No shit, Sherlock. Read up on False Dilemma. Of course their bad behavior must not be tolerated.
You’d ignore trying to identify and fix the problems in the system, in favor of going after individuals?
Wait, why am I asking? Of course you would - it’s the American way. You guys would always rather blame people than fix things.
Uh, I have a lot of Palestinian friends who eagerly await your country ‘fixing things.’
Fair enough. I apologize for my snark.
That said, you guys really should focus more on systems than on individuals. When a cop turns out to be a psychopath, or incometant, you should punish them, absolutely - but more importantly, you should ask, how were they hired in the first place? What training did they receive? Who was supervising them? What procedures were in place, were they followed, and if not, why not? Putting a killer behind bars may achieve justice, but answering questions like the ones I asked above will prevent further crimes, and prevention is more important than justice.
We do that every decade or so, huge reports with charts and recommendations and everything. Then we move forward with the status quo.
CMC fnord!
Both are necessary, but you’re absolutely right that there is a clear problem with who is hired as police and how they are trained. I read an article in Guns & Ammo magazine a couple of months ago where the columnist (former soldier) convincingly argued that police are not receiving proper firearms training. He said he was taught (in the Army) to shoot much slower and deliberately than how police are trained. He argued that under stress a person cannot process shots fired any quicker than about 0.8 seconds apart. According to him, police are not trained to slow down their rate of fire to maintain their accuracy and evaluate what is happening before firing again.
Now, I don’t know how true his words are (perhaps some soldiers and police can chime in regarding training), but it seems apparent that police do indeed shoot too soon, too fast, too often and not accurately enough. The switch from 6-shot revolvers to semi-auto pistols that hold 15 to 19 rounds is also a factor, no doubt.
Beyond accuracy and firing rate, a big change that is needed in training is how to avoid shooting people in the first place. The latest situation with the cop who was just convicted of shooting the guy in his own apartment is illustrative. If she thought someone was in her apartment, why didn’t she take cover outside (she was already outside) and call on-duty police to come investigate rather than rush in guns blaring? Perhaps waiting a few seconds to call on her phone (which she obviously had with her) would have cleared her mind enough to realize it wasn’t her apartment after all.
Beyond firearms, why isn’t there significant and ongoing training on how to deescalate situations, rather than escalate trouble?
On this, we completely agree. Our problem with policing is part of a very deep and very broad systemic problem. It is more of a symptom than a cause.
Yes. get rid of them AND fix the system. Thinking is so fucking hard, innit.
They knew it was someone who was breaking into cars, who fled the police and then pointed something at them that appeared to be a gun. The part about his rap sheet came out later.
The point being that people who are spotted breaking into cars tend to be more dangerous than the general public, and tend to have rap sheets longer than a whale’s foreskin. It is dangerous to arrest such people, although they need to be arrested. So when such a person runs away, and then turns and points something at the police, the police are in greater danger than in other situations, and it is understandable - indeed, almost unavoidable - that they are going to fire more readily than if the suspect behaves like a normal citizen. Because they are often not a normal citizen, as in this case. He was seeking drugs, and on the run from the law. Color me astonished - criminals behave like criminals.
Whether or not they should have shot is a different question than ‘did they shoot too much?’
Would you be more at peace if the police had only hit him twice? Would it have been better if the police officer who was behind Clark and to the side didn’t shoot at all, and left it only to the cop in front to fire? Is the problem that the police didn’t stop instantly when Clark fell? Would you be more at peace if they only shot 19 times, and didn’t hit him at all when he was on the ground? Should the standard be that police should be criminally liable for firing the instant a suspect hits the ground? Should they go to prison if they don’t stop on a dime, and wait to see if he still shoots back?
It is a point I have made in the past - it seems that the SDMB in general wants something that Oliver Wendell Holmes has already stated is essentially impossible - “detached reflection in the face of an uplifted knife”, or in this case, a possible uplifted gun. If that is the standard - you can only be a cop, and you will be dismissed in disgrace and/or sent to prison, if you cannot demonstrate superhuman coolness under apparent threat of death. You must carefully count your shots, and be sure not to shoot someone except in Approved Places, or you will go to prison.
That is not a practical standard, and if it is applied, either de facto or de jure, you will not have enough cops to fill a squad car.
Gee - some nasty criminal, on the run from the law for attacking his girlfriend (again), is smashing windows. He runs from the cops, and then points what could well be a deadly weapon at someone (again - Clark had a previous conviction for, you guessed it, assault with a deadly weapon) at the cops.
And all the tut-tutting and virtue signalling and “Amerikkka sux” is aimed at the cops for shooting him. And not even a fucking whisper that, just maybe, it isn’t such a good idea to beat up the mother of your children, or break into cars, or run away when the cops confront you, or threaten them.
But no no no - the issue isn’t that Clark is too fucking stupid to know how to behave when the police are making a perfectly legitimate and justified arrest. It isn’t even that he’s too fucking stupid to know that there is no app on your phone that goes “Bang” or makes the police go away. It’s that the police can’t tell what he had in his hand on a half-second notice, in the dark, and where the consequence of guessing wrong is you get shot.
Uh huh.
