# 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:** 202
**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:** [June 22, 2015, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4021 "2015-06-22T19:26:18Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Answer a question, ask a question. > > If the cops had decided not to shoot and the old man shot them instead, would that have been the right choice? This does seem to imply that the best choice is for the cops to shoot first, doesn’t it? It reduces all situations down to a simple “What if so-and-so decides to do me harm? That’s reason enough in my book to shoot first!” ---
**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 22, 2015, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4022 "2015-06-22T19:26:38Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > How about the guy who was shot on camera, [running away from the cops?](http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20150407/PC16/150409468) It doesn’t matter what he was guilty of before he turned and ran away from the cop. That does not justify the cop executing him. That cop is in jail for murder; do you agree he should be convicted and incarcerated for a very long time? What he did prior to that may have justified the cop shooting him. I doubt it, in this particular case, but I don’t know beyond reasonable doubt. So no, on the evidence of just that video, I don’t agree he should be convicted. I expect far more evidence to be provided, and I’ll judge based on that. But just because someone’s running away doesn’t mean they’re not a threat. That’s idiotic. ---
**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 22, 2015, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4023 "2015-06-22T19:30:37Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > This does seem to imply that the best choice is for the cops to shoot first, doesn’t it? It reduces all situations down to a simple “What if so-and-so decides to do me harm? That’s reason enough in my book to shoot first!” If it’s reasonable to think that someone’s about to shoot you then yes, of course you can shoot first. The idea that someone is only allowed to defend themselves _after_ they’ve been shot is fucking stupid. This guy was _pointing a gun at the cops._ He wasn’t a random, innocent member of the public, and had he been shot it would have been a proportionate and reasonable response. You need to have a reasonable belief that someone’s going to harm you _imminently._ In that case, you can defend yourself. Not _must_, not _should_, but _can_, and no-one should criticise you for doing so. Of course, if you have dependants, and choose not to defend yourself and leave them in the shit, you are due for criticism. ---
**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:** [June 22, 2015, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4024 "2015-06-22T19:31:21Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > What he did prior to that may have justified the cop shooting him. I doubt it, in this particular case, but I don’t know beyond reasonable doubt. So no, on the evidence of just that video, I don’t agree he should be convicted. I expect far more evidence to be provided, and I’ll judge based on that. > > But just because someone’s running away doesn’t mean they’re not a threat. That’s idiotic. Anyone not already under arrest is a potential threat, right? Even a guy that is moving _away_ from a cop as fast as possible. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4025 "2015-06-22T19:32:45Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Any time a cop gets shot in the line of duty, it certainly wasn’t an “innocent citizen” who was involved. I never said it was. But until the cop can tell the difference between bad guys and good guys, he has no business discharging his weapon. ---
**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 22, 2015, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4026 "2015-06-22T19:38:03Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Anyone not already under arrest is a potential threat, right? Potential, perhaps, but that’s irrelevant. What matters is whether they’re an _imminent_ threat. > [@](#): > > Even a guy that is moving _away_ from a cop as fast as possible. Yes, even a guy like that. It’s not impossible that he could stop and shoot the cop, and if the cop has reason to believe he’s going to do that, then shoot him. Your point that it may not have been reasonable to believe that in one particular case is irrelevant, and has no bearing on the general issue. ---
**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 22, 2015, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4027 "2015-06-22T19:42:02Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I never said it was. But until the cop can tell the difference between bad guys and good guys, he has no business discharging his weapon. You don’t get to shoot people because they’re “bad guys”. You get to shoot them if you reasonably believe they’re an imminent danger of death or serious injury to you or someone else. Whether they’re a good or bad guy is irrelevant. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4028 "2015-06-22T19:44:22Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > You don’t get to shoot people because they’re “bad guys”. You get to shoot them if you reasonably believe they’re an imminent danger of death or serious injury to you or someone else. Whether they’re a good or bad guy is irrelevant. Then we should hold cops to a standard of strict liability when they are wrong. When it turns out the guy running away was unarmed, the cop should be convicted and go to the penitentiary. Right? ---
**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 22, 2015, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4029 "2015-06-22T19:45:50Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > I never said it was. But until the cop can tell the difference between bad guys and good guys, he has no business discharging his weapon. So no officer is allowed to fire unless he possesses telepathic powers. Check. ---
**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 22, 2015, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4030 "2015-06-22T20:03:22Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Then we should hold cops to a standard of strict liability when they are wrong. When it turns out the guy running away was unarmed, the cop should be convicted and go to the penitentiary. Right? No, wrong. For the reasons I’ve already, repeatedly, explained. Whether he was actually a threat is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the cop was allowed to shoot him. ---
**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 22, 2015, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4031 "2015-06-22T20:04:25Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > So no officer is allowed to fire unless he possesses telepathic powers. Check. That genuinely seems to be what people want. That or they like seeing cops die. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4032 "2015-06-22T20:12:56Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Bullshit. It’s only “controversial” after the fact when they jump the gun and shoot someone without trying any other alternatives first. You don’t find law enforcement professionals criticizing officers who act as these did, which they would do if they actually believed what this approach “gets cops killed”. I was going to argue with you, but then I read the subsequent sixty posts, all devoted to calm agreement about this totally non-controversial example. So I think that discussion settles whether there’s controversy among the ‘amateurs’ I listed. As far as professionals, [here’s an article](http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2008/10/rules-of-engagement-the-state-of-american-law-enforcement-chapter-ten.aspx) from October 2008 Police Magazine discussing rules of engagement, which shows that passionate disagreement does exist about other policies calling for police restraint. In this article, the argument is used repeatedly that policies such as not shooting at moving vehicles, not pursuing suspects without a partner or absent line-of-sight, or not using flashlights as blunt instruments (except in “extreme circumstances”)\* endanger the officers subjected to them\*. Maybe things have changed in the last seven years, and I’d be glad to search for some more recent professional level discourse about ROE, but I’m gonna continue to believe there’s some controversy within the law enforcement field about delayed use of force against armed subjects resisting arrest. Oh, and thanks for your polite disagreement. It’s another shining example of why I so enjoy topical discussions on the SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![Chimera](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8e8cbc/32.png) [@Chimera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chimera)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4033 "2015-06-22T20:22:56Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > That genuinely seems to be what people want. That or they like seeing cops die. Hyperbole much? Or just the same broken logic that means cops can gun down anyone for any reason, even illegal reasons, and it’s ok because their safety comes first? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4034 "2015-06-22T20:36:22Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Whether he was actually a threat is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the cop was allowed to shoot him. That is dangerous thinking, and contrary to public policy. If cops make mistakes, they should be the ones at risk, not the public. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4035 "2015-06-22T20:40:17Z")
[Here’s a more recent article](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/us/police-start-to-reconsider-longstanding-rules-on-using-force.html?_r=0) from NYT which deals more directly with the type of situation in the example. (Might be behind a paywall, I rarely look at the paper so I really don’t know.) I think it supports my belief somewhat, but YMMV, so I’d be glad to hear other opinions. In any case, it does not appear that the type of default approach we’re discussing has anything near universal support within the profession, although I dare to hope I’m seeing it wrong. ---
**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 22, 2015, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4036 "2015-06-22T20:48:49Z")
> [@Chimera](#): > > Hyperbole much? Or just the same broken logic that means cops can gun down anyone for any reason, even illegal reasons, and it’s ok because their safety comes first? No-one’s suggested they can gun people down for illegal reasons. But gunning someone down because you’re legitimately scared they’ll kill or seriously injure you isn’t (or at least, shouldn’t be) illegal. _That’s_ the reason they, and you, can shoot people. ---
**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 22, 2015, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4037 "2015-06-22T20:51:03Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > That is dangerous thinking, and contrary to public policy. If cops make mistakes, they should be the ones at risk, not the public. Not if the mistake was a reasonable one to make. If they’re reckless or negligent, yes, but that’s not what’s being talked about here. We are talking about, for example, someone reaching for what the cops had good reason to believe was a gun. In such a situation, even if it turns out not to be a gun, there’s nothing wrong with the police shooting him. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4038 "2015-06-22T21:03:31Z")
A policeman tries to [shoot a dog, but misses](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/22/cop-shoots-girl-dog_n_7637456.html?utm_hp_ref=crime). ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4039 "2015-06-22T21:04:06Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Not if the mistake was a reasonable one to make. If they’re reckless or negligent, yes, but that’s not what’s being talked about here. We are talking about, for example, someone reaching for what the cops had good reason to believe was a gun. In such a situation, even if it turns out not to be a gun, there’s nothing wrong with the police shooting him. Then there is no way to convict a cop of an illegal shooting, unless he wants to be convicted and confesses. Right? ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [June 22, 2015, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4040 "2015-06-22T21:09:59Z")
> [@Ike\_Witt](#): > > A policeman tries to [shoot a dog, but misses](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/22/cop-shoots-girl-dog_n_7637456.html?utm_hp_ref=crime). In the cop’s defense, both the dog and the 4 year old girl were _coming right at him!_ You can’t expect him to just wait around until he’s bitten. Or licked. Or hugged in the knee. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=201) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=203)