# Controversial encounters between law-enforcement and civilians - the omnibus thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 10, 2014, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942 "2014-10-10T07:35:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 193
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3841 "2015-06-19T15:37:16Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > The idea that the police can’t use lethal force to defend themselves or others without first trying something else and warning the person who is an imminent danger to either the police or the public is fucking ridiculous. If it was, police would be justified in shooting everybody on the scene preemptively. That’s the result of letting police decide unilaterally when someone poses an imminent danger and subsequently are justified in defending themselves with lethal force. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3842 "2015-06-19T15:43:54Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > If it was, police would be justified in shooting everybody on the scene preemptively. That’s the result of letting police decide unilaterally when someone poses an imminent danger and subsequently are justified in defending themselves with lethal force. No, they wouldn’t, any more than you can go and shoot everyone you see because they might be a danger. It’s ridiculous to suggest that the police should have less right to self defence than anyone else. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3843 "2015-06-19T15:52:50Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Comparing illegal vigilante justice to supposed “mistreatment” that’s completely legal and has nothing to do with race entirely undermines your entire argument. Many lynchings were supported by police and de-facto legal. In fact, many southern states even instituted laws that made it easier to get away with lynchings. There is absolutely a direct line from slavery to Jim Crow, lynchings, segregation, and modern mistreatment by police (which is often technically illegal in any case, even if it’s sometimes not treated as such). > [@](#): > > The police are entitled to, and sometimes required to, use force to deal with criminals. Criminals can prevent that by not running from or resisting the police, or otherwise making it necessary for force to be used on them - and remember, the minute you run from the police or resist them, you become a criminal, even if you were innocent to begin with. All of this is totally irrelevant to what I’m saying and to the issue of police mistreatment of black people in general. > [@](#): > > There are many claims made that innocent people are being harassed by the police because of their race, and I’m sure some of them are true. But most of them fall apart under investigation. It’s not harassment or mistreatment when the police stop someone who’s car is illegal, regardless of their race. Neither are the police doing anything wrong by arresting someone who has multiple warrants out on them, and if someone feels they can’t call the cops because of those warrants, well they should have thought of that before they decided not to bother paying fines or showing up to court. This can absolutely be harassment and mistreatment if they are being disproportionately applied to one race. The same goes for issuing fines and court summons – if they are disproportionately issued and applied to individuals of one race it is mistreatment. > [@](#): > > Your repeated claims that black people aren’t responsible for their own actions when they meet the police, I’ve never made this claim. > [@](#): > > that they can’t control their fear or anger, or that they aren’t to blame for their own criminality, is uncomfortably close to the rhetoric used by white supremacists - and it’s racist bullshit when they use it, and it’s bullshit when you use it. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you’ve not actually thought through what you’re saying though. I’ve never made such claims. > [@](#): > > Black people are not incapable of treating the police with civility and respect, and nor are they incapable of getting by without breaking the law. When they don’t do those things, they are (at least in part) responsible for the consequences. So is everyone else, of course, but you’re not trying to give them a pass. I’ve never made such claims. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3844 "2015-06-19T16:02:01Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > No, they wouldn’t, any more than you can go and shoot everyone you see because they might be a danger. It’s ridiculous to suggest that the police should have less right to self defence than anyone else. I’m not aware that “anyone else” has the right to do what you’re arguing police should have the right to do. If they did: A shoots B. A claims that B posed an imminent danger to A. A maintains that A had no obligation to employ any response other than lethal force, says any suggestion that A should have considered other options is “fucking ridiculous”. At best, we can later examine the circumstances to try to judge whether or not A’s claim is reasonable. We don’t have to (indeed, could not) prove A is lying, but if we just decide to give A the benefit of the doubt then not guilty, case closed. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3845 "2015-06-19T16:05:58Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You don’t get to shoot kids who take a swing at you either. Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight. If you are a clear and present threat to my safety, I am under no moral or legal obligation to chivalrously offer you a fair test of strength; I may defend myself by any means of which I am possessed. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3846 "2015-06-19T16:07:47Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > That’s the result of letting police decide unilaterally when someone poses an imminent danger and subsequently are justified in defending themselves with lethal force. Do human beings have the right to self-defense or not? If yes, then do police have _less_ of a right to self-defense than other human beings, and by what process have they been divested of this right? ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3847 "2015-06-19T16:11:33Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Don’t bring a knife to a gunfight. More people carrying firearms to defend themselves from badged thugs is not the solution. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3848 "2015-06-19T16:13:05Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Do human beings have the right to self-defense or not? It’s not the issue of self-defense that is key - it’s the right to instantly resort to lethal force. Of course, if you’re suggesting that ANY circumstance of self-defense (or perceived cases of self-defense) carries the right to instantly resort to lethal force, then you’re even more foolish than I thought, and I’ve already called you an idiot which is a label I reserve for the particularly foolish. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3849 "2015-06-19T16:14:47Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > More people carrying firearms to defend themselves from badged thugs is not the solution. If your mindset is that the police are people you need to be armed to defend yourself from, then you’re part of the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3850 "2015-06-19T16:15:56Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Of course, if you’re suggesting that ANY circumstance of self-defense (or perceived cases of self-defense) carries the right to instantly resort to lethal force… You seem to be the only person in this thread making that claim. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3851 "2015-06-19T16:25:08Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > You seem to be the only person in this thread making that claim. What about the person who said this: > [@](#): > > The idea that the police can’t use lethal force to defend themselves or others without first trying something else and warning the person who is an imminent danger to either the police or the public is fucking ridiculous. This person says the very IDEA that police can’t use lethal force first is fucking ridiculous. Of course that person had the foresight to specify “imminent danger”, which is understandable, except that “imminent danger” is in the eye of the beholder. Someone reaching for his pocket? He might have a weapon - imminent danger. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3852 "2015-06-19T16:26:05Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > If your mindset is that the police are people you need to be armed to defend yourself from, then you’re part of the problem. Tell that to the people who have been improperly killed by police. Oh, wait a minute, you can’t tell them, 'cause they’re dead. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3853 "2015-06-19T16:44:55Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > This person says the very IDEA that police can’t use lethal force first is fucking ridiculous. Which it _is_. Using lethal force first is a tactical decision that sometimes has to be made depending on circumstances - an officer who has no backup and is being charged by an assailant with potentially murderous intent can’t afford to take the chance that his Taser may misfire or fail to get a connection, a suspect who’s on drugs or mentally ill may not respond to Tasing or pepper spray, unarmed combat may be too risky for the officer to attempt. To say that someone is _never_ allowed to shoot first is to declare that a person being attacked has the obligation to die if their attacker wishes them to. > [@](#): > > Of course that person had the foresight to specify “imminent danger”, which is understandable, except that “imminent danger” is in the eye of the beholder. Who’s eye _should_ it be in? A cop on the scene doesn’t have the luxury of pausing and replaying a video over and over again and Monday-morning quarterbacking about what the suspect had been going through in his life that morning or what the state of affairs with police-civilian relations in the community may be. He has to make a life-or-death decision in a matter of seconds. > [@](#): > > Someone reaching for his pocket? He might have a weapon - imminent danger. If he’s wrong and the person wasn’t reaching for a gun, the consequences for him will be much less severe than if he’s wrong and the person _was_ reaching for a gun. Why should the person being attacked be obligated to value his attacker’s life more highly than his own? ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3854 "2015-06-19T16:46:02Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Tell that to the people who have been improperly killed by police. Oh, wait a minute, you can’t tell them, 'cause they’re dead. Of course, if those people had heeded your advice and tried to “defend themselves” against the police, then there wouldn’t _be_ any “improper killings”, because they’d _all_ have been justifiable self-defense. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3855 "2015-06-19T16:59:47Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Which it _is_. Using lethal force first is a tactical decision that sometimes has to be made depending on circumstances - an officer who has no backup and is being charged by an assailant with potentially murderous intent can’t afford to take the chance that his Taser may misfire or fail to get a connection, a suspect who’s on drugs or mentally ill may not respond to Tasing or pepper spray, unarmed combat may be too risky for the officer to attempt. To say that someone is _never_ allowed to shoot first is to declare that a person being attacked has the obligation to die if their attacker wishes them to. So because of the worst-case-scenario, the very IDEA of considering other options before going lethal is “fucking ridiculous”? > [@](#): > > Who’s eye _should_ it be in? A cop on the scene doesn’t have the luxury of pausing and replaying a video over and over again and Monday-morning quarterbacking about what the suspect had been going through in his life that morning or what the state of affairs with police-civilian relations in the community may be. He has to make a life-or-death decision in a matter of seconds. Not always and not even really all that often. > [@](#): > > If he’s wrong and the person wasn’t reaching for a gun, the consequences for him will be much less severe than if he’s wrong and the person _was_ reaching for a gun. It’s a rational concern that the consequences for bad decisions, indeed obviously foolish decisions, isn’t severe at _all_. > [@](#): > > Why should the person being attacked be obligated to value his attacker’s life more highly than his own? My concern is with circumstances where the person is _not_ being attacked, even cases where the police officer is the attacker and later declares that anything other than instant silly-putty compliance constitutes a counter-attack and it is “fucking ridiculous” that the officer need hesitate before resorting to lethal force. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3856 "2015-06-19T17:17:17Z")
