Printable View
The police use the argument because it's true, which isn't to say it can't still be abused. What I really take issue with is that you seemingly expect inhuman levels of restraint in what amounts to chaotic life or death situations. If you'd like to play Monday morning quarterback, please feel free to do so, but don't pretend like that position resembles reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The reality is that we have numerous situations where criminals clearly pose no immediate threat, some cop decided to start shooting, and everyone else joins in. In the end, no one is accountable. Despite what the police unions tell everyone, the main duty of police officers is to protect the public, not themselves. That's not to say the police should take unreasonable risks, but they also shouldn't be so fast to pull the trigger just because there's some minuscule chance that they might be threatened.
Define numerous. Are there anecdotal accounts of this? Absolutely. Is it systemic? That I'm not so sure of.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Is this akin to taking the total number of deaths caused by disease in a year and attributing them all to Ebola?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I think it's a pretty safe assumption that most cop-related killings are carried out with guns.
Is it a safe assumption that most cop-related killings occur when criminals pose no immediate threat, with multiple police officers, and hundreds of rounds fired?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
These anecdotes arise from systemic problems. Police killing people who aren't posing a threat at the time are just the worst expressions or consequences of those problems. More often they use excessive violence, escalate situations unnecessarily, cover up their shenanigans or those of their colleagues etc.
Person standing still? Use a taser. Is he agitated or angry? use fists. Is he trying to breathe? Use kicks and chokeholds. Is he trying to run? Shoot him. Is he dead or dying? Make sure he dies by not giving him any medical care when it can still make a difference. Rinse and repeat. Lewk isn't alone in his belief that a suspected criminal's life is worth less than nothing. vive la mediocrite
So for some reason the Police are denied benefit of the doubt unlike everyone else?
I find the line that it's the Police's duty to protect the public not themselves very concerning. It's often said of the American police is that the first rule is to "get home alive" I don't think any of your boys in blue desiring that are remotely in the wrong.
Glad to live in a country where police fatalities are almost unheard of.
Police fatalities are unheard of precisely because of the trigger happy attitude that leads to so many of these killings. Funny how other countries manage to maintain law and order and not get cops killed in large numbers without killing a thousand people per year.
We manage it because we have sane gun control so our cops don't even need to carry guns as the public don't either.
Everyone else besides other suspected criminals :oQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I don't think it's wrong for the police to want to get home alive, but they may want to think a little harder about those actions/behaviors that make it more difficult for them to be able to get home without killing or maiming a fuckload of people every year.Quote:
It's often said of the American police is that the first rule is to "get home alive" I don't think any of your boys in blue desiring that are remotely in the wrong.
Who's denying the benefit of the doubt to suspected criminals other than Lewkowski? Every single other person on this site has said that needless deaths should be avoided.
If you want the Police not to kill or maim a fuckload of people each year there's a very simple solution: gun control. Take the guns off the streets and the Police won't be so quick to use theirs. As long as criminals carry lethal weapons, the Police will have to both carry and use lethal weapons - and they need to be quicker at using them than the criminals are.
I've also suggested body cameras on the Police too, though I suspect that will be used more as evidence by the Police than against them. There are rotten eggs in every group but I suspect more suspected criminals are rotten eggs than cops.
That line of thinking may explain your claims in the previous thread about bad cops being a minority. You can justify lot of wrong behavior and treatment of citizens with this way of thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Let's apply the police mentality to other jobs. Firemen: don't take any risks. If any building has the slightest chance of collapsing or you have the slightest chance of getting severe exposure to smoke, don'to go in the house. Soldiers: if you have the slightest chance of being shot, don't move forward; rely entirely on air support. Sorry, but this is an idiotic mentality. The main jobs of cops is to maintain law and order. Period. If they don't want to put their life at risk, they should get a different job. No one's calling for cops to take unnecessary risks, but a decent number of them are clearly at the other extreme, shooting suspects the second they feel threatened (or just pissed off). If their first reaction was to de-escalate, we wouldn't see half of the deaths by cops. It doesn't help that a good number of fully armed cops seem to be just as afraid of black males at night as an old confederate lady.
No, I think bad cops are a minority because I think bad cops are a minority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
You can switch cops with any other profession and I'd say the same thing. I think bad teachers, firemen, soldiers, nurses, doctors, accountants, journalists, priests, lawyers and politicians are a minority. I don't think there's a single profession out there that is mostly corrupt or dodgy. I know not all the above are professionals, but I'll expand it to them too.
Do you seriously think a majority of officers in the US are dodgy?
I thought your issue with the cop above was that he put his life at risk unnecessarily in your eyes?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
If you think that no cops in America put their lives at risk I think you're in denial of reality. A quick Google search shows that an average of 146 American cops die in the line of duty each year. I imagine the numbers wounded far exceed that. Law of averages says a couple of officers will have died since this thread started alone, again more will have been wounded. I'm sure it will please their families to know they acted like cowards in your eyes :rolleyes:
For an international comparison last year three British officers died, two due to road traffic accidents and one who had a heart attack after cycling. None due to crime. I don't think the American police are bringing the death of their comrades on themselves, I think American criminals are more dangerous as they're armed with weapons designed to kill.
Some thoughts from the inside
http://www.vox.com/2015/5/28/8661977...police-officer
There is a difference in burden of proof between criminal and civil suits isn't there? Plus of the cop followed protocol that might absolve him, but if the protocol is bad to begin with the city would still be responsible, no?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I've read some criticism of the judge that said he really didn't apply the law very well (basically, the judge's rationale was that as long as a cop "feels" threatened, he could shoot anyone and everyone; not the best standard to use and one that is clearly unconstitutional). Unfortunately, there's no possibility of an appeal.
