On February 17 2013 01:39 KwarK wrote: One thing that troubles me about these incidents when it turned out the guy was no threat but the policeman decided he needed to take action to prevent a possible danger to himself is that that seems like a really shitty tradeoff. Clearly someone has taught police officers that if they feel there is a genuine danger to themselves then they can take whatever action they deem necessary to neutralise the threat. But when you look at it in terms of the possible negative outcome from getting it wrong, either a police officer getting killed by some criminal or an innocent member of the public getting killed by a police officer, the latter seems far worse to me. I'm not in favour of policemen dying, I think that's bad, but I also think it's a risk of their job, it's a risk they and their families get compensated for and it's an unfortunate aspect of public service. Whereas the latter, an agent of the state killing a member of the public who had done nothing wrong, is a far more serious issue. The mentality in which the police officer first defends himself against any perceived threat from a member of the public and marginalises the rights of the individual seems backwards and is indicative of a wider problem with police and their relationship with the public.
I had an earlier reply to you regarding judgment calls, but its a good thing you detailed out your opinion so that we can argue on specific terms.
But before that, let me make it clear that I am against use of lethal force against petty crimes and pedestrian incidents, specifically this one.
But, unlike the scenario that you picture this out to be, the law enforcement is not there to see what is the best situation that could arise from a given scenario. Crime, by definition, even "ongoing" or "perceived danger" ones, operate on time, and judgment call must be made. A police officer does not think, "Oh is it better that I let him get away so no one gets hurt". They are trained to respond to "perceived" danger. Some or most fail at this judgment, and this is another thread altogether. But it is wrong to think of the situation as the welfare of the citizen vs. the cop. Crime is crime no matter what to a cop, and he has constitutional rights to implement in the function of his duty. (But as I say, there are, as in this case obviously, wrong implementation of this.)
EDIT: And it is definitely wrong to think that dying or being in harms way is part of the police officers job. A police officer is there to ensure peace and order according to the law. Getting shot is a likely if unwanted result, but it should never be normalized. A police officer does not deserve to get such in the same manner that any law abiding citizen also doesnt.
I'm not saying a police officer deserves to get shot. I'm saying they accept the potential for them to get shot in the line of duty as a part of doing their job.
Imagine the parallel of a fireman showing up at a burning house that potentially had people inside. The house is a low risk but fire is unpredictable and it may collapse and block his exit if he checks for people even though 99% of the time he'd be fine. If he turns around and says "I'm not going in there, fire is dangerous" then he's not doing his job because his duty is to take that 1% risk to save the people. Similarly, if a police officer thinks there is a low possibility the guy is about the draw a gun on him and takes the shot then he is failing in his duty to protect the public by refusing to place himself in harms way. Policemen don't deserve to get shot and firemen don't deserve to get burnt but both have a duty to accept reasonable levels of personal risk in public service, that's their job.
As far as I know the law, firemen are not obliged by their job description to save live NO MATTER WHAT. They use judgment at well. IF they risk that 1% for the opportunity to save lives, that's going outside the call of duty, and is thus labelled a heroic act. In a similar manner, the police officers are not required to die or be shot at in the line of duty, whether or not it happens. Add to this the nature of crime and police work, then you see why survival instinct is the strongest factor in most cases.
A fireman who never shows up to work is a fireman who is simply choosing not to risk his life. Fighting fires is dangerous. He'll still get fired (no pun intended) though. He is professionally required to accept a degree of risk.
Surely you understand the fact that there is a difference between a fireman entering a house to save lives and using his judgment call in risking the 1% (your number) even when it seems impossible. The key word here is judgment. It is his job to save lives, when it is possible. But he is not supposed to die in the process. If he does, or risks doing so, it is an heroic act on his part, I was clear on that on my post to which you replied.
Nobody except suicide bombers and snuff video stars are supposed to die doing their jobs. But people are supposed to accept reasonable risks doing their jobs. A doctor is supposed to treat patients with infectious diseases, a fireman is supposed to go near fires, a policeman is supposed to be able to spend time near a suspect without panicking and killing them. It does put them in danger to not immediately execute everyone who could be carrying a weapon but the risk is judged worth it and just as a doctor whose fear of diseases prevents him from treating anyone would be useless so a policeman whose fear of personal risk causes him to gun down potential threats is useless.
