# 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:** 229
**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:** [July 2, 2015, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4561 "2015-07-02T15:57:19Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > It doesn’t matter whether the person shot was violent, it matters whether the cop’s fear of imminent violence was reasonable. In judging if a threat is reasonable, should we err on the side of the safety of cops, or on the side of the safety of citizens? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2015, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4562 "2015-07-02T16:39:56Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > In judging if a threat is reasonable, should we err on the side of the safety of cops, or on the side of the safety of citizens? That’s the crux of the biscuit. Is it a part of the job to protect the citizens? If so, is it acceptable to ask a cop to risk his life to protect citizens. ---
**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:** [July 2, 2015, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4563 "2015-07-02T16:48:15Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > So cops live in fear of young black males, and any movement or perceived movement signals a reasonable fear of an imminent threat. No, it doesn’t. > [@](#): > > And not agreeing demonstrates an eagerness to see all police burned at the stake. No, it doesn’t. ---
**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:** [July 2, 2015, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4564 "2015-07-02T16:54:54Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > In judging if a threat is reasonable, should we err on the side of the safety of cops, or on the side of the safety of citizens? The cop has as much right to defend himself from a perceived threat as anyone else. When defending himself, he is not acting as a cop, but as a person, with the same rights as anyone else. It’s reasonable to expect cops to go into situations which may be dangerous, but it’s not reasonable to expect them not to defend themselves from imminent threats to their life. Indeed, they are provided with weapons and training precisely so they can defend themselves and others from such threats. Cops _are_ citizens, and are acting as such when they defend themselves, or defend others, from imminent death or serious injury. No-one, as far as I know, is arguing that cops should have more right to self defence than anyone else. It is reasonable, given that their job involves dealing with violent people on a regular basis, that they will need to defend themselves more often than many other people. ---
**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:** [July 2, 2015, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4565 "2015-07-02T16:56:25Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > The cop has as much right to defend himself from a perceived threat as anyone else. When defending himself, he is not acting as a cop, but as a person, with the same rights as anyone else. That’s all very interesting, but it doesn’t answer my question. ---
**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:** [July 2, 2015, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4566 "2015-07-02T16:58:01Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Both matter as societal problems – police should extend every effort to _not shoot_ non-violent people, and I don’t believe they are extending enough effort in many cases. Should they be required to make more effort not to shoot non-violent people than anyone else would have to? If so, why? The standard is already that they have to be in reasonable fear of imminent death or serious injury. What higher standard would you impose on them? ---
**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:** [July 2, 2015, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4567 "2015-07-02T17:01:54Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > That’s all very interesting, but it doesn’t answer my question. Actually, it kinda does. Cops _are_ citizens, so the question is unanswerable as it stands, short of just replying “no”. I tried to explain why that is. If it were legal for cops to shoot citizens in circumstances other than self defence or the defence of others, you would have a valid point. But they don’t, they can shoot only when any other citizen could shoot. We should err on the side of the person being attacked (or who reasonably perceives that they are), not the attacker - whether that person is a cop or not. ---
**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:** [July 2, 2015, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4568 "2015-07-02T17:04:59Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Should they be required to make more effort not to shoot non-violent people than anyone else would have to? If so, why? The standard is already that they have to be in reasonable fear of imminent death or serious injury. What higher standard would you impose on them? In general, yes (in my opinion) because they are trained on when to shoot and when not to shoot people. With such training they should be held to a higher standard of when it’s “reasonable” to shoot someone. In my mind there are situations in which an untrained civilian might have a fear that would be reasonable, but a trained cop would not. Similar to the legal perspective that a trained boxer must sometimes show greater restraint in a fistfight because they are much more capable of inflicting deadly force with their fists than an untrained person. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2015, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4569 "2015-07-02T17:24:12Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > In judging if a threat is reasonable, should we err on the side of the safety of cops, or on the side of the safety of citizens? (underline added) “WE” created police forces to protect the citizenry. “WE” created laws that empowered police to detect, detain, arrest, and even forcibly arrest persons who violate, and allegedly violate, the laws within their jurisdictions. “WE” can judge if a threat was an imminent threat, after the fact. “WE” can judge if it was reasonable to assume that an alleged imminent threat was actually an imminent threat, after the fact. “WE” must not deny a LEO the same reasonable assumption of imminent threat that every other person has. “WE” should not expect/demand that LEO’s be punched, stabbed, shot, or murdered before they can reasonably assume they are in imminent danger. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2015, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4570 "2015-07-02T17:38:45Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > It’s reasonable to expect cops to go into situations which may be dangerous, but it’s not reasonable to expect them not to defend themselves from imminent threats to their life. Indeed, they are provided with weapons and training precisely so they can defend themselves and others from such threats. The question is about making the judgements distinguishing between the two situations–dangerous and imminent threat. You are discussing what is to happen after that determination has already been made. Why shouldn’t someone who duty is to deal with dangerous situations not be expected to analyze situations differently than Joe Schmoe does? Joe Schmoe should exercise the necessary caution of an untrained individual while a trained professional should be expected to react based upon the additional duties he has taken on himself when he is analyzing a situation. > [@Steophan](#): > > The standard is already that they have to be in reasonable fear of imminent death or serious injury. What higher standard would you impose on them? There should be an affirmative duty to not create life or death situations–e.g. rolling right up next to Tamir a gunman and jumping out of the vehicle. ---
**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:** [July 2, 2015, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4571 "2015-07-02T17:39:57Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > No, it doesn’t. > > No, it doesn’t. Your argument is a jigsaw puzzle that when solved shows a