I made a thread about that in January.
I think this pretty much encapsulates the #PoliceLivesMatter movement. If a policy would have the effect (not intent) if increasing police injuries, then it is bad, say doorhinge and probably a majority of White Americans.
I don’t think use of force policies are principally responsible for unjustified police shootings, but they play a role. But they’re never going to be improved if officer safety always trumps the safety of innocent civilians.
I can assure you that private citizens also face scrutiny from their employers when they shoot people.
It should be the AllLivesMatter movement.
When Martin O’Malley had the adudacity to say that ‘all lives matter’, he was boo’d by the Democrats in the audience at the Netroots Nation conference.
O’Malley later apologized for saying, “Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter.”
Why did he have to do that? What forces were brought to bear on O’Malley, and his campaign hopes, that he should be forced to apologize for saying, “all lives matter”? I suggest that it’s a very vocal minority expressing their hatred for police officers.
Criminals still commit crimes. We the People created police forces to help prevent crime and to catch criminals. The criminals aren’t going to stop being criminals. Criminals aren’t going to stop being violent. Hippies aren’t going to stop crime. When people need help, they call the police. When a violent confrontation occurs, police officers can repeatedly be seen running TOWARDS the danger.
MrDibble doesn’t care if he can make police work more dangerous.
Habeed proposes a policy that could increase police deaths by 10%.
Neither believes that all lives matter.
Could you please demonstrate that police shootings receive significantly less scrutiny that civilian self-defense shootings?
For instance, show how Darren Wilson was significantly less investigated than George Zimmerman. Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Shodan
You say that like it’s a bad thing…
That makes them roll right back around again. Yes, I was being serious. Cops should not shoot until they’re being shot at. Or, yes, I can compromise on “actually have a gun pointed at them”
The non-cowards who don’t think it takes 6 men to sit on a wheezy asthmatic lest one of them get a hangnail?
Naah, I doubt it - if the current bully exemplars are anything to go by, reducing their casus belli will wean that sort out, not encourage them.
Not routinely armed ones, no. Unarmed beat cops, I have no beef with.
If they’re face to face, they’ll just be shooting over each other’s shoulders, wouldn’t they…
No.
That would be rude. He has to say “Please” too.
I doubt a shoot-last policy would endanger the lives of more than a handful of officers a year that get into your Mexican standoffs. Easily offset by the saving in civilian lives.
I disagree, quite strongly.
I’m not really interested - I have actually been shot at by cops armed with automatic weapons, your tale of instant compliance to fascists isn’t going to move me.
And these are the kind of damaged souls you think we should just allow to shoot first?
Boo-fucking-hoo. What a pity they were all conscripted then.
Oh, wait…
Sorry, all my respect for cops disappeared when I lived in an actual police state. Good luck with that going forward, Yanks.
Unjustified police shootings are a problem, and there’s plenty of stories and videos out there that show these cases. I think many of these cases that have come to public attention also didn’t get the justice that they deserved. However, as evidenced by the numbers in this thread that there are are 1100 fatal police encounters a year, and we only hear about a handful of negative ones, I think it’s clear that a majority are justified. Hell, even many of the ones that we hear about are incomplete stories that get sensationalized.
Absolutely, the fact that there are that many fatal encounters is a problem, and even if all of them were justifiable, it’s still a problem that we have that many. Further, I think that officers do use force–not just their guns–need to be under greater scrutiny, and in many cases the imbalance in the system will let an officer off the hook with a lesser penalty than he probably deserves.
But that all said, there’s also some unreasonable assumptions about how these encounters happen that are being made. For instance, the assumption that if an encounter is fatal it’s just a trade-off of the officer and the offender isn’t reasonable. If someone is engaged in dangerous behavior, it’s possible that deadly force isn’t just protecting the officer, but is also protecting others in the vicinity. Further, officers need to react based on instinct instilled in them in their training, they don’t have time to rationalize behavior and determine potential motives, when hesitation could result in harm, not just to them, but to innocent bystanders.
If an officer waits to shoot until he is absolutely sure he sees a gun, it’s too late. Best case scenario is the officer reacts perfectly with ideal human reaction speed, and that’s still at in the 200-300ms range, assuming he already has his weapon pulled and aimed, and that’s still enough time for the criminal to get off a round or two.