You're confused. Our only argument here is your claiming that being shot at is part of the police officer's job. I disagree. You compare it to a firemen risking his life to potentially save someone. I reply that in fact legally he has no obligation to do so, if saving another life endangers his. If this happens, then it is outside the bounds of duty, the same case with police officers. Do not romanticize it as simply "part of the job" thing. The risk is always there. Even professional chess players are at risk of earthquakes or sudden nuke attacks. What is being questioned is your claim that dying or risking death is part of the job. It is not.
I'm pretty sure if you are a police officer in the USA getting shot at is part of the job, whether you like it or not.
Getting shot at is a thing that happens in the job, even an unavoidable consequence. It does not make it part of the job. I am American by the way.
This is police brutality because, according to one of my teachers who is also a police officer, police are taught to only shoot people twice and then look around to see if there are any other threats in the area or if the guy they shot is still a threat. Shooting someone 6 times while they're running, assuming all the bullets hit, and then shooting them thrice while they're down is just unneeded.
I'm pretty sure that shooting people after they're down is even a war crime too...
On February 17 2013 03:34 Ettick wrote: This is police brutality because, according to one of my teachers who is also a police officer, police are taught to only shoot people twice and then look around to see if there are any other threats in the area or if the guy they shot is still a threat. Shooting someone 6 times while they're running, assuming all the bullets hit, and then shooting them thrice while they're down is just unneeded.
I'm pretty sure that shooting people after they're down is even a war crime too...
While that may be true where your teacher is from - it is also a common practice in most police departments in the united states to unload their entire weapon at the target. They are not shooting to wound or disable, they are shooting to kill. If the need to use lethal force is presented then it is just that, lethal force, not shoot a few times and check on him.
EDIT: Not saying that he should have shot/killed the guy, but that is usually the protocol.
On February 17 2013 03:34 Ettick wrote: This is police brutality because, according to one of my teachers who is also a police officer, police are taught to only shoot people twice and then look around to see if there are any other threats in the area or if the guy they shot is still a threat. Shooting someone 6 times while they're running, assuming all the bullets hit, and then shooting them thrice while they're down is just unneeded.
I'm pretty sure that shooting people after they're down is even a war crime too...
People in war are taught to shoot to wound while police are taught to shoot to kill. If they make the decision to kill someone they are going to put more then just 2 bullets in someone they're going to make sure that they're dead and can't kill them back in some drug induced ignorance of the mortal wounds they've received.
The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
On February 17 2013 00:51 shivver wrote: That is what you call an execution
execution [ˌɛksɪˈkjuːʃən] n 1. the act or process of executing 2. (Law) the carrying out or undergoing of a sentence of death 3. the style or manner in which something is accomplished or performed; technique as a pianist his execution is poor 4. (Law) a. the enforcement of the judgment of a court of law b. the writ ordering such enforcement
mur·der (mûrdr) n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. 2. Slang Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder. 3. A flock of crows. v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders v.tr. 1. To kill (another human) unlawfully. 2. To kill brutally or inhumanly. 3. To put an end to; destroy: murdered their chances. 4. To spoil by ineptness; mutilate: a speech that murdered the English language. 5. Slang To defeat decisively; trounce.
Oh you. Don't nitpick him. Fine, if we want to be super-correct: This is what you call an execution-style murder.
On February 17 2013 00:29 [Agony]x90 wrote: The man should not have run from the cop and never should you ever do anything that would suggest threatening the cop or doing a sudden motion. They do not know who you are, your motive, how willing you are to kill, etc.
That being said, the cops reaction was excessive. Its a shame he hadn't pulled a taser instead of a gun, but how fast he was to shoot and the manner in which he shot was too much.
What the fuck are you talking about? It's like the LAPD should be considered a wild lion according to you? No sudden motions in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION?
