# A veteran cops perspective on using lethal force. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 25, 2014, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-veteran-cops-perspective-on-using-lethal-force/696418 "2014-08-25T00:26:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2014, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-veteran-cops-perspective-on-using-lethal-force/696418/41 "2014-08-26T14:16:06Z")
> [@Killing\_Time](#): > > That’s not what he wrote. He wrote they won’t _always_ stop someone right away. He didn’t write that they _never_ will. You have changed the premise (inadvertently, I assume) from “A is sometimes true” to “A is true”. I often hear that pepper spray/tasers aren’t always effective. Are there any studies? I tried to suss one out but was unsuccessful. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2014, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-veteran-cops-perspective-on-using-lethal-force/696418/42 "2014-08-26T14:55:58Z")
> [@Bullitt](#): > > It’s easy for anyone who has never put their ass on the line to spout statistics as to what jobs are more dangerous than being cops who regularly deal with hostile situations and have to decide when they can and cannot use deadly force. To have to face moments where you wonder, is this the day I die? Do I get to see my wife and kids tonight, or not? As Homer Simpsons once said, “Pffft, facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that’s even remotely true. Facts, schmacts.” Is it easy to spout statistics? I guess. If they’re facts, though, they’re a critical part of the debate. Our policies on allowing the police to use force do need to be guided by facts, and if the police use force in an unjustified way, you can’t just say “Police work is dangerous, you don’t understand” and make it go away. OK, I don’t understand. It’s still true that we have to make sure that when the police use force, they do so in a way that’s justified and as limited as possible and that serves the communities they are supposed to protect. The police are authorized to use force in specific situations for specific reasons - not just because we like them and because we admire their virtuous decision to become police officers. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2014, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-veteran-cops-perspective-on-using-lethal-force/696418/43 "2014-08-26T15:46:35Z")
> [@Bullitt](#): > > It’s easy for anyone who has never put their ass on the line to spout statistics as to what jobs are more dangerous than being cops who regularly deal with hostile situations and have to decide when they can and cannot use deadly force. To have to face moments where you wonder, is this the day I die? Do I get to see my wife and kids tonight, or not? The interesting this is in determining just how necessary these shootings really are. Police forces elsewhere in the world seem to manage without shooting hardly anyone. Why not here? > [@](#): > > No matter how the numbers are counted, English and Welsh police officers fire guns much less frequently than do their American counterparts. Not every U.S. police agency reports discharge numbers. But the New York Police Department does. In 2012, 60 NYPD officers fired weapons in 45 adversarial incidents, injuring 14 suspects and killing 16. There were another 21 unintentional discharges and 24 shots in animal attacks, adding up to 444 total shots fired. That’s 15 times as many shots fired in adversarial situations as in England and Wales, in a city with one-seventh the population. And New York City cops fire guns much less frequently than they used to: There were one-fifth as many gunshots in 2012 as in 1971, the first year for which data is available. > > \ > > In the decade through the end of last year, the IPCC counted 11 deaths and 179 injuries, many serious, linked to Taser use by police — though investigations of eight of the deaths found none was directly caused by Taser use. Another 493 complaints about Taser use were referred to the commission. Taser International, which makes the eponymous devices, cites research finding that only 1 in 400 uses of Tasers cause significant injury. Taser International has in the past attributed deaths following Taser use primarily to drug use by suspects. > > Even with Tasers, the numbers pale before the U.S. equivalents. Amnesty International counted 540 people in the U.S. who died after being shocked with Tasers between 2001 and early 2013. That’s an annual, per-capita death rate roughly seven times the one from police officers in England and Wales. > > SOURCE: [Police In England And Wales Went Two Years Without Fatally Shooting Someone | FiveThirtyEight](http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/police-in-england-and-wales-went-two-years-without-fatally-shooting-someone/) ---
**Author:** ![MikeF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MikeF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeF)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2014, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-veteran-cops-perspective-on-using-lethal-force/696418/44 "2014-08-26T17:00:03Z")
Brick - Oh, where to begin? In each and every instance a cop uses force he must articulate the specifics of THAT incident that led him to do so. A generalized “this is a high crime neighborhood” so I was afraid" would never fly in court. Even if the cop is more on edge because of where he works, he still needs to identify specific factors. There is no standard that allows cops to use lethal force in the face of the risk of minor injury. That’s just plain wrong. The standard is “imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm” or similar wording, depending on the jurisdiction. I do not think the penalty for assault, even on a cop, should be death. I do feel that if a suspect is placing me in fear of death or serious bodily injury and I had a