|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 08 2015 04:07 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2015 03:52 cLutZ wrote:On June 08 2015 02:51 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2015 02:44 Slaughter wrote:On June 08 2015 02:14 KwarK wrote:At least the police officer in question made a reasonable attempt to save the guys life after negating the threat. They don't always do that. I still think it's absolutely insane that the police would rather kill a citizen than accept any potential threat to themselves, their job is meant to be to protect the public by putting themselves in harms way, not the other way around. But lets take the small victories for America where we can take them, at least he didn't wound him in a non immediately fatal way, cuff him and then watch him die while throwing racial insults his way. Cruz rolls Taylor's body to his side and tells him, "Stay with me buddy. Stay with me." Cruz applies gauze to a wound, saying, "Talk to me, buddy. Talk to me. Medical's on the way, man. Medical's on the way, OK?" That is totally how they are trained though. And that's a big problem. The way the officer acted after he shot shows he had no intent to kill the guy, he shot him because he had been taught to shoot and did not know how else to handle the situation Police Departments should look outside the US and get some help in how to train officers to not shoot the people they are sworn to protect unless as an absolute last resort. I think GH would agree with this; what you are really taking about is a police force 1/4 the size where officers are paid 2x as much and has a support staff of professionals, not a hierarchy of sergeants and colonels. What you are talking about is turning it from a blue collar job to to a university. Hate to break it to you but over here cops are payed terribly and are not educated at all. But somehow we manage to not shoot people all the time. + Show Spoiler +Ofcourse you will say it is because America is special, and your right. Its especially stupid.
Would you say that US police are much more likely to face a life threatening situation? The fact that guns are so prevalent compared to other countries here I think is what makes police trained that way in the first place and that is unfortunate. Though to be fair the overwhelming majority of police never use their weapon in the line of duty so the mindset is overblown but I think there is a perception of danger being much more common then it is in the US.
|
On June 08 2015 05:05 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2015 04:07 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2015 03:52 cLutZ wrote:On June 08 2015 02:51 Gorsameth wrote:On June 08 2015 02:44 Slaughter wrote:On June 08 2015 02:14 KwarK wrote:At least the police officer in question made a reasonable attempt to save the guys life after negating the threat. They don't always do that. I still think it's absolutely insane that the police would rather kill a citizen than accept any potential threat to themselves, their job is meant to be to protect the public by putting themselves in harms way, not the other way around. But lets take the small victories for America where we can take them, at least he didn't wound him in a non immediately fatal way, cuff him and then watch him die while throwing racial insults his way. Cruz rolls Taylor's body to his side and tells him, "Stay with me buddy. Stay with me." Cruz applies gauze to a wound, saying, "Talk to me, buddy. Talk to me. Medical's on the way, man. Medical's on the way, OK?" That is totally how they are trained though. And that's a big problem. The way the officer acted after he shot shows he had no intent to kill the guy, he shot him because he had been taught to shoot and did not know how else to handle the situation Police Departments should look outside the US and get some help in how to train officers to not shoot the people they are sworn to protect unless as an absolute last resort. I think GH would agree with this; what you are really taking about is a police force 1/4 the size where officers are paid 2x as much and has a support staff of professionals, not a hierarchy of sergeants and colonels. What you are talking about is turning it from a blue collar job to to a university. Hate to break it to you but over here cops are payed terribly and are not educated at all. But somehow we manage to not shoot people all the time. + Show Spoiler +Ofcourse you will say it is because America is special, and your right. Its especially stupid. Would you say that US police are much more likely to face a life threatening situation? The fact that guns are so prevalent compared to other countries here I think is what makes police trained that way in the first place and that is unfortunate. Though to be fair the overwhelming majority of police never use their weapon in the line of duty so the mindset is overblown but I think there is a perception of danger being much more common then it is in the US.
I don't deny that police in the US are more likely to encounter people with a gun in their line of work and that as a consequence there is more danger but I don't believe that gives them the right to be so loose with the use of their own firearm.
The gun situation would force the police to approach dangerous situations differently, in ways that would reduce the threat if a gun is involved.
I'm often reminded of the story of the little guy with a plastic gun in the park. The officer was told someone was waving a gun around, obviously he is on alert and more trigger happy but he stops his car in front of the child and gets out on the side of the kid. If he is alerted of a weapon why does he put himself in front of that gun with no cover?
Stop further away, get out on the other side of the car. At least then you have options other then shooting him instantly.
Yes the nature of gun related violence means police in the US will have to resort to using their own weapon more often but its not the counts of "Police shoots armed man who was waving gun around" that is so appalling. Its the amount of time people get shot in situations where deadly force was in no way required.
Deadly force should be a measure of absolute last resort. Not a convenient middle ground.
|
That's why most countries have accepted that the government is supposed to have a monopoly on violence, so that the police does not have to be armed like the military and police officers do not have to fear for their lives if they encounter a kid with a toy gun.