Did the LAPD guy think the runner was going to do a retreating straffing run on him? Is 'Oh shit he's going to kill me!' the first thought of someone bolting away from an officer?
On February 17 2013 03:34 Ettick wrote: This is police brutality because, according to one of my teachers who is also a police officer, police are taught to only shoot people twice and then look around to see if there are any other threats in the area or if the guy they shot is still a threat. Shooting someone 6 times while they're running, assuming all the bullets hit, and then shooting them thrice while they're down is just unneeded.
I'm pretty sure that shooting people after they're down is even a war crime too...
People in war are taught to shoot to wound while police are taught to shoot to kill. If they make the decision to kill someone they are going to put more then just 2 bullets in someone they're going to make sure that they're dead and can't kill them back in some drug induced ignorance of the mortal wounds they've received.
Soldiers are not taught to shoot to wound at all, soldiers are taught exactly the same thing police should be taught: escalation of force relative to the threat, and the use of force continuum where potentially lethal force is only used in response to potentially lethal force. The issue isn't that police are taught to shoot to kill, the issue is that they are taught not much at all. Immediate escalation to lethal force in response to provocation that is not potentially lethal is the sign of one who is not a professional: professionals use force relative to the situation at hand. And once again, no soldier ever is taught to shoot to wound.
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
The fact that the victim had a gun meant that the cop was correct in his original assessment.
I've said this before in the thread, but no matter who you are, you do not approach a cop if they are pulling you over. You are not allowed to step out of your vehicle if you are pulled over and they will approach your vehicle with a hand on their holster.
Its nothing personal, because they don't know who you are. Normally, once the cop is able to assess that there is no threat, he can relax and just talk. Once he made the determination that the civilian had a gun, he suddenly became much more dangerous and he had to respond as such.
The person was flashing gang signs while jay walking at midnight. His two buddies proceeded to surround the cop vehicle when they should've waited where they were for further instruction.
Did the cop make an error? HELL YES. Was it his fault? Not entirely. Had the individuals not acted so erratically and stated immediately that they had a firearm on hand, then likely this would not have happened. The result of their behavior resulted in a fight or flight situation for both the victim and the cop. The cop is supposed to be trained to fight that instinct, but consider the amount of time the passed. It takes several times longer to read the police report description than the event actually lasted. His adrenaline would've been pumping and he had very little context prior to the situation, thus resulting in poor judgement.
It is entirely possible and very likely that the LAPD is corrupt and abusive, but this is not one of the cases. This is, in my opinion, a situation that proceeded as a result of natural fears, errors, threats, etc. and not the result of a cop attempting to abuse his power.
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
The fact that the victim had a gun meant that the cop was correct in his original assessment.
I've said this before in the thread, but no matter who you are, you do not approach a cop if they are pulling you over. You are not allowed to step out of your vehicle if you are pulled over and they will approach your vehicle with a hand on their holster.
Its nothing personal, but they don't know who you are. Once he made the determination that the civilian had a gun, he suddenly became much more dangerous.
The person was flashing gang signs while jay walking at midnight. His two buddies proceeded to surround the cop vehicle when they should've waited where they were for further instruction.
Did the cop make an error? HELL YES. Was it his fault? Not entirely. Had the individuals not acted so erratically and stated immediately that they had a firearm on hand, then likely this would not have happened. The result of their behavior resulted in a fight or flight situation for both the victim and the cop. The cop is supposed to be trained to fight that instinct, but consider the amount of time the passed. It takes several times longer to read the police report description than the event actually lasted. His adrenaline would've been pumping and he had very little context prior to the situation, thus resulting in poor judgement.
It is entirely possible and very likely that the LAPD is corrupt and abusive, but this is not one of the cases. This is, in my opinion, a situation that proceeded as a result of natural fears, errors, threats, etc. and not the result of a cop attempting to abuse his power.
Do you really believe what you type? are you that naive?