When in imminent danger of death or serious injury, to yourself or someone else, then yes, the idea of stopping to consider whether a lesser use of force would work is silly, and the idea that someone _must_ do so is absurd. Do you actually know what “imminent” means? It means, quite specifically, that _there is no time_ for the careful reflection you seem to want. When _anyone_ is in imminent danger of death or serious injury (except where their own criminal actions put them in that position) they have the right to use lethal force to defend themselves. Same for defending someone else. It’s not a matter of who decides that it’s imminent in terms of the basic right, but in law it should be a reasonable person test. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3857 "2015-06-19T17:19:40Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > My concern is with circumstances where the person is _not_ being attacked, even cases where the police officer is the attacker and later declares that anything other than instant silly-putty compliance constitutes a counter-attack and it is “fucking ridiculous” that the officer need hesitate before resorting to lethal force. That’s a lovely straw man you have there. Not every instance of non-compliance allows for the use of lethal force. Just, to pick an example, when someone has been told to freeze and instead reaches for a gun. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3858 "2015-06-19T17:26:38Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > That’s a lovely straw man you have there. So… you’re saying what I described never happens, or perhaps is so rare as to be negligible? > [@](#): > > Not every instance of non-compliance allows for the use of lethal force. Just, to pick an example, when someone has been told to freeze and instead reaches for a gun. The problem is when any hand movement constitutes a “reach” and when a gun is presumed present by default. By that standard, what I facetiously described earlier ( police shooting everybody on the scene preemptively) is perfectly justifiable and you’ve made my straw man real. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3859 "2015-06-19T17:28:01Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Do you actually know what “imminent” means? Apparently it means whatever a police officer decides in the moment. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2015, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/3860 "2015-06-19T17:30:32Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Many lynchings were supported by police and de-facto legal. In fact, many southern states even instituted laws that made it easier to get away with lynchings. There is absolutely a direct line from slavery to Jim Crow, lynchings, segregation, and modern mistreatment by police (which is often technically illegal in any case, even if it’s sometimes not treated as such). Yes. A direct line of things getting much, much better. > [@](#): > > This can absolutely be harassment and mistreatment if they are being disproportionately applied to one race. The same goes for issuing fines and court summons – if they are disproportionately issued and applied to individuals of one race it is mistreatment. Only if they are deliberately and intentionally issued because of race. Otherwise it’s simply criminals being punished for their crimes, according to the law. The law, don’t forget, which they voted for, it having been illegal for the last 50 years to prevent people form voting based on race. > [@](#): > > I’ve never made this claim. > > I’ve never made such claims. > > I’ve never made such claims. Yes you have :- > [@](#): > > ``` > Further -- in an environment in which black people are actually mistreated, sometimes but not all the time, by the police, it makes it constitutionally more difficult and challenging on the part of black people to behave in a way that maximizes their safety around police. It means that despite the fact that you have legitimate and real reasons to feel fear and to behave in a way that reflects this rational fear, if you act in such a way you might be more severely injured or killed. This feeds on itself over and over again -- the fact of some mistreatment will increase fear and anxiety on the part of black people, this fear and anxiety (based on legitimate and rational reasons) adds to the fear and anxiety of police officers, this fear and anxiety from both parties increases the chance that someone will act in a violent way based on this fear and anxiety. > > ``` You are acknowledging that some black people’s behaviour when in contact with the police will increase the chance of a confrontation, but you also say that _only_ the police can and should change the way they behave. You are making black people out to be passive victims rather than active participants, which is both false and insulting. Now I doubt it’s what you actually mean to say, but as I said, it’s extremely close to white supremacist bullshit like " blacks can’t help being stupid and criminal". You damage your whole argument by saying things like that, and rather than simply saying you’ve made no such claim you should perhaps explain better what you actually mean. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=192) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=194)