The fact that everybody can and may likely carry a weapon all the time has pretty much created a situation where everybody needs to be on high alert all the time.
It's not that cops here or in the Netherlands are smarter, the fact that a kid or teenager could carry a weapon simply never crosses their mind because that threat simply doesn't exist.(with some rare exceptions)
|
Any solution will have to work around an armed population tho. Removing guns is not an option so it doesn't add anything.
|
It is an option. It's just an option that takes a long fucking time that probably can't be realized in a single lifespan.
|
he could just aim at his knee or lower body and instead of treating him like an animal he hunted, he could do a better pressure, but he chose handcuffing him impatiently, then tried to find a gun as if there was still danger.
|
United States41991 Posts
On June 08 2015 06:40 lastpuritan wrote:
he could just aim at his knee or lower body and instead of treating him like an animal he hunted, he could do a better pressure, but he chose handcuffing him impatiently, then tried to find a gun as if there was still danger.
There aren't really safe places to shoot another human being. A much better solution is for the police to view the killing of an unarmed civilian as a sufficiently bad thing that they would risk their lives to avoid it.
If I'm being threatened by a burglar we expect the police to put themselves in harms way to save me because I'm a citizen and that's what they are paid to do, that's their job. But if I'm an unknown potential threat to the police they are entirely willing to threaten my life to end that risk. It's kinda nuts. The police have a duty to the public which doesn't end with the innocent, people who are suspected of committing a crime are still citizens, they still have rights, they still get their due process and their day in court.
|
There's a very real risk that removing guns from the population will become impossible as 3D printing improves.
We've had very strict gun-control for a while now and it's worked quite well, but I'm not sure it's actually a reasonable thing to embark on now. The world is likely to change before you're even done taking away the old guns.
|
On June 08 2015 06:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2015 06:40 lastpuritan wrote:
he could just aim at his knee or lower body and instead of treating him like an animal he hunted, he could do a better pressure, but he chose handcuffing him impatiently, then tried to find a gun as if there was still danger. There aren't really safe places to shoot another human being. A much better solution is for the police to view the killing of an unarmed civilian as a sufficiently bad thing that they would risk their lives to avoid it. If I'm being threatened by a burglar we expect the police to put themselves in harms way to save me because I'm a citizen and that's what they are paid to do, that's their job. But if I'm an unknown potential threat to the police they are entirely willing to threaten my life to end that risk. It's kinda nuts. The police have a duty to the public which doesn't end with the innocent, people who are suspected of committing a crime are still citizens, they still have rights, they still get their due process and their day in court.
Problem is when the police are told someone is armed. Like in this case.
Which brings up further issues that are unrelated to police, like unreliable witnesses, citizen paranoia, rampant expectation of gun culture, etc.
And then the police are forced between a rock and a hard place, where either they don't take reported threats seriously and end up not preventing real threats, or they take the reports seriously and end up overreacting with possible loss of innocent life.
|
On June 08 2015 06:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2015 06:40 lastpuritan wrote:
he could just aim at his knee or lower body and instead of treating him like an animal he hunted, he could do a better pressure, but he chose handcuffing him impatiently, then tried to find a gun as if there was still danger. There aren't really safe places to shoot another human being. A much better solution is for the police to view the killing of an unarmed civilian as a sufficiently bad thing that they would risk their lives to avoid it. If I'm being threatened by a burglar we expect the police to put themselves in harms way to save me because I'm a citizen and that's what they are paid to do, that's their job. But if I'm an unknown potential threat to the police they are entirely willing to threaten my life to end that risk. It's kinda nuts. The police have a duty to the public which doesn't end with the innocent, people who are suspected of committing a crime are still citizens, they still have rights, they still get their due process and their day in court.
Uhh, several rulings, including in the SCOTUS, disagree with you. The police are in no way legally bound to put themselves in harms way to protect you. They are not even legally bound to protect you. Their job-description is to enforce the law, nothing more, nothing less.
|
United States41991 Posts
On June 08 2015 08:44 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2015 06:59 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2015 06:40 lastpuritan wrote:
he could just aim at his knee or lower body and instead of treating him like an animal he hunted, he could do a better pressure, but he chose handcuffing him impatiently, then tried to find a gun as if there was still danger. There aren't really safe places to shoot another human being. A much better solution is for the police to view the killing of an unarmed civilian as a sufficiently bad thing that they would risk their lives to avoid it. If I'm being threatened by a burglar we expect the police to put themselves in harms way to save me because I'm a citizen and that's what they are paid to do, that's their job. But if I'm an unknown potential threat to the police they are entirely willing to threaten my life to end that risk. It's kinda nuts. The police have a duty to the public which doesn't end with the innocent, people who are suspected of committing a crime are still citizens, they still have rights, they still get their due process and their day in court. Uhh, several rulings, including in the SCOTUS, disagree with you. The police are in no way legally bound to put themselves in harms way to protect you. They are not even legally bound to protect you. Their job-description is to enforce the law, nothing more, nothing less.