tool guaranteed to stop him instantly, even if it assured his death, I would use it. I put my life and safety above the suspects. Remember, it is HE who made the decision to put me in fear for my life. Let’s put the responsibility where it belongs. Deadly force should be met with deadly force. Its as simple as that. Sometimes the cop has time. Most times he does not. It takes only a second or so for a suspect to pull a gun and shoot. It takes some fractions of a second for an officer to perceive that this has happened. More fractions to decide what to do and still more fractions to to do it. The end result is the officer is always going to behind the curve. You will commonly hear “action is faster than reaction” in police training. Its an irrefutable fact. As such, the courts allow officers to employ force without waiting to be absolutely certain that there is a threat. As for cops in other nations not needing to use deadly force so often - how many of those nations are awash in handguns? How many of those cops are murdered with firearms every year? BTW, I object to your use of the term murder when talking about cops killing unarmed people. Murder has a specific legal definition. Basically, it is the UNLAWFUL killing of another. Most police killings of armed and unarmed people are found to be LAWFUL. You may not like it but its the fact. Back to the “dangerousness” issue, which is a red herring in my view. You don’t ask/task cab drivers or crab fishermen to deal (potentially) with armed violent felons on a daily basis. Society as you know it would go on without cabbies and crabbers. The same can’t be said about cops. Cops are asked to place themselves in jeopardy not to feed you or transport you, but to protect you from the criminal element. There’s a world of difference. Cops do not (or should not) be using their night sticks (or pepper spray or tasers) on someone who they feel is putting their life in imminent danger. They should be using deadly force. They should be using those tools on a resisting subject who they feel they cannot take into custody with mere physical force. Its not meant to be a fair fight. Please cite a case where the cops were beating an unarmed person and claimed they were doing so because their lives were at risk. They may claim that the person was non-compliant and resisting (and that may or may not be true) but you say that the cops claim “risk of life”. Back it up. To be sure, it sometimes happens that people who are no longer resisting or fighting are beaten. The cops that do that need to be held to account. Hopefully, the use of body cameras will see those types of incident decrease substantially. Cops ARE willing to take what you call minor risks. They do it every time they stop a car or knock on a door or encounter someone on the street. History has shown they take a risk just sitting down to have coffee. What they are not willing to do is place a suspects safety before their own. Nor should they. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2014, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-veteran-cops-perspective-on-using-lethal-force/696418/45 "2014-08-26T17:37:11Z")
> [@MikeF](#): > > Brick - Oh, where to begin? In each and every instance a cop uses force he must articulate the specifics of THAT incident that led him to do so. A generalized “this is a high crime neighborhood” so I was afraid" would never fly in court. Even if the cop is more on edge because of where he works, he still needs to identify specific factors. This is true. To be fair, even bad cops know it and they wouldn’t say “I was afraid because I was in a bad neighborhood.” They would find a way to use official-sounding terms to make the shooting sound more justified and try to take advantage of the latitude they are given to make those distinctions. That’s not to say we can’t trust the police or the reasons they give for any particular action they take. But people who screw up or abuse the system know there are ways to get away with it and they’ll try to do so. I’m sure police officers try to identify people who abuse their rules this way, but I don’t know how often that works. [For example look at the stop and frisk program in NYC:](http://www.nyclu.org/files/publications/NYCLU_2011_Stop-and-Frisk_Report.pdf) the police were able to make lots of stops that sounded justified on paper because they knew what words to use. Nobody is stupid enough to write “I searched 50 people because they were black.” The most common reason for a stop in 2011 was “furtive movements,” which puts a suspicious-sounding picture in your head but is incredibly vague and could be used to describe almost anything. Then there’s “suspicious bulge,” which might be a gun… or a mobile device, wallet, or a ton of other things. Or “casing a victim or location,” which might be preparing to attack or rob someone or might be the actions of someone who is lost. And then there’s “other.” The end result was widespread abuse of the rights of black and Latino men. > [@](#): > > BTW, I object to your use of the term murder when talking about cops killing unarmed people. Murder has a specific legal definition. Basically, it is the UNLAWFUL killing of another. Most police killings of armed and unarmed people are found to be LAWFUL. You may not like it but its the fact. I think he doesn’t like it. Whether you appreciate it or not, I’m pretty sure you can understand his meaning. And you just talked about the wide latitude the police sometimes get in these kind of situations. The fact that that’s considered lawful is sometimes the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2014, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-veteran-cops-perspective-on-using-lethal-force/696418/46 "2014-08-26T18:09:51Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > But people who screw up or abuse the system know there are ways to get away with it and they’ll try to do so. I’m sure