picture you claim to dislike. ---
**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:** [July 2, 2015, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4572 "2015-07-02T18:13:17Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Your argument is a jigsaw puzzle that when solved shows a picture you claim to dislike. Not even slightly. You are simply falsely claiming that maintaining the current laws, where police can defend themselves against imminent threats, will somehow lead to every black person being shot - despite the fact that, not only is that not happening now, it never happened in the past when cops, and everyone else, would have had a _much_ easier time getting away with doing so illegally. ---
**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:** [July 2, 2015, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4573 "2015-07-02T18:17:24Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > Is it a part of the job to protect the citizens? > If so, is it acceptable to ask a cop to risk his life to protect citizens. If citizens have an inherent right to protect their own lives, then you’re essentially saying that a person’s employer can require them to forfeit their human rights as a condition of taking a job. ---
**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:** [July 2, 2015, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4574 "2015-07-02T18:19:02Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Not even slightly. You are simply falsely claiming that maintaining the current laws, where police can defend themselves against imminent threats, will somehow lead to every black person being shot - despite the fact that, not only is that not happening now, it never happened in the past when cops, and everyone else, would have had a _much_ easier time getting away with doing so illegally. Oh, I’m not making any such claim. I’m describing the logical end result of what _you’re_ claiming. Well, and what Smapti’s claiming, too; you hardly deserve sole credit. ---
**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:** [July 2, 2015, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4575 "2015-07-02T18:20:04Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > In general, yes (in my opinion) because they are trained on when to shoot and when not to shoot people. With such training they should be held to a higher standard of when it’s “reasonable” to shoot someone. In my mind there are situations in which an untrained civilian might have a fear that would be reasonable, but a trained cop would not. The standard is not whether a trained person, or an ignorant person, or whatever, would feel fear, it’s whether a reasonable person would. If you reasonably fear someone is an imminent threat to your life, you can shoot them. No matter whether you’re a cop or a civilian. You’re right that they are trained when to shoot people - they are trained to shoot them when they are an imminent threat. > [@](#): > > Similar to the legal perspective that a trained boxer must sometimes show greater restraint in a fistfight because they are much more capable of inflicting deadly force with their fists than an untrained person. That would only matter if the fistfight was illegal in the first place. If someone attacked the boxer, and he defended using his fists, it wouldn’t - if the attack put him in enough reasonable fear. Now, if you want to argue that cops should know better than others when it’s legal to shoot someone, and therefore those that break that law should be punished more harshly, I could at least understand that argument. But you are arguing that even if they are in a situation that would put a reasonable person in fear of imminent death, there are times they should not be allowed to defend themselves. I entirely reject that. ---
**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:** [July 2, 2015, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4576 "2015-07-02T18:22:25Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Oh, I’m not making any such claim. I’m describing the logical end result of what _you’re_ claiming. No, you are not. You are making something up that has nothing to do with our arguments, based on an intentional refusal to understand the meaning of the word “imminent”, among other things. It doesn’t matter how fearful someone is, if what they fear isn’t imminent injury or death, they can’t use lethal force in self defence. ---
**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:** [July 2, 2015, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4577 "2015-07-02T18:41:10Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > No, you are not. You are making something up that has nothing to do with our arguments, based on an intentional refusal to understand the meaning of the word “imminent”, among other things. > > It doesn’t matter how fearful someone is, if what they fear isn’t imminent injury or death, they can’t use lethal force in self defence. I know what “imminent” means, it’s just not useful if the standard for it is so low that a slight hand movement (if it happens) generates a free-fire zone. And wait a tick, you’re saying there are circumstances where someone can’t use lethal force in self defense? Interesting, in light of: > [@Steophan earlier this month](#): > > 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. So a cop can decide that an imminent threat is manifested in a perceived hand movement (or at least he can later claim he perceived a hand movement) and the idea that he should hesitate to resort to deadly force in response is fucking ridiculous. ---
**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:** [July 2, 2015, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4578 "2015-07-02T18:49:06Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > The standard is not whether a trained person, or an ignorant person, or whatever, would feel fear, it’s whether a reasonable person would. If you reasonably fear someone is an imminent threat to your life, you can shoot them. No matter whether you’re a cop or a civilian. You’re right that they are trained when to shoot people - they are trained to shoot them when they are an imminent threat. It’s probably just as valuable to train someone to not to bring the threat themselves. Heck, this is somewhat akin to putting on a suicide vest lined with explosives that might or might not go off if someone bumps into you. As a result, every passing pedestrian poses an imminent threat and through the simple logic of self-defense, you have the right to end that threat with lethal force. The lesson should be: don’t wear explosives and don’t jump out of cars with weapons drawn without some degree of forethought. ---
**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:** [July 2, 2015, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4579 "2015-07-02T18:53:28Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > The standard is not whether a trained person, or an ignorant person, or whatever, would feel fear, it’s whether a reasonable person would. If you reasonably fear someone is an imminent threat to your life, you can shoot them. No matter whether you’re a cop or a civilian. You’re right that they are trained when to shoot people - they are trained to shoot them when they are an imminent threat. And, in my view, there are things that would cause a “reasonable civilian” to feel fear that wouldn’t cause a “reasonable trained police officer” to feel fear, but I’m not sure if the law agrees with me. In any case, from the Rice case, I agree with Judge Adrine that the shooter (whether judged as a cop or civilian) should be charged, and that the video does not show any legitimate cause of “reasonable fear”. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2015, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/4580 "2015-07-02T18:58:05Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > In any case, from the Rice case, I agree with Judge Adrine that the shooter (whether judged as a cop or civilian) should be charged, and that the video does not show any legitimate cause of “reasonable fear”. I also agree with the learned and able jurist. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=228) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=230)