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
What good would acquiring weapons do for civilians? Do you think that provided a ton of rifles, suddenly things will be fine? What good are rifles? This is not the 1700s -- it's not as if filling everyone's homes with rifles will cause the government, police, and ultimately military (if something ever actually escalated to something as ridiculous and unlikely as civilian vs. police war) to be scared. Police & government have the upper hand regardless of how many guns your pour out onto the street. I'm saying this not with some wacko conspiracy line of thought in mind -- I'm saying it with a Scalia quote in mind:
It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. - Antonin Scalia
I don't think advocating for something like gun proliferation has any relevance to "keeping the police at bay" or whatever you were aiming at. This incident is not an example of why we need more guns on the streets.
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
The fact that the victim had a gun meant that the cop was correct in his original assessment.
I've said this before in the thread, but no matter who you are, you do not approach a cop if they are pulling you over. You are not allowed to step out of your vehicle if you are pulled over and they will approach your vehicle with a hand on their holster.
Its nothing personal, but they don't know who you are. Once he made the determination that the civilian had a gun, he suddenly became much more dangerous.
The person was flashing gang signs while jay walking at midnight. His two buddies proceeded to surround the cop vehicle when they should've waited where they were for further instruction.
Did the cop make an error? HELL YES. Was it his fault? Not entirely. Had the individuals not acted so erratically and stated immediately that they had a firearm on hand, then likely this would not have happened. The result of their behavior resulted in a fight or flight situation for both the victim and the cop. The cop is supposed to be trained to fight that instinct, but consider the amount of time the passed. It takes several times longer to read the police report description than the event actually lasted. His adrenaline would've been pumping and he had very little context prior to the situation, thus resulting in poor judgement.
It is entirely possible and very likely that the LAPD is corrupt and abusive, but this is not one of the cases. This is, in my opinion, a situation that proceeded as a result of natural fears, errors, threats, etc. and not the result of a cop attempting to abuse his power.
Do you really believe what you type? are you that naive?
I don't understand. You want to give more people guns?
The European's in this thread always talk about their police forces, but I don't think we're being entirely fair to American police. They have to expect weapons no matter who they pull over.
This may be true in other nations, but its much more true in our country. Its additional duress on the cop.
I don't think its fair if you call me naive if you believe that more guns would be the proper solution.
On February 17 2013 04:00 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: ...and right after the Dorner incident too. Suddenly, his claims of massive corruption seem a lot more realistic.
Isnt exactly right after...It happened two years ago. Corruption in america isnt a new thing. But rather calling it corruption, I would call it very poor judgement calls.
On February 17 2013 03:34 Ettick wrote: This is police brutality because, according to one of my teachers who is also a police officer, police are taught to only shoot people twice and then look around to see if there are any other threats in the area or if the guy they shot is still a threat. Shooting someone 6 times while they're running, assuming all the bullets hit, and then shooting them thrice while they're down is just unneeded.
I'm pretty sure that shooting people after they're down is even a war crime too...
People in war are taught to shoot to wound while police are taught to shoot to kill. If they make the decision to kill someone they are going to put more then just 2 bullets in someone they're going to make sure that they're dead and can't kill them back in some drug induced ignorance of the mortal wounds they've received.
Soldiers are not taught to shoot to wound at all, soldiers are taught exactly the same thing police should be taught: escalation of force relative to the threat, and the use of force continuum where potentially lethal force is only used in response to potentially lethal force. The issue isn't that police are taught to shoot to kill, the issue is that they are taught not much at all. Immediate escalation to lethal force in response to provocation that is not potentially lethal is the sign of one who is not a professional: professionals use force relative to the situation at hand. And once again, no soldier ever is taught to shoot to wound.
I think you're confusing greatly soldiers policing an occupied state vs soldiers attacking an enemy of the state.
On February 17 2013 03:34 Ettick wrote: This is police brutality because, according to one of my teachers who is also a police officer, police are taught to only shoot people twice and then look around to see if there are any other threats in the area or if the guy they shot is still a threat. Shooting someone 6 times while they're running, assuming all the bullets hit, and then shooting them thrice while they're down is just unneeded.
I'm pretty sure that shooting people after they're down is even a war crime too...