If it is clear to the suspect that the officer is attempting to arrest him and he makes a sudden move, what else would a reasonable person suspect other than an act of aggression?
How often are suspects gunned down at 50 yards away? In general, 50 yards is outside of the effective range of the handgun the officer is using, much less pretty much any weapon a suspect might be using. So, sure, if someone is shot at that range, the officer should be in serious trouble. That said, officers cannot reasonably be expected to wait until the suspect is actually within the effective range of whatever weapon they might have. Further, how is a baseball bat NOT a lethal weapon; hell, in general, it’s as or more lethal than a knife at a slightly large range. Further, as I understand, the general effective range of a knife is about 20ft based on how quickly a typical attacker can close the distance and how long it would take the officer to pull his weapon, aim, and fire.
Agreed. That said, if a suspect is actually threatening someone else, that should be even more reason to show restraint. An officer firing a weapon at someone using a hostage as a shield is extremely dangerous to the hostage, even if he doesn’t hit the hostage, if it’s not essentially an instant-kill shot (highly unlikely), the hostage will probably be killed.
This is unreasonable too, because if a suspect is actually able to physically touch the officer’s weapon, he’s probably nearly as likely to get control of the weapon as the officer is then able to use it in defense.
That said, justification for reaching for his weapon isn’t just that the suspect is physically resisting or making a sudden move. For instance, I saw a video a couple weeks back where a man was being arrested and was resisting and an officer claimed he was reaching for his gun so another officer fatally shot him, whereas in the video it was very clear he never got anywhere close to any of the officer’s weapons.
Again, the issue here is that it’s not just a trade-off of some officers’ lives vs. who they may fatally shoot, but it’s also a potential trade-off of other people in the vicinity of the incident. Further, self-preservation is a powerful instinct. The issue, in my mind, isn’t the use of deadly force, per se, it’s when officers knowingly use excessive force that escalates what likely wasn’t going to be a fatal incident into one. For example, Eric Garner’s death, whether or not he was resisting, it’s clear he had no intention of causing grave bodily harm or death to the officers or anyone nearby, so potentially lethal force wasn’t called for.
The real issue here seems to me to be that these issues highlight that police are not properly trained such that they’re able to make that determination appropriately in the heat of an intense situation. In general, police officers need better training, and when they deviate from their training, regardless of whether it actually results in a fatality, the officer should be punished to the full extent of the law, and the department should reevaluate their screening and training to ensure that that doesn’t happen again.
The LAST thing I want to see is a situation where we’re encourage cops not to act on their training and instinct out of fear of severe punishment. The reason being, that I’d be concerned that that sort of policy would deter people who are genuinely interested in law enforcement and protecting people and, instead, would actually increase the ratio of people attracted to policework because they thrive of the power or being a bully. People like that are probably more likely to make bad decisions based on poor motives in those situations.
Moreso, we need to do more to weed out those sorts of individuals from the force. That there’s the idea of “protecting our own” even when they’re there for the wrong reasons is a problem. And I think that’s ultimately the source of frustration in these situations. That is, we, as a society, perceive that the motivation behind the fatalities is racism, classism, bullying, or whatever, and then we see other cops come to their defense. I think when it becomes clear that when a situation actually is based on something like that, they should be stronger in their condemnation and take more decisive action in preventing it from happening again.
Eh, police should have the right to shoot in two broad categories:
-
Any situation where a private citizen would have a right to utilize self defense. Including situations that a private citizen could not be put in since they lack police powers (i.e., a cop lawfully pulling over a drunk driver or a person speeding, who then presents a credible threat to life or limb to the officer.)
-
Any situation where a police officer needs to shoot to prevent a serious violent felony or to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon who is believed to be a serious harm to society (i.e., escaped murderer who is going to get away if the cop doesn’t shoot.)
The problem people have with a lot of unjustified police shootings is that the police can basically lie and put themselves in a self-defense situation. While this also can work quite well for private citizens, private citizens have less credibility in the legal system so they “get away with it less.” Although I can show you news articles demonstrating it happens all the time.
The solution is to do a better job at not letting police lie to successfully avoid punishment for illegal shootings, not to create frankly retarded rules of engagement.
