Not meaning to doubt you for the sake of it, but do you have a cite for that? Whilst I don’t think it’s impossible, that seems surprisingly high - for America or any other country.
The scenario regarding the fleeing burglar really doesn’t give enough details to arrive at an intelligent conclusion. Real life cases have many more details which is one reason investigations take so long. Some shootings are cut and dry, most are not.
That said, in this case you have someone fleeing a burglary. In most cases the officer would minimally say “Stop! Police!” I can hardly imagine a case where he wouldn’t. (Maybe the suspect doesn’t see him and the officer is trying to sneak up on him?) Assuming the officer gave the commands and the suspect didn’t stop, you now have a non-compliant suspect. Non-compliance is the number one cue that an officer is going to be assaulted. Does every non-compliant person assault the cop? No. Some just flee and when the arrest is inevitable, surrender without a fight. But in the vast majority of assaults on police there was non-compliance by the suspect first. It only make sense - why would an officer use force on a compliant person? I know. It happens and those officers should be dealt with.
Now the officer is chasing the non-compliant suspect in the dark and the suspect turns and has a shiny object in his hand and is raising toward the officer. To require that the officer confirm that the object is a gun before firing is really expecting too much. Do you have any idea how difficult that would be? Most guns are dark and even stainless or chrome handguns would be hard to identify in low light conditions.
Society has tasked the police with apprehending criminals. Where this job falls on the “danger” chart is a matter for the statisticians but few can argue that taking someone into custody who doesn’t want to go can be hazardous, even deadly. As such, society has granted the police some latitude in their decision to use force to accomplish their goal. Provided the officer can articulate that he was reasonably in fear for his or another’s safety and that amount of force he employed was also reasonable under the circumstances as reasonably believed them to be at the time, he will protected from prosecution. That’s a lot of “reasonables” in one sentence but they are all important.
The Supreme Court has also said that that the officer will be judged, in part, based on his training and experience and on how another officer with similar training and experience would have acted under the same circumstances. Not the experience of some talking head on Fox or MSNBC or some politician with an agenda There are no clear cut, (dare I say, “black and white”?) rules about this. Every case is going to be unique in its particulars. The one thing the is present in almost all of the cases is non-compliance and/or aggression on the part of the suspect. For whatever reason, the responsibility that lies with the suspect is often overlooked by the public and press.
Finally (for this post, anyway), BobLibDem - apparently, you would put the safety of of an aggressive knife wielder above that of your own loved ones. That says a lot about you and your way of thinking.
I don’t understand the question. Can you give me an example of someone with the authority you’re talking about?
It doesn’t follow from anything you’ve said (either here or in your earlier posts) that 10% is the wrong number to use. (Not that it’s necessarily the right number either.)
Again, the notion of cops shooting criminals is not (solely) based on the relative value of the lives of cops versus criminals. It’s also based in large part on the need to enable the police to protect the public. You have not addressed this AFAICT.
And the self-serving absurdity you accuse BobLibDem of says a lot about you, and your way of thinking, that you punch below the belt, that you are willing to cheat to win.
Is it a common practice for police officers to take their wives and/or children along with them in the performance of their duties? I would be very, very surprised to hear it.
There are surveys on this across a range of drugs that make the point more comprehensively. With the time I have right now and for the purposes of establishing the point, here’s a 2013 Pew Survey on marijuana usage:
Link.
Since teen usage rates are comparable or higher than adults, it follows that a majority have possessed a controlled substance, which is punishable by imprisonment for one year under federal law.
There are also millions upon millions of people who have committed the other crimes I listed.
I wasn’t aware that my loved ones were near the allegedly aggressive knife wielder. Checking the video again, I don’t see them, which is hardly surprising since none of them live in the area. Nor were anyone else’s loved ones in any danger. The cops decided to skip any non-lethal alternatives and fill the guy with lead. Why even bother issuing tasers if they never use them? Why even bother with handcuffs? Since every suspected criminal is a potential threat to the cop, shouldn’t they just gun down whoever they feel like killing? Then the cops will be super dee-dooper safe, which is all we’re supposed to care about, isn’t it?
The black fathers who give their sons The Talk, about how to interact with police, how to comport themselves in the face of authority, how to never, ever, ever Dis The Man. Are they wrong? Is it out of respect that they are being counseled to be submissive? Respect for law and order, and authority, that is the wellspring of The Talk?
