would those of you who insist an officer not fire at an obvious lethal threat until actually fired at hold regular citizens to the same standard?
Yes. Indeed, I would argue this is already the case for regular citizens. If I shoot and kill another person, you can be sure that I will be arrested, prosecuted, and likely convicted. The presumption will be that the shooting was not justified, even if I insist I was in fear for my life.

Not to mention the fact that police define an “obvious lethal threat” so broadly as to render it meaningless. That same deference is not granted to regular citizens. A police officer can kill a 12-year old kid playing with a toy gun and not even be charged. Were I to do the same, there is not a doubt in my mind that I would be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
An articulated fear of imminent death is a justifiable reason to apply lethal force regardless of who you are.
The problem with this statement is that the people who investigate the application of deadly force are biased to believe a police officer, and are not inclined to believe a civilian.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Grand juries are comprised of common citizens and yet they routinely decline to indite officers or anyone else who use force to defend themselves and/or others. Where is their bias?
Why juries have a hard time convicting cops

Why do juries acquit police officers of brutality?

The Deck Is Stacked in Favor of the Police
  #113  
Old Yesterday, 01:36 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 43,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manwich View Post
The problem is that cops are deliberately selected to be stupid and aggressive.

It's not a bug it's a feature.
This is absolutely false. When I was on the Civil Grand Jury we carefully went over the selections process, and the psych eval took all those guys out. And they had to have a IQ above average.

Now, if you wanna argue that getting inured to all the bad shit, and becoming callous because of that, then yes, that is problem, and I dont think pkbites will disagree here. It happens to too many cops.
  #114  
Old Yesterday, 09:58 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,955
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Actually there aren't. You are cherry picking a few cases out of the overwhelmingly majority police shootings over the decades that are deemed justified by prosecutors and outside agencies that investigate. And those shootings themselves are a rarity among the millions of public contacts law enforcement officers make every year. A police involved shooting is a very rare occurrence.

.
The fact that we can say “the overwhelming majority of“ in relation to shootings is the actual problem here. Other countries can’t say “we reviewed 1,000 police shootings” to determine if they were justified, because they don’t have thousands of shootings every year to analyze. In our country we have individual events where our police use more bullets than UK police fire in an entire year.

You can SAY every single bullet was justified but the fundamental problem remains.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #115  
Old Yesterday, 03:10 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 11,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by robby View Post
Yes. Indeed, I would argue this is already the case for regular citizens. If I shoot and kill another person, you can be sure that I will be arrested, prosecuted, and likely convicted. The presumption will be that the shooting was not justified, even if I insist I was in fear for my life.
[/URL]
Where are you getting this nonsense from?

Private citizens shoot and injure or kill people every day and it’s ruled justified without a prosecution or trial.

People who kill someone claiming they feared for their life when facts show a reasonable person wouldn’t have, yes they may be prosecuted. The same standard is applied to police. The handful of exceptions you’re deluding yourself with are just that, exceptions.

And laws like castle doctrines and stand your ground laws were put in place to bolster self defense privileges and to spare the innocent of erroneous prosecutions. Your beliefs are simply not true. Every single case has to be judged by it’s own facts and not on the absurd blanket that you want to throw on.

Last edited by pkbites; Yesterday at 03:11 PM.
  #116  
Old Yesterday, 03:22 PM
Crafter_Man's Avatar
Crafter_Man is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Ohio
Posts: 11,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
castle doctrines and stand your ground laws were put in place to bolster self defense privileges
self defense rights, not privileges.

As for the rest of your post... when a non-LEO defends himself with a gun, he is more-or-less presumed guilty by the courts until proven innocent. There's no QI. Even if it was a good shoot, the good guy must still hire an expensive legal firm because the bad guy's family will surly sue him in civil court.

When an LEO is involved in a shooting, he is assumed innocent, has QI, and a union to back him up.
  #117  
Old Yesterday, 06:43 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crafter_Man View Post
self defense rights, not privileges.

As for the rest of your post... when a non-LEO defends himself with a gun, he is more-or-less presumed guilty by the courts until proven innocent. There's no QI. Even if it was a good shoot, the good guy must still hire an expensive legal firm because the bad guy's family will surly sue him in civil court.

When an LEO is involved in a shooting, he is assumed innocent, has QI, and a union to back him up.
The big difference that many are missing when comparing LEO shooting vs. other people shootings is that LEOs are charged with making arrests and running towards the danger. If there is a bank robbery in progress, I sit in my office with my gun in the drawer and listen to it on the police scanner. The police get in their cars and drive towards the bank with the duty to arrest the bank robber if they find him.

And they do this over and over and over again. The have no idea of knowing if the speeder they just pulled over just killed his wife and is driving away. Now, that's not to say that every speeder should be treated as if a murderer, but the officer must have a sixth sense about it. Basically every interaction could be a deadly one for a police officer unlike in other professions.

That is why QI is important. If they clearly overstep their bounds, then yes, make them pay. If they made a bad guess in a grey area, then don't.

Being a criminal defense attorney, you would think I would be anti-police, but in my experience, the overwhelming majority of them are pretty good guys. You see the bad apples, but I am impressed by the general honesty and the desire to do what is right of police officers.

When the bad apples get up there and testi-lie or manufacture PC, the judge and everyone knows it, and the other police officers hate it because it makes them look bad. This "blue wall" stuff is not widespread and represents the vast minority of police.
  #118  
Old Yesterday, 10:56 PM
pkbites's Avatar
pkbites is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Majikal Land O' Cheeze!
Posts: 11,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crafter_Man View Post
self defense rights, not privileges.
Cite?

While I agree that there is a natural right to self defense, I live in the real world unlike quite a few others on these boards.

And I can only base my posts on the laws of the state I am charged with enforcing. My state, unfortunately, classifies self defense as a privilege, not a right.

Wisconsin 939.48. YMMV depending on location.
  #119  
Old Today, 12:58 AM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by pkbites View Post
Cite?

While I agree that there is a natural right to self defense, I live in the real world unlike quite a few others on these boards.

And I can only base my posts on the laws of the state I am charged with enforcing. My state, unfortunately, classifies self defense as a privilege, not a right.

Wisconsin 939.48. YMMV depending on location.
Does that include police officers illegally detaining me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
When the bad apples get up there and testi-lie or manufacture PC, the judge and everyone knows it, and the other police officers hate it because it makes them look bad. This "blue wall" stuff is not widespread and represents the vast minority of police.
That's why Baltimore police officers immediately turned on their corrupt counterparts, instead of it taking FBI involvement and almost 15 years for the rot to be exposed.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:03 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017