police officers try to identify people who abuse their rules this way, but I don’t know how often that works. The following is for the FBI but gives you an idea: > [@](#): > > **The F.B.I. Deemed Agents Faultless in 150 Shootings** > > But if such internal investigations are time-tested, their outcomes are also predictable: from 1993 to early 2011, F.B.I. agents fatally shot about 70 “subjects” and wounded about 80 others — and every one of those episodes was deemed justified, according to interviews and internal F.B.I. records obtained by The New York Times through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. > > The last two years have followed the same pattern: an F.B.I. spokesman said that since 2011, there had been no findings of improper intentional shootings. > > SOURCE: [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/us/in-150-shootings-the-fbi-deemed-agents-faultless.html?pagewanted=all&\_r=0](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/19/us/in-150-shootings-the-fbi-deemed-agents-faultless.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) Of course it is possible that each and every one of those shootings was completely justified. But then how can anyone ever know? The FBI make these determinations for themselves. There is no oversight. No accountability. It is hard to believe out of 150+ shooting incidents no one messed up even once. FBI are human and can make human mistakes same as anyone else. It is largely the same for police. > [@](#): > > **Federal Law Ordering US Attorney General To Gather Data On Police Excessive Force Has Been Ignored For 20 Years** > > One of the reasons we don’t have data on police use of excessive force is because compiling this information relies on law enforcement agencies being forthcoming about these incidents. Generally speaking, it takes FOIA requests and lawsuits to obtain any data gathered by individual police departments. This shouldn’t be the case. In fact, as AllGov reports, this lack of data violates a federal law. > > - In 1994, Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Among its provisions was the order that “the Attorney General shall, through appropriate means, acquire data about the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers.” The Justice Department was also required to publish an annual report on the data collected. > > ``` > And…that’s pretty much the last anyone heard of that. The work of collecting the data was shuffled off to the International Association for Chiefs of Police, which made a few efforts at collecting data and put together a report in 2001, but has produced nothing since.* > > ``` > > SOURCE: [Federal Law Ordering US Attorney General To Gather Data On Police Excessive Force Has Been Ignored For 20 Years | Techdirt](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140822/07034228290/federal-law-ordering-us-attorney-general-to-gather-data-police-excessive-force-has-been-ignored-20-years.shtml) In the end there is little to no oversight. “Self-policing” themselves is laughable on the face of it. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2014, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-veteran-cops-perspective-on-using-lethal-force/696418/47 "2014-08-26T18:47:32Z")
> [@MikeF](#): > > Brick - Oh, where to begin? In each and every instance a cop uses force he must articulate the specifics of THAT incident that led him to do so. A generalized “this is a high crime neighborhood” so I was afraid" would never fly in court. Marley already eloquently explained the error in your thinking and logic. The only think I will add is that few if any of these incidents ever make it to a court. > [@MikeF](#): > > There is no standard that allows cops to use lethal force in the face of the risk of minor injury. That’s just plain wrong. The standard is “imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm” or similar wording, depending on the jurisdiction. I never said it was the standard. I was arguing against people who sad that SHOULD BE the standard. Regardless, the wording on most of these standards is so vague that it leads to shootings like Abner Louima, and cops [tasering](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/09/police-taser-great-grandm_n_213218.html) an elderly woman after an argument over a speeding ticket. > [@MikeF](#): > > I do not think the penalty for assault, even on a cop, should be death. I do feel that if a suspect is placing me in fear of death or serious bodily injury and I had a tool guaranteed to stop him instantly, even if it assured his death, I would use it. I put my life and safety above the suspects. I don’t specifically care what you would do. Given the judgement and logic you have exhibited in this thread, I would suspect your judgement on similar issues is poor as well. I care about crafting public policy that results in few injuries and deaths for everyone. I don’t put your safety above the life of a suspect in all cases, and I certainly don’t think society should if it results in worse outcomes for everyone. I certainly understand why you would, but I don’t think we should make laws that allow you, in your role as an officer, to act on those instincts in all cases. > [@MikeF](#): > > Remember, it is HE who made the decision to put me in fear for my life. Let’s put the responsibility where it belongs. Deadly force should be met with deadly force. Its as simple as that. How are you gonna put YOUR reaction on someone else? > [@MikeF](#): > > Sometimes the cop has time. Most times he does not. It takes only a second or so for a suspect to pull a gun and shoot. But that almost never happens statistically speaking. If a cop is walking around thinking any “suspect” who reaches into his pocket is reaching for a gun, then they are making decisions based on a reality that largely does not exist. A reality that is driven by a worst case scenario, and often by ingrained biases and