Ferguson, MO

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Richard_Parker

Oh, I see. Ok. Let me expand my ratio by a dimension. An ideal use of force policy is one in which the number of people harmed by the police who were not a genuine threat is equal to the number of police or members of the public harmed by the failure to act sooner.

Of course, that just follows from the same principles I just established, that we ought to value the lives of suspected criminals the same as anybody else.

I agree that this follows from that principle. But beyond the difficulties in implementing a policy this vague, it’s also unclear how this would be measured. Perhaps this is already happening.

ETA: I do think the fleeing criminal who has been lawfully ordered to stop and who refuses is deserving of less protection. So make the ratio higher for that particular scenario if you like, but I think 9:1 is pretty extreme.

I would guess the vast majority of people shot by police are people who have been lawfully ordered to stop.

2282 is my post, I think, and I cannot make what you just said onto the post of yours I quoted in that post. So maybe it’s easier if you just restate what I have failed to address.

I said 2 things:

[ol]
[li]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.[/li][li]In addition, knowledge of what the police are allowed to do would also impact the actions of criminals, emboldening them.[/li][/ol]
ISTM that you only addressed the second. The first point was that independent of what criminals might do, if cops know that they have to hold their fire and take increased risks for themselves, it would make them more timid in confronting criminals, and thus less able to defend the public.

[Drunky_Smurf]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

To be fair, no thread on this (or any other forum) ever needed or desired your participation.

So then you’ll glady show us your invitation letter from the Chicago Reader asking for your personal participation in this thread.

If you can not provide one you may not post in this thread or any other on this forum until you do so.

Do you realize how fucking retarded you sound with that bullshit you posted?

[Drunky_Smurf]

@ElvisL1ves

If this board is all that unenlightening and aggravating for you, maybe another would be more congenial, knowhamean?

If it pains you so much to have to interact with people that have a different opinion than you then maybe you should be asking yourself that question. Fucktard.

[MikeF]

elucidator - I am not hinting at cowardice. What is disingenuous? These are life and death decisions, regardless of civilian or cop status.

I would also kill a bear threatening my son in a heartbeat. I would also kill a person threatening my son in heartbeat. Or threatening your son. As you say, its (was) my duty as a cop. But I’m not supposed to shoot the person threatening ME with death or serious bodily harm? Because I’m paid to take risks? That makes no sense, whatsoever. That person made choices. He will have to live (and maybe die) with them. But they were HIS choices. HE decided not to “Freeze!” and pull something out of his waistband while turning toward me. HE decided to not drop the knife when ordered to do so and continue advancing on me. HE decided to assault me and try to take my gun away and then come back at me after disengaging. HE decided rob the bank and point the gun at the teller. And on and on. Where does accountability for the suspects own actions come in?

I don’t know of any cops who declared themselves better than everyone else. Better trained at their job, maybe. Better than some/most/all criminals, maybe. But not better everyone else in the greater sense of the word.

It is noted for the record that your answer is not identical to Bob’s.

[doorhinge]

@ElvisL1ves

All right then, since you persist: What does the fact that no one in a position of authority acted like they gave a shit imply to you?

Acted? I haven’t seen the 1st coroner’s report. That might shed some light on why it took four hours before the coroner’s office removed the body. Maybe not.

If your talking about the police officers apparent inactivity at the crime scene, they would still have had to wait for someone from the coroner’s office to authorize the removal of the body.

Who removed the body? The medical personel or the police?

[Smapti]

@BobLibDem

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?

Yes.

[Reyemile]

@MikeF

HE decided not to “Freeze!” and pull something out of his waistband while turning toward me.
<snip>
Where does accountability for the suspects own actions come in?

People aren’t typically combat-trained; you can’t hold them responsible for reflex. People aren’t trained for combat situations. If someone behind me shouted at me to freeze while my hands are in my pocket, I would turn around and instinctively put my hands out in front of me–I wouldn’t even think. Apparently, though, this is reason enough to shoot me?

And that’s not even mentioning the mentally ill, who clearly are not capable of making informed decisions.

[elucidator]

@Smapti

Yes.

Had we not questioned authority, we would be still be speaking English!

[doorhinge]

@ElvisL1ves

It’s already been established that they were doing nothing of the sort, nothing at all.

Now try again, this time with relation to reality.

I think you’re confused about who is in charge of what at the crime scene. It’s not like the police can just load a body into the back seat of a patrol car and take it to the morgue. Unless they were instructed to do so.

[doorhinge]

@elucidator

Had we not questioned authority, we would be still be speaking English!

Had the British regulars not attempted to confiscate the firearms of the colonists, the war would not have started.

[Reyemile]

@doorhinge

Had the British regulars not attempted to confiscate the firearms of the colonists, the war would not have started.

I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or ignorant.

[jayjay]

@Reyemile

I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or ignorant.

The latter is generally a good bet.