Not legally bound to protect the public doesn't mean it's not their job to protect the public.
|
On June 08 2015 08:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2015 08:44 Ghostcom wrote:On June 08 2015 06:59 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2015 06:40 lastpuritan wrote:
he could just aim at his knee or lower body and instead of treating him like an animal he hunted, he could do a better pressure, but he chose handcuffing him impatiently, then tried to find a gun as if there was still danger. There aren't really safe places to shoot another human being. A much better solution is for the police to view the killing of an unarmed civilian as a sufficiently bad thing that they would risk their lives to avoid it. If I'm being threatened by a burglar we expect the police to put themselves in harms way to save me because I'm a citizen and that's what they are paid to do, that's their job. But if I'm an unknown potential threat to the police they are entirely willing to threaten my life to end that risk. It's kinda nuts. The police have a duty to the public which doesn't end with the innocent, people who are suspected of committing a crime are still citizens, they still have rights, they still get their due process and their day in court. Uhh, several rulings, including in the SCOTUS, disagree with you. The police are in no way legally bound to put themselves in harms way to protect you. They are not even legally bound to protect you. Their job-description is to enforce the law, nothing more, nothing less. Not legally bound to protect the public doesn't mean it's not their job to protect the public.
What you expect their job to be is not what their job is.
|
We could provide shields for all the police, so it would be more feasible to hold off shooting for longer.
looking at prices, it would be a fair bit of money, but definitely feasible.
http://www.galls.com/ballistic-shields
|
Whilst shields would work in some situations they wouldn't work in many others. An example could be the traffic stop. Furthermore, escalating the defence of cops leads to a possible offensive escalation of criminals (more firepower) as well.
|
On June 08 2015 09:02 zlefin wrote:We could provide shields for all the police, so it would be more feasible to hold off shooting for longer. looking at prices, it would be a fair bit of money, but definitely feasible. http://www.galls.com/ballistic-shields
Dunno about you, but having police walk up to you with riot shields is probably the worst way to de-escalate any situation ever.
|
On June 08 2015 09:02 zlefin wrote:We could provide shields for all the police, so it would be more feasible to hold off shooting for longer. looking at prices, it would be a fair bit of money, but definitely feasible. http://www.galls.com/ballistic-shields
Buy them in bulk and I'm sure the prices would go down.
On June 08 2015 09:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:Dunno about you, but having police walk up to you with riot shields is probably the worst way to de-escalate any situation ever.
... Why? Do you feel more threatened by a shield than a gun or something?
On June 08 2015 09:02 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2015 08:49 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2015 08:44 Ghostcom wrote:On June 08 2015 06:59 KwarK wrote:On June 08 2015 06:40 lastpuritan wrote:
he could just aim at his knee or lower body and instead of treating him like an animal he hunted, he could do a better pressure, but he chose handcuffing him impatiently, then tried to find a gun as if there was still danger. There aren't really safe places to shoot another human being. A much better solution is for the police to view the killing of an unarmed civilian as a sufficiently bad thing that they would risk their lives to avoid it. If I'm being threatened by a burglar we expect the police to put themselves in harms way to save me because I'm a citizen and that's what they are paid to do, that's their job. But if I'm an unknown potential threat to the police they are entirely willing to threaten my life to end that risk. It's kinda nuts. The police have a duty to the public which doesn't end with the innocent, people who are suspected of committing a crime are still citizens, they still have rights, they still get their due process and their day in court. Uhh, several rulings, including in the SCOTUS, disagree with you. The police are in no way legally bound to put themselves in harms way to protect you. They are not even legally bound to protect you. Their job-description is to enforce the law, nothing more, nothing less. Not legally bound to protect the public doesn't mean it's not their job to protect the public. What you expect their job to be is not what their job is.
I told him that on the other page, but Kwark seems pretty adamant that his opinion on their purpose is an absolute truth.
|
Bullet shields certainly aren't something I'd want the police to default to in every call; but for some calls, where it's specified that the offender has a gun, like for that kid, having a shield would give them more leeway.
|
On June 08 2015 09:40 zlefin wrote:
Bullet shields certainly aren't something I'd want the police to default to in every call; but for some calls, where it's specified that the offender has a gun, like for that kid, having a shield would give them more leeway.
Why all the hate on shields? Is it just because they tend to be used during times of unrest?
|
Where would they store it? In the trunk? passenger seat? On their lap?
|
On June 08 2015 10:13 JumboJohnson wrote:
Where would they store it? In the trunk? passenger seat? On their lap?
Inside roof above passenger seat maybe. I'm not sure how much room they have, but if it's flat enough then above them should be no issue. Also makes it so they have quick access to them without being in the way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
