"Do not fire unless fired upon first" - suitable for policing?

[JRDelirious]

The proposal in the OP of giving the other side the first shot is silly. So is the notion of not using a ranged weapon if someone whith a blunt or cutting instrument is merely over 20 feet away. Make it 20 meters and *maybe *we’re talking, then if you *are *in a position to take the person down with a less-lethal instrument, by all means do so as your first choice.

But I’m not going to demand a suicide pact. Dude with something that looks to a reasonable observer as a weapon, brandishes it around, points it at you? Do what it takes.

@rock_party

Have they determined if the suspect is unarmed? If the suspect is resisting a pat down and won’t let it be determined if he’s armed or not, then yes, he goes down.

ETA: OK, now you are just being utterly ridiculous that even a traffic stop should involve putting the person on the ground, and that even being less than cooperative during a common Terry Stop should contain the risk of being shot to death.

You did not answer the question as to whether he’s squirming because he has been hit with the Taser. I should hope that when someone is on the ground having been zapped or gotten a faceful of chemical, the arresting agents do not feel they have to immediately apply deadly force if he so much as coughs the wrong way. “I told him to put his hands on the back of his head, Sarge!”“Mullaney, he just got teargassed, Tased, and took a beanbag round to the nuts, I don’t think he was hearing you.”

As was discussed in another thread, statutes and cases along the 20th century have essentially established that there is NO individual right to resist arrest no matter what. And a lot of laypeople have no idea what the threshold is for “resisting”, they think it has to go all the way to exchanging punches.

The rise in the level of armed violent crime during the 70s and 80s in turn led to the adoption by LEOs of a policy of rapid escalation, because in our societies people are a risk to reach for something - concealed firearm, concealed knife. So do anything other than total compliance and you may get quickly maced, chokeheld, thrown to the ground and piled on before you can reach for anything.

HOWEVER - THAT is not the same thing as being shot on the spot if you even so much as twitch the wrong way during a common Terry Stop. That is not the ROE of most police forces, either. You are advocating turning them from community police into occupation army.

Given these advisories, the police really should not feel insulted if public figures say “I have to warn my son to be very careful around police”.

[Ravenman]

@drachillix

A patdown is not normally part of a traffic stop. I am pretty sure he is referring to situations where you are being taken into custody.

Even though he clarified that he does want all traffic stops to be handled as though every driver is an insane suicidal terrorist, I’m pretty sure that his viewpoint has nothing to do with Terry stops, what reasonable suspicion is, etc.

I’ll bet you anything that his view is just a big “F.U.” with little in the way of legal reasoning, in the spirit of: “So you clueless barbaric Americans want your guns, eh? Well if SOME you want them so bad, ALL of you should be forced to be treated like suspected traitors in North Korea! How do you like them gun rights now, LAME-Os?!?!?!”

[Scumpup]

@Ravenman

Even though he clarified that he does want all traffic stops to be handled as though every driver is an insane suicidal terrorist, I’m pretty sure that his viewpoint has nothing to do with Terry stops, what reasonable suspicion is, etc.

I’ll bet you anything that his view is just a big “F.U.” with little in the way of legal reasoning, in the spirit of: “So you clueless barbaric Americans want your guns, eh? Well if SOME you want them so bad, ALL of you should be forced to be treated like suspected traitors in North Korea! How do you like them gun rights now, LAME-Os?!?!?!”

I like the cut of your jib.

[DrCube]

@rock_party

Yet a cop stops someone and they’re supposed to conclude this person is unarmed until they pull out a weapon. That’s ridiculous. In our armed society, everyone should be presumed armed by police. And thus, it is up to them, the suspect, to comply with police during a stop and prove they’re not armed and not a threat. Anything less is asking for police to take on an unnecessary risk.

No one has to conclude anyone is unarmed. Unless they are threatening you though, you have to conclude they aren’t threatening you. Having access to a weapon does not make them a threat. Carrying a weapon does not make them a threat. Threatening someone with a weapon makes them a threat. Shooting people who aren’t a threat is murder, whether they are armed or not. Don’t advocate or defend murder please.

[rock_party]

That we’re an armed society is a done deal. At this point there’s no going back and there’s only going to me more and more armed citizens in the future.

Is there a consequence to this as far as how policing is conducted? Should police risks be made smaller or greater? When a suspect resists being pat down and bullies or fights with cops what kind of risk is acceptable?

It’s tragic when an unarmed suspect is resisting and gets killed. But when policing in an armed society, the message should be: “Everyone’s perceived at a threat until absolutely proven otherwise. Don’t resist.”

[rock_party]

No one has to conclude anyone is unarmed. Unless they are threatening you though, you have to conclude they aren’t threatening you. Having access to a weapon does not make them a threat. Carrying a weapon does not make them a threat. Threatening someone with a weapon makes them a threat. Shooting people who aren’t a threat is murder, whether they are armed or not. Don’t advocate or defend murder please.

This isn’t on topic. We’re discussing suspects that ARE resisting and ARE a potential threat.

[Ravenman]

@rock_party

That we’re an armed society is a done deal. At this point there’s no going back and there’s only going to me more and more armed citizens in the future.

Is there a consequence to this as far as how policing is conducted? Should police risks be made smaller or greater? When a suspect resists being pat down and bullies or fights with cops what kind of risk is acceptable?

It’s tragic when an unarmed suspect is resisting and gets killed. But when policing in an armed society, the message should be: “Everyone’s perceived at a threat until absolutely proven otherwise. Don’t resist.”

