I also wonder why the city paid out several million to the families of the people shot if proper protocol was followed. Are we really working under the assumption that anything a judge says is legally and ethically correct by the way?
I also wonder why the city paid out several million to the families of the people shot if proper protocol was followed. Are we really working under the assumption that anything a judge says is legally and ethically correct by the way?
Hope is the denial of reality
The city have paid out millions over this? That's completely fucked up.
So if you want to kill yourself then it makes perfect sense to go on a rampage ending in suicide by cop, at least then you provide for your family in your final act
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Or maybe the police shouldn't take over a hundred shots at a contained, broken down car (with no evidence of armed passengers inside).
Hope is the denial of reality
Seems to be some ire over the fact there were a number of shots. What's the number of shots got to do with the price of fish?
One shot can kill. Whether its one or over a hundred, once the decision is made to shoot to kill I fail to see what difference quantity makes. Surely the issue to be concerned about was that they shot at all, not how many times they shot. If the shooting was unjustified then I fail to see how the fact that the victim was only shot once is going to help the widow.
One shot might be fired by mistake or to disable. 100 shots are fired to kill anything and everything.
Hope is the denial of reality
I don't think that's a fair assessment. When a firefight begins, it is almost impossible to tell who is firing, from where, and whether or not the threat has ended. All it takes is one police officer firing one shot to set off a chain reaction that won't usually stop until the threat has clearly ended, (hard to determine when the suspects are seated in a vehicle) or the participants have run out of ammunition.
Police aren't generally trained to shoot to disable. The continuum of force means that when you are drawing your pistol it is because you are ready to kill.
I agree with your first bit, but the second bit may be as it should be but rather obviously not always followed, if we remember, say, images from the Ferguson riots with the police aiming their weapons at pretty much anyone.
If I understand the news articles correctly the first shots were pretty much consisted justified by most people (if I read correctly, these started as they tried to ram police but it wasn't very clearly written), and keep in mind police thought he had already fired a gun when the car backfired. The problematic bit was that after all the other cops stopped shooting one fired more rounds while walking towards them.
Regarding the millions payout, just because you've been found criminally not guilty doesn't mean you're not civilly liable right? Plus they just got a report saying they're too violent which I assume makes them vulnerable to civil suits.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
There is obviously a difference between what is taught and what is practiced, as there is in the application of any theory, but I'm admittedly not an expert. I can imagine that the rules of engagement used during a riot are probably very different from an officer's typical interaction with the public. There is also the added wrinkle that many less-than-lethal weapons could pretty easily be confused with their lethal counterparts. I'm thinking specifically of rubber bullets and beanbag rounds here.
And to be fair, they were publicly criticised for it, and both training and how it's applied in practice probably also depends on the force in question.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
The police always use this argument, but then they also tend to fire first. Seems like a rather convenient excuse.
Hope is the denial of reality
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.
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.
Hope is the denial of reality
Define numerous. Are there anecdotal accounts of this? Absolutely. Is it systemic? That I'm not so sure of.
Hope is the denial of reality
Is this akin to taking the total number of deaths caused by disease in a year and attributing them all to Ebola?
I think it's a pretty safe assumption that most cop-related killings are carried out with guns.
Hope is the denial of reality
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?
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.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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.
Hope is the denial of reality
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
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.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.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
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.
Hope is the denial of reality
No, I think bad cops are a minority because I think bad cops are a minority.
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?
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
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
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
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?
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
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.
Hope is the denial of reality
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
