I often hear that pepper spray/tasers aren’t always effective. Are there any studies? I tried to suss one out but was unsuccessful.
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.
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?
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.
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: 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.
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.
The following is for the FBI but gives you an idea:
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.
In the end there is little to no oversight. “Self-policing” themselves is laughable on the face of it.
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.
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 an elderly woman after an argument over a speeding ticket.
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.
How are you gonna put YOUR reaction on someone else?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Do you read at all? My commentary was in response to the comment:
Which is just a stupid perspective given how these things go down.
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.
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.
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.
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.