I do think that officer safety has become too important, if that’s possible, to law enforcement agencies. I often point out that William Bratton got his first taste of fame in the 1970s because as a beat cop he bravely went up to an armed robber who had a gun drawn and talked him out of it, saving the life of a woman he held hostage and putting himself directly in harm’s way in the process. Police should accept reasonable risk. I think most modern police would never have gone into that situation, but would’ve stayed behind barricades–or if they did go in, it’d be guns blazing (and likely they’d hit the hostage and the robber both.)
But again, the solution isn’t to make police work arbitrarily more dangerous in situations in which there is no societal interest to do so. Most of the 1100 people killed by police were trying to harm or kill people, and thus that number isn’t a “bad thing” other than it being bad that we have that many violent criminals in this country.
Also as a private citizen I can use a firearm to stop a brutal physical assault on my person, a person with a knife, a person with a club, etc. The idea that police should only respond to firearms is, frankly, stupid. Instead we should have police that are more willing to deescalate situations in scenarios where deescalation is possible, and who are better at properly assessing threat. I think the hyper-reactive philosophies that have taught police to fear death every second and respond violently to the slightest perceived threat have done more harm than good, but replacing them with a bunch of dumb regulations just because people dislike cops isn’t any better.
It used to be that proper statistics weren’t compiled, but people have started to do it more now. You can look at Mapping Police Violence and Killed by Police to get some numbers.
I’m having trouble finding violent criminals specified. But black people are about three times more likely than white people to die in a confrontation with police. And Black Americans killed by police twice as likely to be unarmed as white people.
I don’t know what should be done to improve things. I don’t think saying police should be only allowed to shoot if they see a gun would work well for anyone. For one thing, it seems that if you are holding a gun, you’re more likely to believe an object being held by another person is a gun.
I do not want more police to die. But they did sign up for a dangerous job (even if it’s not as dangerous as TV and movies would lead you to believe). They could have basically zero risk of dying if they drove around the streets in tanks and just shot everyone they had a confrontation with, but obviously that’s a ridiculous extreme that no sane person would want.
I think de-escalation training should be a major point. Sandra Bland wasn’t shot, but the police officer escalated things unnecessarily there. If cops are taught better how to de-escalate things, then there will be fewer situations that escalate into deadly confrontations.
More than half of suspects shot and killed by police are mentally ill — though they commit only 4% of violent crimes. If someone is actually threatening your life, then yes, it should be okay to use force to protect yourself. The problem is that mentally ill people can act in a way that seems threatening, but it’s because they are not in their right mind at the moment. Someone who is mentally ill and seems threatening could be talked into compliance, but it can take some time, and some training from the officers to do that.
So the solution here would be better training by police officers and more resources to help with the mentally ill in the US. If more mentally ill people were able to have the medicine and resources they need, then they’ll be less likely to have an episode that seems threatening and end up getting shot by police.
This might be a hijack better suited for the Martin O’Malley thread or a Black Lives Matter thread, but here’s an article: ‘Why Martin O’Malley had to apologize for saying “all lives matter”’. And here’s an analogy Reddit user GeekAesthete made:
Everyone thinks that white lives matter. That’s a given. Someone who says “Black lives matter. White lives matter. All lives matter.” is either ignorant of the issues regarding the Black Lives Matter issue, or is actively dismissing them.
You say that like it’s a bad thing…
Shot at by cops, with automatic weapons you say? And they all missed? Either they’re lousy shots in your neck of the world, or they really weren’t aiming for you.
MrDibble lives in South Africa. I assume he was part of a large crowd when he was shot at.
And, from the same article, “But when you factor in the population of whites and blacks, the felony rates stand at 330 per 100,000 for whites and 1,178 per 100,000 for blacks. That’s more than a three-fold difference.”.
So if the felony rates are more than three times higher for blacks than for whites, is it surprising that blacks are three times more likely than whites to die in confrontation with police?
(post shortened)
I assume O’Malley was emphasizing the fact that all lives matter. Black lives matter, white lives matter, yellow lives matter, red lives matter, brown lives matter.