People in war are taught to shoot to wound while police are taught to shoot to kill. If they make the decision to kill someone they are going to put more then just 2 bullets in someone they're going to make sure that they're dead and can't kill them back in some drug induced ignorance of the mortal wounds they've received.
Soldiers are not taught to shoot to wound at all, soldiers are taught exactly the same thing police should be taught: escalation of force relative to the threat, and the use of force continuum where potentially lethal force is only used in response to potentially lethal force. The issue isn't that police are taught to shoot to kill, the issue is that they are taught not much at all. Immediate escalation to lethal force in response to provocation that is not potentially lethal is the sign of one who is not a professional: professionals use force relative to the situation at hand. And once again, no soldier ever is taught to shoot to wound.
I think you're confusing greatly soldiers policing an occupied state vs soldiers attacking an enemy of the state.
No, I think you're mixing up reality with a fantasy world. Soldiers are trained to use their firearms as their answer to "Potentially lethal force", which is a legal definition and is the top of the use of force continuum. Firearms are the most efficient examples of potentially lethal force, but this also includes knife attacks within a certain proximity, explosives and pretty much anything potentially lethal and in immediate proximity. It doesn't matter if it's domestic, or a warzone, or high intensity or low intensity or in a house or a poppy field or a forest or a school, soldiers shoot to kill. If they don't want to kill, they don't shoot, they use other options. This is how Australia trains its soldiers, America and any professional army is no different, and if you don't agree you are just plain wrong and I'm not going to argue that point with you.
On February 17 2013 00:23 Twinkle Toes wrote: TLDR: LAPD officers pulls up to a group of 3 men walking on a sidewalk. One of the men starts running away. Cop shoots man 6 times in the back. The man collapses on the sidewalk and the cop walks up and fires one more kill shot. Then another 2 kill shots. Man dies. The cop later claims the man had a gun. Gun never found. Cop claims self defense and is cleared of any wrongdoing.
This is developing news so updates will follow, especially the details before the event and the result of the investigations.
On February 17 2013 03:45 number01 wrote: The cop is obviously a murderer and he should be treated as one. Seeing more situations like this makes me want to support the acquisition of weapons for civilians even more.
The fact that the victim had a gun meant that the cop was correct in his original assessment.
I've said this before in the thread, but no matter who you are, you do not approach a cop if they are pulling you over. You are not allowed to step out of your vehicle if you are pulled over and they will approach your vehicle with a hand on their holster.
Its nothing personal, but they don't know who you are. Once he made the determination that the civilian had a gun, he suddenly became much more dangerous.
The person was flashing gang signs while jay walking at midnight. His two buddies proceeded to surround the cop vehicle when they should've waited where they were for further instruction.
Did the cop make an error? HELL YES. Was it his fault? Not entirely. Had the individuals not acted so erratically and stated immediately that they had a firearm on hand, then likely this would not have happened. The result of their behavior resulted in a fight or flight situation for both the victim and the cop. The cop is supposed to be trained to fight that instinct, but consider the amount of time the passed. It takes several times longer to read the police report description than the event actually lasted. His adrenaline would've been pumping and he had very little context prior to the situation, thus resulting in poor judgement.
It is entirely possible and very likely that the LAPD is corrupt and abusive, but this is not one of the cases. This is, in my opinion, a situation that proceeded as a result of natural fears, errors, threats, etc. and not the result of a cop attempting to abuse his power.
Do you really believe what you type? are you that naive?
I don't understand. You want to give more people guns?
The European's in this thread always talk about their police forces, but I don't think we're being entirely fair to American police. They have to expect weapons no matter who they pull over.
This may be true in other nations, but its much more true in our country. Its additional duress on the cop.
I don't think its fair if you call me naive if you believe that more guns would be the proper solution.
I did not mean it as an insult when i called you naive.
To answer your question, yes.
If the person had been in a group of more armed civilians, the officer would not had acted so "bravely" to chase him and shoot him not once, not twice, but 6 or 7 plus a head shot to confirm the kill.
Defending the police in this type of situation is what keeps the LAPD doing what it does best. Act corrupt.
EPT
