|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 21 2021 21:44 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2021 21:42 farvacola wrote:
Training is a small piece of the puzzle, the bigger one is consistent, routine accountability. Unless and until "Cops that do illegal things go to jail and cops who cover for them do too" becomes the norm, no amount of training will fix things. Police departments need to be held accountable too. Not for individual instances, but for trends and where lack of training can be proved to have caused police to make unnecessary mistakes or use force where its unjustified. Honestly I don't know whether this already happens in America or not. Is there some kind of standard that police training must adhere to?
There are two ways that can be done currently: (1) a judicial mechanism for holding public institutions accountable known as a Monell claim brought under 28 USC Section 1983, but its use has been heavily handicapped by decades of conservative jurisprudence that puts extreme burdens on plaintiffs, and (2) DoJ enforcement of a variety of federal laws outlawing deprivation of rights by police and police departments. Both desperately need updating and more teeth. The ostensible standard for police behavior is a network of federal laws and SCOTUS/federal circuit court/state supreme court decisions, but training itself is still largely a local and state matter. This is yet another area where one can see how much damage is done by this country's ridiculous concept of states' rights, those rights effectively allow states and localities leeway to maintain corrupt institutions.
|
On April 21 2021 20:56 farvacola wrote:
The idea that "drop the knife" was a reasonable means of preventing the woman from doing what she appeared about ready to do seems questionable, at least as of the last chance moment where the knife-wielding woman appeared ready to strike. In circumstances where there's no plausible inference of immediate threat, that's clearly the answer, but here, it's reasonable to conclude that this woman was going to stab the woman in pink and had the ability to do so contemporaneously with whatever the responding officer decided to do in that moment. The possibility that less severe measures like yelling "drop the knife" at that last chance moment would have led to the woman in pink being stabbed can't be waved away.
If one wants to maintain that deadly force should not be used even where its reasonable to conclude that the threatening person posed an immediate threat to someone within reach, that's not unreasonable, but I don't think concluding otherwise is unreasonable either.
I'd like to make an argument for the bolded part:
I do not trust police officers in the US to make good decisions in general when it comes to assessing threat severity, in part due to their training but mostly because of their culture. In essence, it's the same argument that BlackJack is pushing but in reverse; cops are not highly trained superhumans capable of making perfect split second decisions (in this, we are in agreement). No police department can guarantee that their officers are capable of making the right decision all the time; heck I'd doubt current police departments can guarantee flawless decision-making 50% of the time from all their officers.
So since police officers are not infallible, why should they have the power to execute citizens at the slightest provocation with effectively no repercussions? I'd rather they never use deadly force unless someone else starts shooting first.
Edit: I hadn't even considered GH's point that police officers are very inaccurate in their shooting. If you can't even guarantee that you'll hit the right target 50% of the time, you should not be firing your gun unless bullets are already flying.
|
2774 Posts
One detail that bothers me is that the police officer fired off 4 shots (?) in quick succession with several bystanders in close proximity. I believe that law enforcement should be able to justify every single shot they shoot, in the exact moment if possible. Because if you aren't able to you're not just shooting to stop, you're closer to shooting to kill. And you're potentially putting others at risk. This combined with the statistic GH posted makes me feel a little bit uneasy.
If anyone has any proper law enforcement training, feel free to correct me if it's somehow delusional to expect that. But this is the impression I have gotten, from what you would perhaps consider better trained law enforcement.
|
United States43670 Posts
On April 21 2021 16:53 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 14:49 FlaShFTW wrote:On April 21 2021 14:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 14:06 FlaShFTW wrote:On April 21 2021 12:51 plasmidghost wrote:On April 21 2021 12:46 Husyelt wrote:On April 21 2021 12:34 plasmidghost wrote:
Just watched the bodycam footage and christ that was painful to see. I don't know if linking it here is allowed because it is extremely graphic. I will never understand why police are so quick to shoot their firearms when they have a taser perfectly capable of incapacitating someone with a melee weapon like a knife. Like, unfortunately I don't know what happened before the cop got there but I fully believe that girl should still be alive. Not going to watch if it's that graphic. But I saw someone on reddit mentioning that police officers have more leeway than soldiers in actual war zones, with the "rules of engagement." I wonder if that might be the culprit for the very high police / kill rate. The actual video released by CPD is around 1 minute long and it involves + Show Spoiler +the girl being shot four times in the back by the cop A similar incident happened in 2018, and the Supreme Court weighed in on this. Because of their ruling, it appears that there won't be legal repercussions for the cop. Kisela, a Tucson police officer, shot Hughes less than a minute after arriving, with other officers, at the scene where a woman had been reported to 911 as hacking a tree with a knife and acting erratically. When Kisela fired, Hughes was holding a large kitchen knife, had taken steps toward nearby woman (her roommate), and had refused to drop the knife after at least two commands to do so. Hughes matched the description given by the 911 caller. Her injuries were not life-threatening. All of the officers later said that they subjectively believed Hughes was a threat to her roommate. Hughes had a history of mental illness. Her roommate said that she did not feel endangered. Hughes sued Kisela, alleging excessive force, 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the officer, reversing the Ninth Circuit. Even assuming a Fourth Amendment violation occurred, which “is not at all evident,” Kisela was entitled to qualified immunity. Although the officers were in no apparent danger, Kisela believed Hughes was a threat to her roommate. Kisela had mere seconds to assess the potential danger and was separated from the women by a chain-link fence. This is "far from an obvious case" in which any competent officer would have known that shooting Hughes would violate the Fourth Amendment; the most analogous Ninth Circuit precedent favors Kisela. A reasonable officer is not required to foresee judicial decisions that do not yet exist in instances where the requirements of the Fourth Amendment are far from obvious. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/584/17-467/#tab-opinion-3881476I think that there has to be some sort of change. The rules of deadly force and qualified immunity let cops get away with things like this where they murder someone when there are nonlethal ways to defuse a situation, like in this case. The taser, when fired, will jolt someone for five seconds, which is more than enough time to run over to the girl who was just a couple of yards away and disarm her. Have to say, I disagree with this assessment. You realize that tasers are not a surefire way to incapacitate someone right? Tasers are not a guarantee, and in this situation, the police sees a person brandishing a knife against someone literally less than a couple feet away. You want to incapacitate them to save the person being ran at with a knife. If the cop uses the taser, and the taser isn't effective enough, and the girl in the pink suffers extreme bodily harm/permanent injury/ or even dies, guess the cop is still in the wrong. It's a lose-lose here. Regardless, you cannot qualify this as a cop murdering someone. The cop is not in the wrong if one person harms another, the person doing the harming is in the wrong. They’re not out there to dispense justice, shooting people, even if they’re bad guys, is a failure. The justice system dispenses justice, the police are just there to get suspects into court rooms. You can’t try a dead body, every shot suspect is a citizen denied a chance to defend themselves in court. Extrajudicial execution by cops should be a last resort to avoid an even greater evil, not the first tool used when immediate compliance is not proffered. So your goal is to just let the girl get injured or potential death here? The police is not the one to administer justice, but they certainly are there to PROTECT the people, even if you want to talk about how bad policing has been. In a vacuum, the police did not do anything wrong in this situation, and at worst will be removed from field duty for several months. Potentially injured, yes. Shooting whoever seems potentially dangerous is an overly cautious way of protecting some of the public which reliably results in other members of the public dying. The girl not holding a knife didn’t deserve death, but nor did the girl holding the knife. Too often in policing the question is whether the right person got shot and not whether there was a requirement for anyone to get shot. Shooting people is seen as good policing. Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? I imagine that member of the public about to get stabbed is my family member and it's an easy decision for me to prefer the police to gun down the stabber. I'd bet you're the only person here that would rather have harm come to you or your family than to have a criminal get shot.
That’s an idiotic take. You could just as easily imagine the other party is a family member. Both have family. There’s also a reason why justice isn’t decided by family members with a clear bias so your “if I was related to one of them I’d know what was just” is pretty dumb.
I also don’t much care for your blanket definition of one of the people in the hypothetical as a criminal, especially given that they haven’t yet hurt anyone in the hypothetical nor been convicted of anything. That seems the kind of language designed to dehumanize and justify the use of force against them. If you’re going to shoot them then why not use more accurate language like “mother of two” or “citizen” or “active member of her church”.
|
I don't think BlackJack's take is unique, I think it's rather widespread in the US. I'd argue that most white people in the US are just fine with the way police currently do things and think the issue is overblown. I don't have good stats for this and it's more of a gut feeling, but it's the way it comes across when looking at the wider picture.
|
On April 21 2021 23:37 Nixer wrote:
One detail that bothers me is that the police officer fired off 4 shots (?) in quick succession with several bystanders in close proximity. I believe that law enforcement should be able to justify every single shot they shoot, in the exact moment if possible. Because if you aren't able to you're not just shooting to stop, you're closer to shooting to kill. And you're potentially putting others at risk. This combined with the statistic GH posted makes me feel a little bit uneasy.
If anyone has any proper law enforcement training, feel free to correct me if it's somehow delusional to expect that. But this is the impression I have gotten, from what you would perhaps consider better trained law enforcement.
Any use of a firearm is intended to kill. Using it in any other way ("warning shots", shooting to only injure) is recklessly dangerous.
Law enforcement (and pretty much anyone who uses a firearm in a professional capacity) is trained to fire several rounds at the center of body mass in quick succession in order to stop the target.
This is also part of the problem; use of a firearm is an intent to kill and it should be treated as such. Variations of these five rules are taught to anyone who ever uses a firearm in any capacity, including the military, law enforcement, or private learning ranges:
Treat every gun as if it were loaded.
Always point your gun in a safe direction.
Never point your gun at anything you don't intend to shoot.
Keep your finger off the trigger until your ready to shoot.
Be sure of your target and what's beyond.
Therefore, it should be an absolute last resort to even draw a weapon because if you are pointing it at someone, you are intending to shoot. Far too often it's a cop's first response.
|
On April 21 2021 23:38 KwarK wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 21 2021 16:53 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2021 15:00 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 14:49 FlaShFTW wrote:On April 21 2021 14:38 KwarK wrote:On April 21 2021 14:06 FlaShFTW wrote:On April 21 2021 12:51 plasmidghost wrote:On April 21 2021 12:46 Husyelt wrote:On April 21 2021 12:34 plasmidghost wrote:
Just watched the bodycam footage and christ that was painful to see. I don't know if linking it here is allowed because it is extremely graphic. I will never understand why police are so quick to shoot their firearms when they have a taser perfectly capable of incapacitating someone with a melee weapon like a knife. Like, unfortunately I don't know what happened before the cop got there but I fully believe that girl should still be alive. Not going to watch if it's that graphic. But I saw someone on reddit mentioning that police officers have more leeway than soldiers in actual war zones, with the "rules of engagement." I wonder if that might be the culprit for the very high police / kill rate. The actual video released by CPD is around 1 minute long and it involves + Show Spoiler +the girl being shot four times in the back by the cop A similar incident happened in 2018, and the Supreme Court weighed in on this. Because of their ruling, it appears that there won't be legal repercussions for the cop. Kisela, a Tucson police officer, shot Hughes less than a minute after arriving, with other officers, at the scene where a woman had been reported to 911 as hacking a tree with a knife and acting erratically. When Kisela fired, Hughes was holding a large kitchen knife, had taken steps toward nearby woman (her roommate), and had refused to drop the knife after at least two commands to do so. Hughes matched the description given by the 911 caller. Her injuries were not life-threatening. All of the officers later said that they subjectively believed Hughes was a threat to her roommate. Hughes had a history of mental illness. Her roommate said that she did not feel endangered. Hughes sued Kisela, alleging excessive force, 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the officer, reversing the Ninth Circuit. Even assuming a Fourth Amendment violation occurred, which “is not at all evident,” Kisela was entitled to qualified immunity. Although the officers were in no apparent danger, Kisela believed Hughes was a threat to her roommate. Kisela had mere seconds to assess the potential danger and was separated from the women by a chain-link fence. This is "far from an obvious case" in which any competent officer would have known that shooting Hughes would violate the Fourth Amendment; the most analogous Ninth Circuit precedent favors Kisela. A reasonable officer is not required to foresee judicial decisions that do not yet exist in instances where the requirements of the Fourth Amendment are far from obvious. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/584/17-467/#tab-opinion-3881476I think that there has to be some sort of change. The rules of deadly force and qualified immunity let cops get away with things like this where they murder someone when there are nonlethal ways to defuse a situation, like in this case. The taser, when fired, will jolt someone for five seconds, which is more than enough time to run over to the girl who was just a couple of yards away and disarm her. Have to say, I disagree with this assessment. You realize that tasers are not a surefire way to incapacitate someone right? Tasers are not a guarantee, and in this situation, the police sees a person brandishing a knife against someone literally less than a couple feet away. You want to incapacitate them to save the person being ran at with a knife. If the cop uses the taser, and the taser isn't effective enough, and the girl in the pink suffers extreme bodily harm/permanent injury/ or even dies, guess the cop is still in the wrong. It's a lose-lose here. Regardless, you cannot qualify this as a cop murdering someone. The cop is not in the wrong if one person harms another, the person doing the harming is in the wrong. They’re not out there to dispense justice, shooting people, even if they’re bad guys, is a failure. The justice system dispenses justice, the police are just there to get suspects into court rooms. You can’t try a dead body, every shot suspect is a citizen denied a chance to defend themselves in court. Extrajudicial execution by cops should be a last resort to avoid an even greater evil, not the first tool used when immediate compliance is not proffered. So your goal is to just let the girl get injured or potential death here? The police is not the one to administer justice, but they certainly are there to PROTECT the people, even if you want to talk about how bad policing has been. In a vacuum, the police did not do anything wrong in this situation, and at worst will be removed from field duty for several months. Potentially injured, yes. Shooting whoever seems potentially dangerous is an overly cautious way of protecting some of the public which reliably results in other members of the public dying. The girl not holding a knife didn’t deserve death, but nor did the girl holding the knife. Too often in policing the question is whether the right person got shot and not whether there was a requirement for anyone to get shot. Shooting people is seen as good policing. Imagine two scenarios. In one a member of the public threatens another with a knife. In the other a member of the public threatens another with a knife and is shot by the police. In which scenario do more members of the public get hurt? I imagine that member of the public about to get stabbed is my family member and it's an easy decision for me to prefer the police to gun down the stabber. I'd bet you're the only person here that would rather have harm come to you or your family than to have a criminal get shot. That’s an idiotic take. You could just as easily imagine the other party is a family member. Both have family. There’s also a reason why justice isn’t decided by family members with a clear bias so your “if I was related to one of them I’d know what was just” is pretty dumb. I also don’t much care for your blanket definition of one of the people in the hypothetical as a criminal, especially given that they haven’t yet hurt anyone in the hypothetical nor been convicted of anything. That seems the kind of language designed to dehumanize and justify the use of force against them. If you’re going to shoot them then why not use more accurate language like “mother of two” or “citizen” or “active member of her church”.
Silly word games. "Parentless, orphaned, underage youth, who regularly attends church, does community service and is loved by friends and family... was shot after committing assault and battery and was in the process of committing aggravated assault with a deadly weapon." I understand humanizing everyone involved. We should not be detached from things like this. But it is not the important aspect. Is there no scenario where the harm that an attacker is capable of warrants a deadly response from police?
"We had the means to stop him, but it was more humane to let him run out of bullets on victims." That sounds a little cringe right? So I imagine you have some set limit in your head. How many victims should be allowed to be harmed before a perpetrator can be harmed to stop them?
|
I'm confused why deadly force was necessary to suppress the attacker in this case. Why couldn't the officer in question have suppressed the victim with restraining techniques like what I imagine bouncers do? I.e. restrain the attacker and pin them to the ground instead of shooting them.
|
On April 22 2021 00:13 ghrur wrote:
I'm confused why deadly force was necessary to suppress the attacker in this case. Why couldn't the officer in question have suppressed the victim with restraining techniques like what I imagine bouncers do? I.e. restrain the attacker and pin them to the ground instead of shooting them.
Again, assuming worst-case-scenario (since we don't have the actual footage yet):
An active attacker with a knife is incredibly dangerous to attempt to physically subdue.
Not only this, but the attacker was supposedly actively attacking two victims with this knife. Taking the time to approach the attacker and try to physically subdue them would 1) put the officer in incredible danger and 2) give the attacker the time to seriously harm or kill the two victims before being subdued.
|
On April 21 2021 22:19 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2021 20:56 farvacola wrote:
The idea that "drop the knife" was a reasonable means of preventing the woman from doing what she appeared about ready to do seems questionable, at least as of the last chance moment where the knife-wielding woman appeared ready to strike. In circumstances where there's no plausible inference of immediate threat, that's clearly the answer, but here, it's reasonable to conclude that this woman was going to stab the woman in pink and had the ability to do so contemporaneously with whatever the responding officer decided to do in that moment. The possibility that less severe measures like yelling "drop the knife" at that last chance moment would have led to the woman in pink being stabbed can't be waved away.
If one wants to maintain that deadly force should not be used even where its reasonable to conclude that the threatening person posed an immediate threat to someone within reach, that's not unreasonable, but I don't think concluding otherwise is unreasonable either. I'd like to make an argument for the bolded part: I do not trust police officers in the US to make good decisions in general when it comes to assessing threat severity, in part due to their training but mostly because of their culture. In essence, it's the same argument that BlackJack is pushing but in reverse; cops are not highly trained superhumans capable of making perfect split second decisions (in this, we are in agreement). No police department can guarantee that their officers are capable of making the right decision all the time; heck I'd doubt current police departments can guarantee flawless decision-making 50% of the time from all their officers. So since police officers are not infallible, why should they have the power to execute citizens at the slightest provocation with effectively no repercussions? I'd rather they never use deadly force unless someone else starts shooting first. Edit: I hadn't even considered GH's point that police officers are very inaccurate in their shooting. If you can't even guarantee that you'll hit the right target 50% of the time, you should not be firing your gun unless bullets are already flying.
That's a fine take and I think it has merit, especially with reference to the habits and practices of police in the US in general. That said, it does run up against the competing value many place on empowering police to intervene before a perp is able to take the first step of harming someone, which is not a view that can be ruled out as a matter of conscience or priorities. The issue with that take is that police intervention tends to be incredibly inconsistent (and subject to the biases we've been discussing), with women seeking help in domestic violence situations being routinely told that there's nothing police can do unless and until some material act of violence occurs, and even then, there are all sorts of horror stories involving police turning a blind eye to horrific acts of spousal and child abuse.
No matter how the close calls are parsed, the need for dramatic, systemic reform is clear.
The bodycam footage released so far can be found here, it starts at around 1:05. Be warned, the footage shows a woman being gunned down.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On April 21 2021 23:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2021 23:37 Nixer wrote:
One detail that bothers me is that the police officer fired off 4 shots (?) in quick succession with several bystanders in close proximity. I believe that law enforcement should be able to justify every single shot they shoot, in the exact moment if possible. Because if you aren't able to you're not just shooting to stop, you're closer to shooting to kill. And you're potentially putting others at risk. This combined with the statistic GH posted makes me feel a little bit uneasy.
If anyone has any proper law enforcement training, feel free to correct me if it's somehow delusional to expect that. But this is the impression I have gotten, from what you would perhaps consider better trained law enforcement. Any use of a firearm is intended to kill. Using it in any other way ("warning shots", shooting to only injure) is recklessly dangerous. Law enforcement (and pretty much anyone who uses a firearm in a professional capacity) is trained to fire several rounds at the center of body mass in quick succession in order to stop the target. This is also part of the problem; use of a firearm is an intent to kill and it should be treated as such. Variations of these five rules are taught to anyone who ever uses a firearm in any capacity, including the military, law enforcement, or private learning ranges: Treat every gun as if it were loaded. Always point your gun in a safe direction. Never point your gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. Keep your finger off the trigger until your ready to shoot. Be sure of your target and what's beyond. Therefore, it should be an absolute last resort to even draw a weapon because if you are pointing it at someone, you are intending to shoot. Far too often it's a cop's first response.
That might be true in US, but the laws and practice in many countries says otherwise. For example the law in Poland requires police to fire a warning shot first and as statiscs of gun deaths shows this is not reckless. It saves lives.
|
On April 22 2021 00:16 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2021 00:13 ghrur wrote:
I'm confused why deadly force was necessary to suppress the attacker in this case. Why couldn't the officer in question have suppressed the victim with restraining techniques like what I imagine bouncers do? I.e. restrain the attacker and pin them to the ground instead of shooting them. Again, assuming worst-case-scenario (since we don't have the actual footage yet): An active attacker with a knife is incredibly dangerous to attempt to physically subdue. Not only this, but the attacker was supposedly actively attacking two victims with this knife. Taking the time to approach the attacker and try to physically subdue them would 1) put the officer in incredible danger and 2) give the attacker the time to seriously harm or kill the two victims before being subdued.
? Am I missing something? The footage was released yesterday, at least, the bodycam footage. See https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/person-in-critical-condition-following-officer-involved-shooting-4-20-2021?video=a711eee0440c423fb1941af88e15132f&jwsource=cl
The officer was already there behind the attacker when the started charging toward the second victim, and he shot her in the back like 4 times. There were 3 other officers on the scene as well. I'd be surprised if they didn't know how to subdue an attacker in that situation with just pinning them to the ground or using a taser.
|
On April 22 2021 00:24 Silvanel wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2021 23:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 21 2021 23:37 Nixer wrote:
One detail that bothers me is that the police officer fired off 4 shots (?) in quick succession with several bystanders in close proximity. I believe that law enforcement should be able to justify every single shot they shoot, in the exact moment if possible. Because if you aren't able to you're not just shooting to stop, you're closer to shooting to kill. And you're potentially putting others at risk. This combined with the statistic GH posted makes me feel a little bit uneasy.
If anyone has any proper law enforcement training, feel free to correct me if it's somehow delusional to expect that. But this is the impression I have gotten, from what you would perhaps consider better trained law enforcement. Any use of a firearm is intended to kill. Using it in any other way ("warning shots", shooting to only injure) is recklessly dangerous. Law enforcement (and pretty much anyone who uses a firearm in a professional capacity) is trained to fire several rounds at the center of body mass in quick succession in order to stop the target. This is also part of the problem; use of a firearm is an intent to kill and it should be treated as such. Variations of these five rules are taught to anyone who ever uses a firearm in any capacity, including the military, law enforcement, or private learning ranges: Treat every gun as if it were loaded. Always point your gun in a safe direction. Never point your gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. Keep your finger off the trigger until your ready to shoot. Be sure of your target and what's beyond. Therefore, it should be an absolute last resort to even draw a weapon because if you are pointing it at someone, you are intending to shoot. Far too often it's a cop's first response. That might be true in US, but the laws and practice in many countries says otherwise. For example the law in Poland requires police to fire a warning shot first and as statiscs of gun deaths shows this is not reckless. It saves lives.
It's pretty disingenuous to chalk up the difference in gun deaths between the U.S. and Poland to police officers using warning shots.
I couldn't find actual video when I looked earlier; the only thing I was able to find was stills from the video.
I also want to wait for the full, unedited video before making any judgment.
Continuing with a hypothetical for the sake of discussion, trying to physically subdue someone that already has a knife and is actively attacking is incredibly dangerous. Arguing that police should do so tacitly implies that the police should put themselves at disproportionate risk of death or serious injury to preserve the life of an attacker, and that's definitely not a black-and-white argument.
|
|
|
2774 Posts
On April 21 2021 23:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2021 23:37 Nixer wrote:
One detail that bothers me is that the police officer fired off 4 shots (?) in quick succession with several bystanders in close proximity. I believe that law enforcement should be able to justify every single shot they shoot, in the exact moment if possible. Because if you aren't able to you're not just shooting to stop, you're closer to shooting to kill. And you're potentially putting others at risk. This combined with the statistic GH posted makes me feel a little bit uneasy.
If anyone has any proper law enforcement training, feel free to correct me if it's somehow delusional to expect that. But this is the impression I have gotten, from what you would perhaps consider better trained law enforcement. Any use of a firearm is intended to kill. Using it in any other way ("warning shots", shooting to only injure) is recklessly dangerous. Law enforcement (and pretty much anyone who uses a firearm in a professional capacity) is trained to fire several rounds at the center of body mass in quick succession in order to stop the target. This is also part of the problem; use of a firearm is an intent to kill and it should be treated as such. Variations of these five rules are taught to anyone who ever uses a firearm in any capacity, including the military, law enforcement, or private learning ranges: Treat every gun as if it were loaded. Always point your gun in a safe direction. Never point your gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. Keep your finger off the trigger until your ready to shoot. Be sure of your target and what's beyond. Therefore, it should be an absolute last resort to even draw a weapon because if you are pointing it at someone, you are intending to shoot. Far too often it's a cop's first response.
Law enforcement in the US, yes. The point wasn't really about the intent in use of firearms, or the often stated "we don't shoot to kill, but to stop the threat" angle that I referenced, but exactly because of those five (sometimes four by the way) rules you mentioned you should be able to justify every single time you pull that trigger.
The center of body mass is a bit of a meme though, certain police forces do shoot to injure to varying degrees of success in fact. Yes, there are risks involved in shooting someone in the leg, and it's generally just easier to to aim for the center of body mass. It's dependent on the situation though and obviously assessment is necessary, even more so.
Also helps not to be a dogshit shot too lmao (jk I know it's surprisingly difficult to shoot accurately with a handgun altho there's still obviously improvements to be made there)
|
On April 22 2021 00:28 Nixer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2021 23:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 21 2021 23:37 Nixer wrote:
One detail that bothers me is that the police officer fired off 4 shots (?) in quick succession with several bystanders in close proximity. I believe that law enforcement should be able to justify every single shot they shoot, in the exact moment if possible. Because if you aren't able to you're not just shooting to stop, you're closer to shooting to kill. And you're potentially putting others at risk. This combined with the statistic GH posted makes me feel a little bit uneasy.
If anyone has any proper law enforcement training, feel free to correct me if it's somehow delusional to expect that. But this is the impression I have gotten, from what you would perhaps consider better trained law enforcement. Any use of a firearm is intended to kill. Using it in any other way ("warning shots", shooting to only injure) is recklessly dangerous. Law enforcement (and pretty much anyone who uses a firearm in a professional capacity) is trained to fire several rounds at the center of body mass in quick succession in order to stop the target. This is also part of the problem; use of a firearm is an intent to kill and it should be treated as such. Variations of these five rules are taught to anyone who ever uses a firearm in any capacity, including the military, law enforcement, or private learning ranges: Treat every gun as if it were loaded. Always point your gun in a safe direction. Never point your gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. Keep your finger off the trigger until your ready to shoot. Be sure of your target and what's beyond. Therefore, it should be an absolute last resort to even draw a weapon because if you are pointing it at someone, you are intending to shoot. Far too often it's a cop's first response. Law enforcement in the US, yes. The point wasn't really about the intent in use of firearms, or the often stated "we don't shoot to kill, but to stop the threat" angle that I referenced, but exactly because of those five (sometimes four by the way) rules you mentioned you should be able to justify every single time you pull that trigger. The center of body mass is a bit of a meme though, certain police forces do shoot to injure to varying degrees of success in fact. Yes, there are risks involved in shooting someone in the leg, and it's generally just easier to to aim for the center of body mass. It's dependent on the situation though and obviously assessment is necessary, even more so. Also helps not to be a dogshit shot too lmao (jk I know it's surprisingly difficult to shoot accurately with a handgun altho there's still obviously improvements to be made there)
To your last point, one key change that should be made is that the minimum accuracy qualifications need to be beefed up and the number of police armed reduced in proportion. There's no doubt that many police eager to draw their guns should not be armed in the first place due to an inability to stay on target during both range and in-action scenarios.
|
On April 22 2021 00:28 Nixer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2021 23:57 Stratos_speAr wrote:On April 21 2021 23:37 Nixer wrote:
One detail that bothers me is that the police officer fired off 4 shots (?) in quick succession with several bystanders in close proximity. I believe that law enforcement should be able to justify every single shot they shoot, in the exact moment if possible. Because if you aren't able to you're not just shooting to stop, you're closer to shooting to kill. And you're potentially putting others at risk. This combined with the statistic GH posted makes me feel a little bit uneasy.
If anyone has any proper law enforcement training, feel free to correct me if it's somehow delusional to expect that. But this is the impression I have gotten, from what you would perhaps consider better trained law enforcement. Any use of a firearm is intended to kill. Using it in any other way ("warning shots", shooting to only injure) is recklessly dangerous. Law enforcement (and pretty much anyone who uses a firearm in a professional capacity) is trained to fire several rounds at the center of body mass in quick succession in order to stop the target. This is also part of the problem; use of a firearm is an intent to kill and it should be treated as such. Variations of these five rules are taught to anyone who ever uses a firearm in any capacity, including the military, law enforcement, or private learning ranges: Treat every gun as if it were loaded. Always point your gun in a safe direction. Never point your gun at anything you don't intend to shoot. Keep your finger off the trigger until your ready to shoot. Be sure of your target and what's beyond. Therefore, it should be an absolute last resort to even draw a weapon because if you are pointing it at someone, you are intending to shoot. Far too often it's a cop's first response. Law enforcement in the US, yes. The point wasn't really about the intent in use of firearms, or the often stated "we don't shoot to kill, but to stop the threat" angle that I referenced, but exactly because of those five (sometimes four by the way) rules you mentioned you should be able to justify every single time you pull that trigger. The center of body mass is a bit of a meme though, certain police forces do shoot to injure to varying degrees of success in fact. Yes, there are risks involved in shooting someone in the leg, and it's generally just easier to to aim for the center of body mass. It's dependent on the situation though and obviously assessment is necessary, even more so. Also helps not to be a dogshit shot too lmao (jk I know it's surprisingly difficult to shoot accurately with a handgun altho there's still obviously improvements to be made there)
Shooting a handgun is surprisingly difficult but damn, law enforcement (and even a lot in the military) set the bar spectacularly low.
|
On April 21 2021 23:37 Nixer wrote:
One detail that bothers me is that the police officer fired off 4 shots (?) in quick succession with several bystanders in close proximity. I believe that law enforcement should be able to justify every single shot they shoot, in the exact moment if possible. Because if you aren't able to you're not just shooting to stop, you're closer to shooting to kill. And you're potentially putting others at risk. This combined with the statistic GH posted makes me feel a little bit uneasy.
If anyone has any proper law enforcement training, feel free to correct me if it's somehow delusional to expect that. But this is the impression I have gotten, from what you would perhaps consider better trained law enforcement.
It's shooting to kill. The training is specifically to shoot center mass. The reason for this is that it's really, really, really easy to miss and kill someone on accident. Additionally, pistols they use generally don't have a lot of stopping power. Now, they may not be setting out to kill, but that's going to be the outcome of using their weapons, and that's the constant refrain of firearms safety : if you're pointing your gun at something and shooting, you're trying to kill it.
The notion of shooting something out of their hand or winging a limb is basically impossible for the average person. That's something only a trick shooter who trained for it all the time could do reliably, especially with the standard issue pistols.
This is honestly a case where I don't really see TOO much of an issue with their actions. The issue is that they let it reach that point.
(This is of course, assuming that the person really is holding a knife in the video. That's what everywhere is reporting but it is hard to see).
There are nonlethal options with better stopping power than a taser that would have worked if they were informed ahead of time to bring it, but they're all two handed and not exactly gentle (the bean bags can kill someone if they get hit in between heart beats, iirc).
I am kinda wondering about what a european cop would do in that situation, as I'm not sure if they could have tackled the knife wielder before they hurt a bystander. And yes, it's an unusual situation with a few different moral angles - is it moral to kill the person to prevent injury of another? The US usually sides on yes, on the assumption that the injury could be lethal or grevious due to the person wielding a deadly weapon.
|
This may not be a common perspective, but I believe that if my family member was about to be stabbed and police were there, I wouldn't want the assailant executed immediately. I would want them subdued and the entire situation defused. I'm going to admit that I don't know the best way of doing that because I've never been in this situation
|
On April 22 2021 00:50 plasmidghost wrote:
This may not be a common perspective, but I believe that if my family member was about to be stabbed and police were there, I wouldn't want the assailant executed immediately. I would want them subdued and the entire situation defused. I'm going to admit that I don't know the best way of doing that because I've never been in this situation
This is a very important point. We don't need to armchair solve the situation from a distance. We have never been in that situation, and we are not trained in any way regarding how to handle it (at least i am not)
But there are trained professionals who are capable of dealing with these situations without killing people. The US police should learn from them. Because clearly it can be done. The police in almost any other country is capable of that. Private security is also generally capable of it, because they don't have the same protections as the police do.
The US police is pretty much the only professional organisation whose job it is to deal with these situations which somehow cannot figure out how to not kill people all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