Clearly, the assholes who boo’d O’Malley do not believe that all lives matter. You can choose to call O’Malley ignorant for believing that all lives matter, and you can attempt to justify the fact that some assholes boo’d O’Malley for daring to suggest that all lives matter, but that only reflects your personal belief that all lives do not matter.
If things were different, things would be different. I assume that you’re personal experiences do not reflect the actual situation in the U.S. but you somehow think it should. While I appreciate your input, you hate police and believe they should be killed. Appreciating your input does not mean anyone in the U.S. should advocate, or apply, your particular brand of justice.
For the first (and probably last) time, doorhinge and I are in total agreement. That is not to say that US policing doesn’t need reform. But “let’s trade some police lives for citizens’ lives” is not the way to go about it.
People saying Black Lives Matter aren’t saying that **Only **Black Lives Matter. They are saying that Black Lives Matter Too. There’s also this tweet going around:
As a white woman, I don’t really have much to fear from the police. I’ve been pulled over while driving only once, and it’s not because there was only one time that I was breaking driving laws. I’m a pretty good driver, but I definitely speed sometimes, and maybe don’t always use my traffic signal when changing lanes.
The one time I was pulled over was a few years ago. My hand was shaking when I gave my driver’s license to the cop, because I was nervous because I had never been pulled over before. The cop was nice and let me go with a warning. But now I’m wondering what would have happened if I was black. Maybe my shaking hand would indicate I was hiding something else, and he’d search my car for drugs, or otherwise find me suspicious and have the situation escalate.
People in the Black Lives Matter have an agenda, about protesting the number of black people unnecessarily killed by the police. What agenda do people saying All Lives Matter have, other than trying to dismiss Black Lives Matter?
FYI, when cops are involved in a shooting its not just a matter of saying “I feared for my safety” and they get a pass. Their actions have to be reasonable under the circumstances as they believed them to be at the time and they have to articulate their basis for their beliefs in reports and, possibly, testimony.
I am a retired LEO and current police trainer. We will NEVER train officers to wait until they are sure its a gun. As pointed out up-thread, the risk is too great. If it is gun and the suspect intends to harm them, they are in deep trouble. The “They get paid to take those types of risks” is complete BS. They do NOT get paid to put the safety of suspects above their own.
I know people don’t like to hear “Comply with the police” but police are (rightfully) trained that non-compliance is the number one predictor of an assault against an officer. I don’t have stats (because they don’t exist but there’s no reason they couldn’t) but it is my belief that the vast majority of police use-of-force incidents (including shootings) are preceded by non-compliance to a lawful order on the part of the suspect. So, when the officer says “Step out of the car, sir” step out of the car. Don’t engage in a debate with him about your rights or his authority. If you have a beef, settle it in court.
+1
That and the way cops lie for each other.
Don’t sell our relationship short. I suspect that some day we’ll be best of friends (once we get away from political discussion) and it won’t take a zombie apocalypse to make it happen. 
I’ve seen first-hand or second-hand a few dozen investigations into police misconduct. Most of these cases involved petty civil rights stuff (improper stops, First Amendment violations, bogus disorderly conduct charges, etc.), not major use of force cases. But the handful of major cases I’ve seen were no different. And here’s what my experience has been:
Cops learn to say certain magic words in their reports and testimony. Almost without exception they will claim that the suspect was aggressive, cursed at the cop, and was otherwise disrespectful (even when the video or audio proves otherwise). When justifying a stop, they learn to say that the suspect used furtive gestures, or suspiciously started walking a different direction. And when justifying the use of force, they say magic words about their own safety.
Most of these officers probably acted in good faith during the actual incident even when they acted unlawfully, and they probably don’t think that what they are doing in the reports is lying, exactly. They just think this is how it’s done. Paperwork, you know? The legal types want to see certain magic words, so you write 'em down.
I have seen a few cops, a minority of them, play it perfectly straight (as far as I knew) in their reports and testimony. I generally feel bad for them, because they are with a few exceptions the only ones who get in trouble. The ones who get punished are the rookies who didn’t know how to exaggerate their grounds for a stop or the guy with too much integrity to claim that the college student charges with disorderly conduct for taking pictures was 3 ft. away when he was actually 15 ft. away. Those guys get suspended, or docked pay, or (rarely) lose a civil judgment. They learn pretty quickly that telling the straight truth can get you in trouble.