We also cannot allow any group of people to have the right to kill and injure other people anytime they feel threatened.
And since this keeps getting repeated, I’ll repeat this: If you’re so goddamned scared for your own safety that you feel you need to use violence to preserve it instead of relying on your other tools, then paranoid little fraidypants bedwetter should not be a police officer.
You’re avoiding the question, I have the gift of gab, and can talk most people into handcuffs, thankfully, but there are times that all that fails, then what? You’re acting as if people are always completely predictable in their behavior, “if I do or say A, he’ll always do B” People aren’t like that. I’ll ask you straight out, Do you think cops should ever resort to violence to apprehend someone?
I didn’t say that, drewder did in post 87. But in the context in which he said it and you deliberately left out, it makes sense. To wit:
You’ll note also that he didn’t say “everyone” who resists is hiding something deadly, he said merely that they’re more likely to be.
The right to preserve one’s own life is the single most fundamental right of all human beings. To deny it is to deny humanity itself.
Which other “tools” do you believe the police have that will protect them from a bullet speeding towards their brain?
I ask you again; somewhere in this city, a woman is frantically calling for help because her drug-addicted husband has his gun out and is threatening to kill himself and the children if she leaves him. Two blocks over, an informant is watching a man is selling his 10-year-old daughter’s body to pay for his crack habit. A few miles down the road from that, a 17-year-old in a fast food restaurant furtively hits the silent alarm button as a group of armed men force them to open the tills before hustling them into the back room and ordering them to kneel with their backs turned.
Exactly how many minutes do you have to sit there babysitting the guy who’s telling you not to touch him because he doesn’t want to go to jail?
I think chimera’s solution makes sense and is based on sound physiological factors. Waiting a few minutes to let the adrenaline rush pass and start having a rational conversation/negotiation is totally the right approach. Police tactics basically boil down to blitzkrieging the shit out of suspects as soon as possible, and this has the inevitable outcome of everyone’s lizard brains to go into full alert mode and block out all other higher reasoning brain regions. Result: dead black people and dead cops.
Then it depends. I would bet large amounts of money that properly trained police officers who are not blatant assholes could get the person in handcuffs without beating him half to death or drawing weapons. Sure, they might need to pin him to the wall or take him to the ground, but a beating isn’t necessary.
Absolutely not. When a significant portion of our country’s population is screaming that there’s something wrong with how the police are handling situations that involve them, I’m willing to listen and not just say “Welp, these guys carrying guns must know best! Good job, fellas!” Because maybe they don’t, or else these “whoopsies” wouldn’t be happening with increasing frequency, with African-American populations. Their idea of dealing with a “hostile reprobate” too often involves shooting (or choking) first, asking questions later, even when their lives weren’t in immediate danger or alternative options exist. Maybe reform of some sort is in order.
Why is this happening with the black population in greater numbers than the white population? Is there an assumption of violence or guilt when dealing with a black man? Or just a basic dehumanization or lack of empathy? Is it really that important to use choking force to apprehend a man who you only suspect has committed a misdemeanor?
You contradict yourself.
I would assume that there’s more than one police officer.
Even if I grant your ridiculous oversimplification, we do it all the time. How else could we fight wars? How else could we ask soldiers to not leave a man behind if they are never asked to risk their personal safety?
“A significant portion of our country’s population” will happily tell you that the president is a Muslim who supports terrorists, that transgender women are perverts hoping to prey on little girls in public bathrooms, and that global warming is a hoax invented by the Chinese in order to impose socialism on America.
Cite that these events are “happening with increasing frequency”?
How do you intend to apprehend that man if laying hands on him is off the table?
You’re gonna have to run a major recruiting drive if they’re all expected to be as milquetoast as you intend to be.
A soldier volunteers with the expectation that he may be asked to die for his country.
Policemen do not. If you expect policemen to be willing to die in the line of duty, then it’s probably time to stop complaining about “militarization” of the police.
Apologies for the misquote.
Great, then feel free to cite this proclivity being rooted in empirical evidence? Both of you are simply assuming they are acting rationally when most rational people don’t commit murder or hide “deadly” things.
You ever been punched in face? Been in a physical altercation with someone? A street fight? You’re acting as if real life is a movie and that cops will some kind of “goto” move to subdue people that always works. Do you have any idea how hard it is to handcuff someone if they are resisting arrest?
So when you said:
You were wrong? Care to revise your statement?
Of course we expect policemen will (unfortunately) die in the line of duty. It’s a known, foreseeable risk. We don’t encourage it any more than we encourage the deaths of soldiers, but we know it’s going to happen. That’s the job. Otherwise we should just use unarmed security guards to keep the peace.
I do not.
If you fail to understand the difference between war and law enforcement, that is your problem.
Spent five years as a security guard, half of that time armed, without ever being hit. The only time I physically touched someone was to pull a drunk off another guy’s back because he was choking him out.
I walked calmly into a fight between a table full of football players beating the hell out of each other, quietly said “Ok, we’re done now” and the fight ended. Period. Not another punch of bad word said.
I deterred several people who threatened me physically simply by smiling and calmly talking to them with a confidence and lack of escalation that completely threw them off and stopped the nonsense I was sent to stop in the first place.
I walked people out doors while they ranted endlessly and made threats. Nothing happened. Why? Because I was calm, unflappable and never took the bait.
As an armed guard, I drew my weapon exactly twice, but never pointed it at anyone or screamed threats. The first time was five homeless guys jumping all over my truck and pulling on the doors. I drew me weapon and held it up, with a calm look on my face. They decided they’d had enough fun and left. The second time two guys were trying to sneak up behind my partner and walking past my truck door. One of the guys saw the gun in my hand (again, pointed up) and my other hand on the door, and got spooked. They made excuses and then ran away.
I stood next to a court clerk while his co-workers ran for cover and the county sheriffs and deputies rallied outside the door preparing to come in and take down a guy screaming and threatening violence. I just stood there calmly, watching him. The clerk later thanked me for ‘saving’ his life and expressed his respect for my calm demeanor in the face of a maniac.
I have a black belt in Karate and a belt in Aikido. I’m familiar with other styles. I’ve never had to use them, because my brain and my mouth are my top 2 weapons in any situation.
If you can’t do these things as a police officer, you should not be one.
Secret service has the same expectation. If you speak in absolutes, be prepared to defend them.
I think part of the problem is that one side of the conversation is talking in “is” and the other side is talking in “ought.”
Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that police never give orders that are ambiguous or impossible to comply with, and that people who comply never get shot. One side is saying this is the case, or largely the case.
Perhaps it is. But I’m on the “ought” side and I’m not willing to leave it at that. It gives the police officer the same moral authority as a bank robber: do this or you’ll get shot. Why is this the current relationship between the citizens – or certain subsets of the citizens, since black people are getting shot by the police at something like twice the rate of white people – and the police? Why should it be? Why are we giving people dictatorial powers, even in a small domain, in a democracy?
Even if you’re on the “is” side yourself, do you understand why some people who are asking “why should I comply?” aren’t accepting “otherwise you’ll get shot” as an answer?