We aren’t likely to agree on what is justified. Part of the reason for these protests is that the police time and time again justify uses of force. As I said if you’re justifying the vast majority of police induced deaths, and police violence, you are the target of the protests.
I’ll also suggest that justified does not mean inevitable or required. Reducing justified use of force is something the police should do even if we disagree on the scope of justified use.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Babale - you truly have no understanding of the reality of police work. You have so many things wrong I don’t have the time to address them. I will, however, respond to your idea of the mission when responding to an active shooter. It is NOT to arrest or capture him alive. It is to stop him as quickly as possible. If he can be stopped without shooting or killing him, that’s icing on the cake but it is not the priority. If you think that priority is wrong, that means that your are putting the safety of a killer above those of his potential victims including the responding officers.
Oh, I understand completely. And that’s exactly why thousands of people have been taking to the streets every day for the last couple of weeks. Because the “reality of police work” in America is a story of polics brutality, unnecessary force, and an utter failure of community outreach.
Obviously if you need to kill an active shooter to stop him from killing someone else that’s justified use of force. It shouldn’t be the cops’ plan going into the situation, though.
And police should absolutely prioritize the lives of civilians and even suspects. Anything else would make them unfit to carry deadly weapons on our streets.
In your active shooter situation I believe the police should be primarily concerned with getting the public to safety rather than trying to kill an American citizen (they usually are) by ineffectually shooting back at them (a la the Las Vegas shooter). They should try to make sure that the shooter runs out of targets before he runs out of bullets, and run out of bullets he will. But the Die Hard mentality dies hard.
How many times have I had to utilize OC (pepper spray), deploy a Taser, use a baton, issue knee or forearm strikes, direct someone to the ground, put someone in a blanket escort hold, etc? Are you kidding? Over almost 4 decades? I have no idea. More than 2 less than a zillion.
It sounds like you think cops should only be in “fair fights” If an unarmed person challenges a police officer to a fight he is technically armed at that point because he could take to officers weapon. Cops are not supposed to keep fights fair, they should always have a distinct and overwhelming advantage. This usually works out for a better outcome for both parties involved.
I’ll ask for some of whatever you’re smoking too, please. I have no idea how you read my post as implying that police officers should engage in “fair fights”. No – that’s ridiculous. But cops shouldn’t use deadly force unless absolutely necessary.
On a peripherally related note, a couple of years ago my employer brought in two law enforcement officers to give a training session on responding to workplace emergencies, one part of which covered active shooter situations: what we should do if caught up in one, and how local law enforcement would respond. The officers were VERY critical of Orlando P.D.'s response in the Pulse Nightclub shooting: the first officers to engage were withdrawn, and LEOs stood around outside the club for several hours assembling the “proper” tactical equipment and overwhelming numbers to storm the barricaded gunman with minimal risk to officer lives. The Kansas officers said in essence, 'screw that shit, our official policy is that as soon as two officers are on scene, we are going to engage, and continue to engage until the threat is over, because officer safety is less important than civilian safety." Their model was the Hesston shooting, in which the first officer on-scene immediately engaged the gunman without waiting for backup and using only the weapons/equipment in his patrol car.
Both shootings ended with the bad guy dead, and in neither were any officers seriously injured. One featured protracted attempts to negotiate with the bad guy, and perhaps a third of the dead bled out waiting for help that never arrived, while first responders stood around fretting about their own safety. The other included no attempt to do anything but neutralize the threat, and was over within minutes.
To me it’s psychological, cops are given more offensive devices, than defensive. (Probably cause there’s more money in it for weapon manufacturers) I’d rather see cops decked out in Star Wars storm trooper armer (as long as it can stop bullets and fists) so I know they feel secure. Then it’s just a matter of changing offensive procedures to reduce folks getting killed. Also, full body armor will hide all the tats cops think they have to have these days.