prejudices. > [@MikeF](#): > > As such, the courts allow officers to employ force without waiting to be absolutely certain that there is a threat. As for cops in other nations not needing to use deadly force so often - how many of those nations are awash in handguns? How many of those cops are murdered with firearms every year? Plenty of them have guns everywhere. Besides, you are ignoring that police using guns so often has the effect of criminals using guns more often as well. > [@MikeF](#): > > BTW, I object to your use of the term murder when talking about cops killing unarmed people. Murder has a specific legal definition. First, I was talking about a handful of specific incidents, not every police shooting of an unarmed person. Second, murder also has a general definition which fits most of the cases I am talking about. > [@MikeF](#): > > Back to the “dangerousness” issue, which is a red herring in my view. You don’t ask/task cab drivers or crab fishermen to deal (potentially) with armed violent felons on a daily basis. And yet their jobs are more dangerous. Doesn’t that tell you that dealing with felons, while not pleasant, is not nearly as dangerous as you might imagine? > [@MikeF](#): > > Society as you know it would go on without cabbies and crabbers. The same can’t be said about cops. Sure it can for certain cops. We could go on without a healthy chunk of the cops we have today. No one is arguing for anarchy. We are arguing that cops need to be BETTER. Just because you have a vital job doesn’t preclude society from demanding competence. Society would suffer without farmers, teachers, prison guards, judges, and scientists too, but that doesn’t mean they get a free pass to not act in the public’s interest or break the law. > [@MikeF](#): > > Please cite a case where the cops were beating an unarmed person and claimed they were doing so because their lives were at risk. Do you read at all? My commentary was in response to the comment: > [@](#): > > …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. Which is just a stupid perspective given how these things go down. > [@MikeF](#): > > Cops ARE willing to take what you call minor risks. They do it every time they stop a car or knock on a door or encounter someone on the street. History has shown they take a risk just sitting down to have coffee. What they are not willing to do is place a suspects safety before their own. Nor should they. History HASN’T shown that! That is the entire point. Has such a thing happened? I am sure it has. Just like a whole lot of unlikely things have happened a few times. It doesn’t mean a cop gets credit every time they don a uniform because so scumbag somewhere shot a cop once. It’s self-congratulatory bullshit. I take a risk going outside everyday. I take a risk getting in a car. That’s life. Risks are omnipresent. Taking a slightly greater risk because you voluntarily took a job you are paid fairly well for shouldn’t require people to fellate you once a week and act as though you are doing them a personal favor. Yes, people should generally obey cops, and respect them as human beings, but enough with this notion that cops deserve some special credit for deciding to take the job. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2014, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-veteran-cops-perspective-on-using-lethal-force/696418/48 "2014-08-26T19:11:56Z")
> [@brickbacon](#): > > Regardless, the wording on most of these standards is so vague that it leads to shootings like Abner Louima That was Amadou Diallo. Diallo was shot to death by police because they thought - in the dark, maybe from a distance - that he fit the description of a serial rapist, and they killed him after he took his wallet out of his coat. Louima was the one who was beaten and sodomized with a broom handle in a police station. The main attacker is in the middle of a 30-year prison sentence. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2014, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-veteran-cops-perspective-on-using-lethal-force/696418/49 "2014-08-26T19:17:16Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > That was Amadou Diallo. Diallo was shot to death by police because they thought - in the dark, maybe from a distance - that he fit the description of a serial rapist, and they killed him after he took his wallet out of his coat. Louima was the one who was beaten and sodomized with a broom handle in a police station. The main attacker is in the middle of a 30-year prison sentence. :smack: duh. Thanks for the correction. ---
**Author:** ![Boogly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Boogly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boogly)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2014, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-veteran-cops-perspective-on-using-lethal-force/696418/50 "2014-08-26T20:02:50Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > 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. As this is the point the OP I wonder what **Aceplace57** thinks about this thread after reading some very good posts from both sides. With police reality shows and the internet the public can see some of the challenges and dangers an officer can face. If some of the public doesn’t know it is because they don’t want to know. Of course reality shows and the internet can also show some of the challenges and dangers the public faces when encountering officers. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2014, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-veteran-cops-perspective-on-using-lethal-force/696418/51 "2014-08-26T20:16:20Z")
The purpose of “reality” shows isn’t to show reality or inform the public, and they are about as reliable a source of information as your average episode of _Castle_. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-veteran-cops-perspective-on-using-lethal-force/696418.md?page=2)