[Iggy]

@Richard_Parker

…

But the truth is that most Americans are criminals. You have probably committed felonies, but simply haven’t been caught. The reasons you haven’t been caught are many, but include the kind of neighborhood you live in–the single best predictor of which is race, in many places. It is very likely that you, or at least people you consider to be good people, have experienced a certain kind of privilege in not having been caught for felony crimes, such that you were able to go on living an otherwise upstanding life instead of the death spiral of collateral consequences that is modern criminal justice. This notion that someone who commits a crime is a different and lesser kind of human being is wrong. Criminals aren’t just like you and me. They are you and me.
…

@Richard_Parker

…
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.

You moved the goalpost a bit, possibly without realizing it. First you refer to felonies. They you reference the federal penalty for misdemeanor possession of marijuana. As a hint, any time the penalty is up to a year in jail, it is generally a misdemeanor.

The White House cites that 58 percent of Americans 12 and older had never used marijuana. Unless the under 12 kiddie set are hitting the chronic hard, it seems most Americans have not used marijuana.

I am, or course, equating use with possession. Perhaps you would argue 10% of Americans have repeatedly possessed without ever using marijuana!? That is the only other way I see to reconcile the numbers with the idea that a majority of Americans have committed felony marijuana possession.

[doorhinge]

@Reyemile

I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or ignorant.

Why did some 700+ soldiers of the British Army leave Boston and take a stroll to Concord? According to the orders issued by General Gage, it was to confiscate colonial small arms and artillery. The British troops engaged with the first of many groups of colonial minutemen they would encounter over the following years, shots were fired, and the Revolutionary War had begun.

*British Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith received his orders from General Thomas Gage on the afternoon of April 18, 1775, with instructions not to open them until his troops were underway. When opened the instructions read:

Orders from General Thomas Gage
to Lieut. Colonel Smith, 10th Regiment 'Foot

Boston, April 18, 1775
Lieut. Colonel Smith, 10th Regiment 'Foot,
Sir,

Having received intelligence, that a quantity of Ammunition, Provisions, Artillery, Tents and small Arms, have been collected at Concord, for the Avowed Purpose of raising and supporting a Rebellion against His Majesty, you will March with a Corps of Grenadiers and Light Infantry, put under your Command, with the utmost expedition and Secrecy to Concord, where you will seize and distroy all Artillery, Ammunition, Provisions, Tents, Small Arms, and all Military Stores whatever. But you will care that the Soldiers do not plunder the Inhabitants, or hurt private property…

From Lieutenant Colonel Smith’s report to General Gage, April 22, 1775:

In the obedience to your Excellency’s commands, I marched on the evening of the 18th inst. with the corps of grenadiers and light infantry for Concord, to execute your Excellency’s orders with respect to destroying all ammunition, artillery, tents, &c, collected there.

General Thomas Gage Reports on the Battles of Lexington and Concord in a Letter to the Earl of Dartmouth April 22, 1775

My Lord

. . . I am to acquaint your Lordship that having received Intelligence of a large Quantity of Military Stores being collected at Concord, for the avowed Purpose of Supplying a Body of Troops to act in opposition to His Majesty’s Government, I got the Grenadiers and Light Infantry out of Town under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Smith of the 10th Regiment and Major Pitcairne of the Marines with as much Secrecy as possible, on the 18th at Night and with Orders to destroy the said Military Stores,…*

http://www.winthrop.dk/reports.html

[Punoqllads]

@elucidator

Had we not questioned authority, we would be still be speaking English!

@doorhinge

Had the British regulars not attempted to confiscate the firearms of the colonists, the war would not have started.

Had you sufficient reading comprehension, you would have understood what luci was saying and not chomped down on the lure.

You gotta lotta ‘splainin’ to do.

[doorhinge]

@Punoqllads

Had you sufficient reading comprehension, you would have understood what luci was saying and not chomped down on the lure.

You gotta lotta ‘splainin’ to do.

Who is luci and how do you pronounce Punoqllads?

[elucidator]

“Throat warbler mangrove” is preferred.

[Punoqllads]

Just don’t pronounce it late for dinner.
…no, wait…

[Punoqllads]

And luci is a synecdoche.

[BobLibDem]

@MikeF

BobLibDem (and elucidator): I presented a scenario asked asked you what you would do. You said that you would try pepper and then the taser. No mention of shooting. I specifically said a loved one was in danger, not you, since people often value the safety of family members over their own. I did so in attempt to see where, in the order of priority, you place a suspects safety over that of others. The only conclusion that one could draw from your reply was that you were willing to risk the safety of a loved one (because sometimes pepper, tasers & even guns don’t work) in order to not hurt the assailant too badly. I made no reference to the St Louis situation in my scenario. I have no idea what bringing wives to work has to do with the hypothetical.

I also fail to see what is self-serving, absurd or below-the-belt in my post. Please enlighten me.

I would do the same whether my loved ones were there or not. Non lethal methods first. Pepper spray and taser. If no success, ONE shot. If the shot kills him, I’d be sorry. I’d hope that one shot wounds him enough to make him stop and then he could be taken in and patched up. Blasting away is for cowards.