Nice debate you have here. I’ll just move it along.
Sno Bo - are calling bullshit on the chief’s remarks or sitting firmly on the fence? You can’t have it both ways.
Richard Parker - somewhere around 75-80% of cops who are involved in a fatal shooting (either they killed a suspect or another officer was killed) are no longer on the job after three years. Not as a result of a finding of wrongdoing but as a result of the impact the incident had on their lives. That would include PTSD, trial by public opinion and the media and threats. I would hardly call that a 1/1000 chance of having their life and career messed up. Also, if you are beaten to the point that you may lose consciousness you are in mortal danger and deadly force is certainly warranted.
It doesn’t need to be a conscious decision (actually considering odds of various outcomes, etc) but only a hesitation based on all the heat (some warranted but most not) on cops these days that can cost an officer his or her life.
I am surprised by this claim, since it is inconsistent with my anecdotal experience. Are you relying on some kind of stats you’ve seen, or is this just your anecdotal impression?
That’s correct. I never said or suggested otherwise.
This is a good point. My point was about rationality, but of course, split second decisions aren’t always rational.
I remain unconvinced that fear of scrutiny is causing officer hesitation, or that if it is, then that means we should have less scrutiny.
Also, obviously, we should be doing everything we can do to train officers to approach dangerous situations in a way that avoids having to make split second decisions. Some departments are doing this well. Others are not.
This is the problem with the oversimplified narrative in the media today. Every shooting needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
By slamming use-of-lethal-force in general, this broad brush inevitably has the effect of lumping legitimate use of lethal force together with instances of unjustified use of lethal force.
You’re wrong to believe that the media is reporting every lethal shooting. There were 491 fatal shootings in the first six months of 2016. 105 of those were captured on video. How many received significant media attention? A dozen, maybe? That’s why the claims that the media circus makes officers hesitate are hard to believe. It is still relatively unlikely that killing a person, even an unarmed person, will result in any significant media scrutiny.
Without naming any posters by name specifically, I think this thread is simply turning into a “Agree to disagree” thing.
We have posters who believe that cops don’t suffer significant repercussions from public scrutiny and that the media has their back. And we have posters who don’t hold that view.
I’m confused. What exactly are you claiming - that the officer didn’t really fear for her life - “I’m being smashed to the point of unconsciousness, but I’m confident the attack won’t go further than that?”
Why would you interpret me to be saying that?
The question isn’t whether she feared for her life. The question is why she didn’t shoot, if her version of the story is true. According to this secondhand account, she didn’t shoot because she feared “scrutiny.”
I don’t find that to be very credible. But more importantly, whether it is accurate or not, I don’t think we should respond by reducing the amount of scrutiny we apply to fatal shootings.
Why else would a cop not shoot?
Lots of reasons. Do you think cops shoot every time they risk death or serious injury?
If the OP is correct, no, they don’t always even when it appears they should, and one of the reasons is that they and their families will be dragged thru the mud by the media and groups like BLM.
Regards,
Shodan
If a police officer is beaten up because he or she is afraid to use their weapon, that’s a problem.
If 1200 people are being killed by the police each year, that’s also a problem.
I feel the second problem is larger than the first problem and we should devote proportionately more resources to solving it. I also feel that solving the second problem would help solve the first problem.
Yes, obviously. The discussion is about whether the OP is, in fact, correct.
Maybe the problem is conservative BLM critics over-hyping the consequences of a fatal shooting. You seem to be suggesting that an officer is likely to face “they and their families . . . [being] dragged thru the mud by the media and groups like BLM.” But we know empirically that’s false, since most fatal shootings do not involve any significant media scrutiny.
But I guess if cops listen to critics who over-hype the media circus, they might come to believe that falsehood.
FWIW, I personally don’t think 1,200 people being killed by police each year is necessarily a problem. Some people need killing, and the world is better off without them. Depends on the facts of each case.
How many of these were not in the context of shootouts?
Even assuming your facts are true, your logic doesn’t follow.
Meaning even if it’s true that “most fatal shootings do not involve any significant media scrutiny” (in comparable cases), it doesn’t follow that the only reason someone might think otherwise is over-hyping by “conservative BLM critics”. Media hype can do that on its own, without the help of “conservative BLM critics”.
Actually the Washington Post is keeping as complete a listas they can manage of fatal police shootings, so it appears the idea that most shooting are not scrutinized is false. The problem for BLM is that nearly all those shootings are justified, and thus BLM has to make up their own mud by spreading lies like “hands up - don’t shoot” or demanding justice for Lamar Clark after he was shot for attacking the medics when they attempted to treat his girlfriend’s ankle, which he had broken, and so on, and so on.
Regards,
Shodan
If your argument is that cops aren’t pulling the trigger because they will be on a list of 500 other shootings, the vast bulk of which receive no media investigation, then it is even weaker than I thought it was.
[quote=“Richard_Parker, post:23, topic:767866”]
I am surprised by this claim, since it is inconsistent with my anecdotal experience. Are you relying on some kind of stats you’ve seen, or is this just your anecdotal impression?
I believe that the International Critical Incident Stress Foundation put the number at around 75%. I am waiting for a specific cite that I will post once I have it. As a result of my job as a police trainer, I have met many officers who were involved in fatal shootings.
My anecdotal experience is that 80% were no longer on the job after three years. The vast majority never returned to active duty after the incident. Taking a life is no joke and few officers take the prospect lightly.
If you have time to think about what the media may do, then, yes, you are not in fear of your life. Both time and what fight or flight does to you make that impossible. You will focus on the present moment.
The real question would be about others. But, for some reason, it’s always the cops’ lives that come up.
The news story mentions that there were two other officers in the fight. This muddies the story. It presents a possible alternate reason why she might not have used her gun - she figured the other officers would overpower the guy (which they eventually did, though the two others were also injured in the process). It also raises the question of why didn’t any of them use their guns, once they saw that the first officer was getting her head bashed in? Were they all afraid of being pilloried as racist killers?
That last question is not absurd to me. Cops are paying as much attention to the media circus as anyone, if not more attention. I can easily imagine all this controversy seeping into some of their heads and affecting their reactions, even (or especially) when they have to make split-second decisions.
Thanks for looking. I would very much like to see it if you find it (or any other stats).