Yes, we get it. But H.L. Mencken said it in a lot more clever way than you: “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”

[Ethilrist]

@rock_party

This isn’t on topic. We’re discussing suspects that ARE resisting and ARE a potential threat.

Actually, we’re discussing whether or not cops feel threatened, not whether or not people are resisting. That sounds more like a training issue than anything else.

[rock_party]

Actually, we’re discussing whether or not cops feel threatened, not whether or not people are resisting. That sounds more like a training issue than anything else.

I’d bet a cop feel threatened initially at the beginning of most stops. It’s what transpires that either builds trust or increases the feeling of threat. If a cop feel threatened and a suspect doesn’t cooperate, fights back and won’t allow a pat down, that threat would only increase.

Many people deal with confrontation by strong arming their way out. They should understand that
when dealing with cops, this means the possibility of death. Innocent or not.

[DrCube]

@rock_party

This isn’t on topic. We’re discussing suspects that ARE resisting and ARE a potential threat.

EVERYONE is a potential threat. You (cop or otherwise) are only allowed to shoot someone if they are an actual threat. Resisting arrest (short of assaulting officers or pointing a gun at them) and fleeing (unless you are a suspected murderer/rapist/violent felon) are not actual threats.

[DrCube]

@rock_party

Many people deal with confrontation by strong arming their way out. They should understand that
when dealing with cops, this means the possibility of death. Innocent or not.

(Bolding mine)

So you are advocating that cops kill innocent people? Stop supporting murder. You need to understand that right now you are a rare pro-murder advocate, against about 300 million antis in this country. Your side lost. Murder is wrong.

[Loach]

This has become very bizarre.

[Ravenman]

But I guess the only logical response for a law-abiding citizen who is stopped by the police, and simply by virtue of being stopped is threated with a violent death from the police officer using rock party’s ROE, is for the citizen to shoot first in self-defense.

[D_Anconia]

@DrCube

EVERYONE is a potential threat. You (cop or otherwise) are only allowed to shoot someone if they are an actual threat. Resisting arrest (short of assaulting officers or pointing a gun at them) and fleeing (unless you are a suspected murderer/rapist/violent felon) are not actual threats.

So the officer in Ferguson, MO was allowed to shoot Michael Brown, correct?

[Jonathan_Chance]

@Loach

And that is what happens thousands of times a day in this country. When there is an aberration from that or a perceived aberration it makes national news. Unfortunately you are lucky if the decision time between shoot/don’t shoot can be measured in seconds in most cases. Most of the time it’s a fraction of that.

And I don’t disagree with you, Loach, my friend.

The fact is that part of a police officer’s job at this point is to make split second decisions about lethal force for which there’s rarely sufficient information. And a misjudgement can end disastrously for either the officer or the person being investigated (or whatever the term is). I don’t really see another workable policy other than something akin to “You are authorized to use force when you believe yourself or the public is in danger of harm but you’d better not be wrong or we’re going to crucify you, either in the courts or the media.”

Sucks, I know, but no one ever said life was fair.

[rock_party]

Advocating murder? No. Advocating for police to endure less risk, and understanding the difficulty and risk involved in police work, yes.

The message our citizens need to carry with them from a young age is to cooperate with police and sort it out in front of a judge. Resisting, bullying, and being uncooperative when stopped by police can get you killed, and society generally will back the police because society understands the risks cops make when policing an armed society.

I’m all for requiring lapel cameras and any other means to access situations. But the message has got to be out there that cooperation and trust must be established and strong arm tactics, bullying, and resisting can get you killed. Sort your dispute about being stopped or arrested out in court, not on the street.

[Bone]

“Detached Reflection Cannot Be Demanded in the Presence of an Uplifted Knife”

[DrCube]

@D_Anconia

So the officer in Ferguson, MO was allowed to shoot Michael Brown, correct?

That’s a murky subject at the moment. But if Darren Wilson’s story is accurate (a large, violent, irrational man was attacking him), I believe he was justified in shooting Mike Brown. Big “if” though.

Also, in addition to questioning the evidence, I’m not so sure he needed to take 8 shots. Once the guy is bleeding on the ground, he is no longer a threat. He could have stopped at that point and called an ambulance. But that’s not something I’d judge anyone for. If you’re in danger to the point where you have a legitimate need to use your weapon, I’m not going to question shooting until the threat is completely neutralized. Still not sold on Wilson’s story though. In fact I’m sure many parts of it are complete bullshit. But that’s another subject entirely.

[Loach]

@Jonathan_Chance

I don’t really see another workable policy other than something akin to “You are authorized to use force when you believe yourself or the public is in danger of harm but you’d better not be wrong or we’re going to crucify you, either in the courts or the media.”

So, statues quo?

I really don’t have a problem with being second guessed as long as it’s semi-informed. Unfortunately way too many people come at it from a Hollywood colored version of reality. It makes every video of an arrest into an example of brutality. Too many people think that if 90 lbs Kate Beckett can put the cuffs on a 250 lbs guy with a quick ninja move then anyone can. When in fact trying to get cuffs on someone resisting (not even fighting) is one of the hardest things you can do and needs some measure of violent action. Or they talk about shooting a knife out of someone’s hand. Or using a taser in a deadly force situation. It’s the fact that even when a cop does everything in a correct and legal manner he’ll get crucified by those who have absolutely no idea how the job has to be done. Which is also why I usually stay out of these threads. Most people who reply already have their mind’s made up.

[Little_Nemo]

@Velocity

But that’s what cops were criticized for in the Berkeley shooting, and the shooting of the person who had a realistic-looking toy gun.

From what I’ve seen, most people are saying the Berkeley shooting was reasonable and justified.