This ignores a core point. The issue with having cops shoot suspects is not about punishing the suspects for the evil of resisting the cops. It’s about enabling cops to protect the public. If cops are rendered fearful of suspects due to overly restrictive laws on allowing them to protect themselves, their ability to enforce the law and protect the public will be severely harmed.
The type of analysis you put forth sounds very nice and high-minded but ignores a fundamental aspect of the issue.
This is extremely simplistic. There are not two categories of people, being those who have never violated the law in their lives and everyone else. “Criminals” span a very very broad spectrum, in terms of both their net cost/benefit to society and the immediate threat that they pose.
Again, cops don’t (and shouldn’t) have that authority. Having a gun and a badge doesn’t mean you get to kill anyone you want, or even anyone who challenges you.
Other countries’ police forces are able to protect the public while shooting far, far fewer people than in the US, including far, far fewer unarmed and knife-armed people. I think it’s reasonable to surmise that these countries might be doing things better in some ways.
I don’t see what that has to do with what we’re discussing here.
We’re discussing the acceptable ratio of police killed by criminals to criminals killed by police (which RP feels should ideally be 1:1). You got some ratios from other countries?
No one is calling for that. Saying that the policies that set the boundaries for the use of deadly force should be designed so that, more often than not, the force was in fact used against a real threat is a very far cry from your tortured interpretation.
You are, actually. You’re saying that because someone has committed a crime (or rather is suspected of doing so!) they are more deserving of being killed than a police officer is. Because you’re using the fact of the suspected non-violent(!) crime to justify the conduct, you are very much talking about punishment as distinct from self-defense.
So you’re telling us you’ve never possessed a controlled substance? Let someone else take one of your prescription pills? Driven after drinking when you’re over the limit but feel fine? Downloaded something illegally? Violated a gun possession or registration law? Struck someone in a bar fight? Bashed mailboxes? Bought alcohol for someone underage? Failed to report tips on your taxes? Violated the terms of use on a website? Left your child with a babysitter younger than your state’s minimum? Had sex in a public place (in some states)?
If so, you’re in the distinct minority. But I’m guessing you just didn’t consider your felonies to be real felonies.
Which is why policies on the use of force should be focused on the assessment of threats. If your policy says you should potentially kill someone if there’s a 10% chance that they pose a threat, so long as they are suspected of a crime (the equivalent of the 10:1 ratio), then your policy is very much treating criminal suspects differently from everyone else just because they are suspected of a crime. That’s what Shodan is saying. He values the lives of suspected burglars less, and therefore is ok with killing them even when they don’t pose the kind of threat that would justify self-defense among two strangers in a bar.
In my case; I have not, I have not, I have not, I have not, I have not, I have not, I have not, I have not, I have not, I have not, I have not, and I have not.
It does help to know that I’m arguing with people to whom behaving criminally comes so naturally that they deem it impossible that anyone could live otherwise.
I have never possessed a controlled substance. Never let anyone else take one of my prescription pills, and never taken anyone else’s. Never driven over the blood alcohol limit. I don’t agree that any “illegal” download I’ve done was a criminal offense. I’ve never violated a gun possession or registration law. I’ve only bashed one mailbox, and I owned it. I’ve never bought alcohol for anyone underage. I’ve never failed to report tips as taxable income, and I was a waiter. Never left my child with a babysitter under the age of 18. And any sex I’ve had in public was not criminal.
Of course I don’t deem it impossible. My claim is that you’re in the distinct minority. And you are. If you believe that most Americans are lesser human beings, then more power to you. Most people are just a teency-bit less cynical and misanthropic than that.
Well, you’re wrong. The majority of Americans have possessed a controlled substance. Even if you assume that only people in that category have ever done the other common crimes–a doubtful assumption–then you’re still wrong.
What does whether they were at “risk of life” (whatever that means*) have to do with making an arrest. As soon as he shoved the cops away, and then resisted arrest, it became necessary to use force.
Certainly what happened there is tragic, but it’s hardly the police’s fault the guy was asthmatic, nor that he resisted them.
*Assuming you mean “risk of death” that’s not the standard where people (let alone cops) can use lethal force in self defence.