Regards,
Shodan
At some level I suppose it comes down to how much is a police officer’s life worth as compared to other members of the public.
When police are trained that when in doubt, shoot just to be on the safe side they are effectively putting their safety ahead of that of the public. Effectively using that person as a human shield to protect themselves. Currently in the United states the police shoot to death about 20 people for every poilce officer shot to death. This is a much higher ratio than other countries.
I don’t think that officers shouldn’t be able to use deadly force, but it should only be done when the officer is pretty damn sure his life is in danger, not just when he thinks it might be.
The impossibility of this would be more believable if there weren’t ample videos of men with easily identifiable guns in broad daylight confronted by police who manage not to shoot the guy. So yeah, it can be done.
And the incident that really turned me from your way of thinking - the one in Miami where the unarmed black guy, laying on the street with his hands in the air screaming “don’t shoot me” somehow got shot. Because the cop was afraid of a whole other white guy. In your realm of “impossibility”, you honestly can say that there was absolutely nothing at all that the cop could have done beside “shoot the unarmed black guy”?
And Tamir Rice. Cops pulled up and immediately shot him. In your world of “impossibility” there was nothing, absolutely nothing at all, that they could have done besides “scream up to the playground and immediately shoot him”?
Please :rolleyes:
Actually, I would, and I will tell you why.
Shooting so many times seems to display a callous disregard for life. And to shoot him in the back and then while he was on the ground seems much less like self defense and much more like they wanted him to die. Or shooting in a blind panic.
Not that shooting that many times would be a record or anything. I don’t know if it would make the top 10 in this thread.
Not quite. How much is the life of, not only police, but the general public worth?
Police are not trained “that when in doubt, shoot just to be on the safe side”.
Look at the Washington Post’s database of police shootings. in 2019, so far there have been 678 people shot by police. More of them are white than any other race. More than half - 381 - had guns. Real guns - 17 others had toy weapons. 121 of them had knives. 44 were using a vehicle as a weapon. 38 had other weapons. 33 were unarmed. So, the overwhelmingly vast majority - 86% - were armed. Almost nine times out of ten, the police were shooting someone who was armed. And a very small minority of the time, they shot someone they thought was armed.
Is the nine times out of ten where he actually has the gun, or the knife, or the club, or is trying to run you or somebody else down - “pretty damn sure”?
Regards,
Shodan
Check out this story from USA TODAY: Video shows man with disability slammed by cop
A police report left out details of a disabled man’s beating and noted no audio. But the incident was audible on videos the Free Press reviewed.
Sorry, there is absolutely nothing else the cops could have done once they identified that the cane was a weapon. You don’t want cops getting bruises do you?
She wasn’t getting her medication. She had been vomiting for hours, and for that she gets locked in to solitary for 6 hours.
Great quote, Miss Notta Doctor. Maybe if you took her to ER after the first hour of vomiting, more that 7 hours before, she would have stood a chance.
We can be sure of one thing. The cost to take her to the ER and have her treated will pale in comparison to the legal bills for fighting the lawsuit. Exponentially so if the county loses the suit.
I am not a firearms instructor but I will say this - comparing what the military does with what police do does not always make sense. The average police shooting is at a distance of somewhere around 6-10 feet. Military firefights are generally, at much much longer distances. Police gunfights are sudden and unplanned. While ambushes are not uncommon in the military world, neither are planned assaults. Combat units know they are likely to engage in gunfights. That’s why they are there. When the need (or the reasonably perceived need) for deadly force arises in sudden, close contact, there is no time to evaluate after a shot or two. You keep shooting until the threat is stopped. I’d be willing to bet our soldiers and Marines clearing houses in the mid-east fire as fast as they can when in close quarters combat.
I’m not sure what you mean by shooting “too soon”. Does that mean you believe that they should confirm that the person is pulling a gun and not a phone in a dark alley after resisting and being non-compliant? “Too often”? As I said, in close quarters combat pausing for even a second can cost you your life. A person fatally shot through the heart doesn’t necessarily drop like a sack of potatoes and can continue to be a threat for up to 30 seconds.
I agree that accuracy is a problem but, under fire, the body goes through a series of physiological changes that can impact accuracy. Accuracy tends to increase with distance up to a point. But up close, its “give it all you got” time and accuracy goes down. The bad guy is probably moving and, hopefully, you are moving, too. Hitting a moving target while you are moving is no easy task. Try it on a range where nothing is at stake.
Unless you have been in a life or death struggle with another person or, as I have, spoken at length with people who have, you probably have no idea what actually goes on. TV has trained most people to think that shooting the gun out of someone’s hand or shooting them in the leg is a trivial matter. Or that when someone is shot, they go flying across the room with blood spraying everywhere. Its nothing like that.
There are some disturbing elements to the story, but it’s pretty clear Mr. Spicer was drunk off his ass - likely self-medicating his nerve damage - so his actions with the cane might have been less than controlled.
Perhaps, but I find it difficult to believe that a guy with a cane in a car poses that much of a threat to a cop standing outside of the car.
To be clear, I would have no problem with the cop tasing the guy. I look forward to the day when “phasors set to stun” are invented.