Or is it fear? Do these fathers afflict their sons with lies or with a grim truth that ought not be the truth? Should we shrug our way to compliant apathy? “That’s just the way it is, can’t anything be done about it” is something you say after you’ve tried and failed, not something you say to forgive yourself for not trying?
Wait, what is the point of this again? Are you saying that smoking a joint and strong-armed robbery are morally equivalent? That equal harm is done by both actions, and therefor if we ever downloaded something we have no right to judge violent criminals? That if I’ve avoided being shot by the police so far, it’s only because I’m lucky and/or white, because I smoked pot a couple of times?
If you punch a cop in the face after you just robbed a store, you should not be terribly surprised if you end up shot. The easy way to avoid this unfortunate situation is to not assault cops. Most people manage it.
Neither has anyone else, beyond asserting it. If these kinds of incidents happen once or twice in a career, then asking police to wait until it is more likely than not that there is a genuine threat of force probably doesn’t make a huge difference in enabling the police to protect the public.
On a personal level? About as often as it’s a good idea to tell the mafia boss “fuck you, we aren’t gonna pay, whatcha gonna do about it?”
On a societal level? Assuming that the authority we’re talking about is the killing of suspected criminals who may or may not pose any immediate threat to you? Every. Single. Time. Because it’s about as fair and reasonable as the aforementioned mafia boss, and it needs to be stopped.
Maybe this is a European thing, but it’s worth noting that the number of shots fired in the line of duty by the German police in 2011 was 85. The year before, it was 96. In Britain, the first high-profile case like this in a long time led to officers getting outfitted with cameras in their uniforms. It is (duh) considered completely unacceptable to open fire at a criminal who is not clearly posing a threat. Especially one who has already surrendered. In what universe *is *this acceptable? Deadly force should be authorized for self-defense only. I mean, I know *you’re *a fascist with some serious issues who would probably feel perfectly at home in a George Orwell book, but I’m shocked you’ve got so many people in this thread taking your side.
I’ve read the same reports, BG, and all the reports caution that none of this has been authenticated. Something as serious as this requires either authentication or a clear caveat for caution.
Steady there, hoss.
If you’re a German being told to do something by the SS, probably not a good idea. Is that your ideal for the US, to be a place where police authority is never to be questioned?
That’s true. But that’s a big part of the issue and framing it solely in terms of the value of human life misses it.
Not so.
Being shot is what’s known in the actuarial field as a “low frequency, high severity” occurance. Even a small increased chance of being shot would have a big impact on the risks a cop would be willing to take. In addition, knowledge of what the police are allowed to do would also impact the actions of criminals, emboldening them.
It’s not clear to me why the pause would work against the cop. ISTM the opposite is true (if anything) - the implication is that he didn’t just give it all he got, but waited a bit and when Brown kept on coming he resumed shooting.
But this has absolutely no relevance to the situation at hand. In such a situation, I would find it perfectly justified for the officer to open fire - show a little restraint, aim away from vital organs, but definitely act in self-defense. This is the kind of straightforward scenario where I think most people could agree that it would either be the cop acting in justifiable self-defense or a tragic but not really avoidable incident. But this wasn’t the case in Ferguson. The man had already surrendered, was already compliant, and the cop still pumped him full of lead. I mean, you seem to get it here:
But then go completely off the rails:
Am I missing something here?
Well, better information might be available, if they had sent a team of cops to comb over the area, you know how they do. All those pictures of where the shell casings landed, where the cop was, where the body was, where there are blood spatters. All those photos with the circles and arrows and the words on the back explaining what they mean.
In lieu of that, we have the incident report, filed nine(?) days after. The report clearly states that yes, indeed, there was an incident. So, there’s that.
Frankly, I strongly doubt any such thing happened. You know, where they get out there with the tape measure, the evidence bags, the photographers. Because nobody saw them do any such thing. Anyone believe that if they were, the media wouldn’t be Johnny on the spot taking pictures of them taking pictures and trying to get someone to talk about it? In all the pictures we got from this, any of them show cops combing the scene for hard evidence?
To be ruthlessly fair, we don’t actually know that. And if the other guys won’t be ruthlessly fair, it is even more important that we are. We all believe our memories, hence we think that eyewitness testimony is the shit. But it really isn’t, and we have to keep that in mind.
(post shortened)
Are you channeling Eric “Americans are cowards” Holder?
If you’re a criminal, so be it. I’ll just suggest that if a uniformed police officer tells you to stop, or freeze, it’s probably in your best interest to stop what you are doing. You probably shouldn’t turn to face the officer(s) with something shiny and gun-like in your hand, either.