I think this is the best written explanation for the use of lethal force that I’ve seen. He even includes videos of confrontations that didn’t end well for the cop. His comments and cites about cops being beaten to death by unarmed suspects is very informative.
I realize he’s using the Michael Brown case as an example. But he’s not arguing who’s right or wrong. He freely admits he doesn’t know. Very few facts are known and it’s pointless to argue the case right now. I’m still very much on the fence and waiting to hear what facts are presented to the grand jury.
Can we discuss the points he makes about police tactics? How batons and pepper spray won’t immediately end a dangerous confrontation with the police? Even bullets won’t immediately stop someone charging right at the cop.
disclaimer I have no way to verify this blog’s author. He sounds legit but read it and decide for yourself.
What points about the tactics would you like to discuss?
He seems to say that some officers use firepower because stun guns/pepper spray don’t always work.
He also points out that bullets don’t always work, should we then go to automatic firepower? Flesh sensing exploding shells?
It may be hard to talk about tactics without knowing the situation that would require any tactics. In almost any situation we would have to assume the mindset of at least 2 people at the time of the instance.
Given only these 3 variables I foresee only a ‘yeah, but what if…’ thread.
I guess the real issue is how little the public knows about the challenges and dangers of police work. I knew they were risking getting shot. But hadn’t thought about how hard it is to subdue someone without injuring them. That an officer is putting his life at risk by using a baton or other intermediate weapon and relying on them to stop a violent suspect.
Its gave me a lot to think about. I want to check with my local police and see if they still offer ride alongs. See for myself what they are dealing with night after night.
However this is the second thread (and one of many posts on SDMB) which assume Officer Brown faces some sort of criminal charge. To the best of my knowledge he has not been charged with anything - indeed he is likely to be exonerated.
It could be counter-argued that minorities aren’t trained to deal with police officials. I’ve seen how minorities are at risk of getting hurt but it’s ok because officers had to take charge of a situation.
THEY ARE COMING RIGHT FOR US!!!
However when police officers are heavy handed it might be seen as ok, because police = right.
Almost all the police officers I’ve known don’t think cop = right. Most I’ve known try to calm a situation to find the facts.
ETA:
What tactics did you want to talk about?
yup…cops take on additional risks. But they are aware of the risks…if they can’t deal with the risks they should go to their police union to get training.
There are some relevant points about police work and tactics here. People who talk about shooting a suspect in the leg, for example, don’t know that this is not how police are trained because it’s not all that realistic, and they sometimes overlook the fact that clubs can be very dangerous (there’s a reason many police department users Tasers instead). Then again there’s also a ton of bullshit like this:
Yes, only one side here needs a dose of reality - the side that says the killing of an unarmed person seems unjust. The other side, if we have to call it that, has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in support of a guy who hasn’t been charged with a crime, and likely won’t be. Fair and balanced!
No, the side that automatically attacks the police even in cases where a shooting is clearly justified also needs such a dose. So does the side claiming “INNOCENT TEENAGER MURDERED BY RACIST COP!”
You characterize this as bullshit. It isn’t, as you admit yourself.
I didn’t realize you were a member of the grand jury or one of the groups investigating the shooting. Since you clearly have more facts available to you than the public does, please dish some dirt.
Strongly, strongly, strongly recommended. It’s the old thing about walk a mile in their shoes. Police work, for the most part, is boring and monotonous, except for the few moments when you are so terrified that you could shit through a screen door and not touch the wire.
But the public has all the information to understand how dangerous police work is in the form of data as opposed to anecdotes from one cop who doesn’t seem particularly impartial. The reality is that police works not actually that dangerous. You are more likely to be hurt being a commercial fisherman, or a logger, or a cab driver, or a number of other things. Additionally, you are also more likely as a cop to be injured being accidentally hit by a passing motorist on the street while conducting a traffic stop, or and some other accidental non-violent way than you are beating up a suspect or getting shotor stabbed. If you want a dose of reality, it can’t be in the form of selective anecdote that overestimate how dangerous it is. Plenty of people do more dangerous jobs for less money and prestige, AND manage to not constantly try to garner sympathy or pretend NOBODY else can understand what they go through.
The idea that beating someone with a baton puts your life in danger is pretty much laughable. I would love to see some criminal use that defend in court the next time he beats some other criminal with a baseball bat or something. “Your honor, my clients decision to accost that man with a baseball bat put his life in danger!”. Besides, if police work is routinely that dangerous, do you really think they would allow unarmed, untrained civilians to ride along with them?
Why do I need to walk a mile in their shoes to make suggesting on public policy based on data? Do you need to spends day teaching, or nursing, or be if a senator to have an informed opinion on how those people do their jobs? Sure, I suppose it might sway you one way or another, but it’s shouldn’t really supplant the use of data, or invalidate one’s opinion.
You couldn’t me more wrong. I’ve never read about a tuna, or a tree for that matter, with a gun laying in wait for anyone.
These three law enforcement officers were among the 48 officers around the nation who died in 2012 as a result of felonious incidents in the line of duty, according to the FBI’s latest
Our latest LEOKA report also provides information on another 47 officers who died during 2012 as a result of accidents sustained in the line of duty and on the 52,901 law enforcement officers assaulted in the line of duty.*
I think brickbacon is referring to this piece Vox did a couple of days ago that compared the dangers of various professions. It’s interesting data but I agree it’s kind of misleading to compare the rate of accidents in, say, fishing or logging to people trying to hurt or kill police. People in those professions are far more likely to die than cops are, but an accident isn’t the same thing as a homicide.
You suggested the shooting was clearly justified. I don’t think that’s so clear, but if you’re part of the investigation you must have facts at your disposal that I don’t. Can you share some of those facts?
If you want to get one side of the story, a ride-along is a great way to go about it. You are never going to ride with the officers that the public in certain neighborhoods are having problems with. You are going to ride with vetted officers who know they are there for show.
Actually, I am correct. Google almost any list of most dangerous jobs and those jobs are more dangerous by almost every measure. Occasionally, cab drivers slip below police officers, but the others aren’t even close. Maybe you need to look up the word to understand what it means.
The BLS reports there being 21.8 fatalities per 100,000 for police officers and 21.3, 86.4, and 111.8 fatalities per 100,000 for cabbies, loggers, and fishermen (respectively). Fishermen average $13/hour too, and don’t generally have cushy pensions. By every statistical measure the latter two jobs are MUCH more dangerous. Now if you want to make some distinction between homicides and accidents, that’s fine, but it has nothing to do with how dangerous something is.
First, you have no idea where and when I have put my ass on the line. Second, what I have personally done is not really germane to a discussion about public policy or how quantifiably dangerous something is. But feel free to keep spouting ridiculous slogans.
I think it’s worth noting, but if you’re talking about “dangerous” in a general way, as I guess aceplace57 was, then yes, you’re not shading the truth or anything if you say other jobs are more dangerous.
Listen, I am not saying I do get the sentiment you are expressing, but why does the distinction between homicide and (basically) an unavoidable accident matter as a matter of public policy or to the danger of each job? Like if I asked if being a pretty woman in a men’s jail is as dangerous as free climbing mountains, does it really matter at all what the nature of the danger is?