You regret that double jeopardy applies? Do you want to remove that for all suspects or just officers of the law?
As for self-defence, I thought that everyone (public or police) needed to feel threatened for it to apply. Again these are life-or-death split second decisions, I notice that you just completely ignored the fact that hundreds of American officers die on the line of duty defending the public. Guess its easier to ignore anything that doesn't fit in with your agenda.
I want to remove judges that don't know the law. Like I said, it's too late to retry the police officer.
Except this wasn't a split second decision. What's my agenda? Not wanting cops to kill at will?
Why wasn't it a split second decision? The judge thought the officer legitimately felt his life threatened and the suspect had shown he was willing to kill so why is this legally wrong? If he felt his life threatened should he have waited until he was dead before he had a right to defend his life?
As for your agenda, I'm not clear what it is. You (and OG especially) seem to have a hard on for the Police being always in the wrong that's as ludicrous as Lewk's hard on for criminals being killed.
Pfft because it was more like 15 split-second decisions :oQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No Enoch, shush you :noob:
To be honest I don't see Loki as having a hard on for the police being definitely wrong, except in this case (where he has given a reason). And to be honest if all other cops stop shooting yet you think it's safe enough to walk up and stand on the bonnet, it doesn't sound like a split second decision.
Because the officer climbed on top of the car after a whole wave of shots from him and others. There was absolutely no reason to climb on top of the car. And this was not something that he did in an instant. The judge used a standard that's not supported by the law. The cops are not allowed to use lethal force just because they feel threatened. We're talking about freaking cops. They could make a persuasive case to be threatened throughout their entire shift. Does that mean they can turn around and shoot people all the time? This ruling (if applied more broadly) would give cops a blank check to shoot anyone and everyone as long as the cop is wearing a uniform (after all, the cop gets to decide whether he feels threatened or not).Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Furthermore, the judge threw out the manslaughter charge because he couldn't be sure that it was precisely this officer who fired the killing shot. That is contrary to case law.
I'm also the one consistently calling for tougher penalties for crimes, including making much more frequent use of the death penalty...
You're going reductio ad absurdum.
Of course if feeling threatened is a defence then it has to be demonstrated that you reasonably felt threatened. Merely being an officer doesn't discount the threat faced.
Since you're so willing to pronounce judgement that not only is the officer in the wrong but the judge is too I'm wondering how much of the evidence in this case you've read? Or witness testimony you've seen etc? Since you know better than both the cop and the judge.
You realize this is how law works, right? If you establish that a cop can use lethal force as a first reaction any time he feels threatened, then that becomes a valid defense. The judge said that as long as the officer felt threatened, he couldn't be convicted. That is highly subjective. It will be very difficult for a prosecution to prove that a police officer didn't feel threatened.
I've read plenty of criticism of this decision. I also know that police officers are killing a thousand Americans a year, and virtually none of them are being punished. We need to make it more difficult for cops to kill people, not less difficult. Any time you create such an easy way out, you're telling police officers that it's ok to shoot first and use their brain second. Or just shoot anyone who looked at you funny. And if the person who looks at you funny is a black male, well, you automatically get a right to feel threatened. :rolleyes:
You are aware of the concept of innocent until proven guilty aren't you? The prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the officer killed the suspect illegally - with self defence a legal defence. Self defence isn't being created as a defence it has ALWAYS existed.
As for your numbers it seems then that the Police are killing about 5 to 6 suspects per year relative to how many Police die. I wonder how that ratio compares to Eg Israel officers versus Palestininians killed.
How do you figure that? I don't really understand what you mean. But police kill around 1000 people a year in the usa, while about 50 are shot every year.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Was an estimate from my figure above that an average of 146 US Police Officers die each each. 1000/146 = 6.8
According to the Guardian this compares to for example 12 Israelis killed by Palestinians, while 2314 Palestinians were killed by Israeli's in 2014. A ratio of 192.8 compared to an estimated ratio of 6.8 - if we only want to look at numbers and just simply ignore issues like whether deaths were justified etc
Though even 50 police deaths per year (which is a lot less than reported) would be unacceptable and 50 too many. Would imply on average two officers would have been killed since this thread started (rather than 6 deaths since this thread started which is the average).
Numbers i read were 120ish police deaths, but only 50 of those were shot (compared to 32 the year before). The rest were car accidents and things like heart attacks, so not relevant here. Which is too many, sure.
Unfortunately, self-defense may apply even if you were the one who made the idiotic and murderous decision. See eg. the Trayvon Martin case :o yet another reason why police need to have their worst instincts tempered by better training, better leadership and perhaps a little more fear of the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I don't think training is an issue. Many departments provide training about racism, and that hasn't made a dent in how police departments treat minorities. Ultimately, police officers need to think for that extra second before they decide to take someone's life. Right now, they have no reason to take that extra second.
As for the 120 police officer number, it's biased and absurd. Half the deaths result from traffic accidents, not exactly a surprise given how many people die from those kind of accidents in the country.
Nor a surprise when officers need to deal with morons like the late moron criminal in the start of this thread who was involved in a 100mph high speed chase.
Officer logic: there's a 1% chance the guy is reaching for a gun. If he is reaching for a gun and a I kill him, I did nothing wrong. If he's not reaching for a gun and I kill him, I don't get punished. So why not shoot first and think later?
And since packing heat (buying, owning, or wearing a gun) is a right variable by state....is it any wonder that we have so many disagreements?
A right for middle-aged white guys (and women I suppose). If someone else dares to have one, they make the police feel threatened, which means they sign a de facto death warrant on themselves.
Which doesn't fall into the category of life/liberty/justice for All, huh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki