|
chitoryu12 posted:He wasn't even moving "toward the cop" at first. He was moving alongside the wall, toward a gap in their circle. An officer stepped directly in front of him as he walked, which is the only reason he was moving "toward a cop" in the first place. It's like when a cop stands in front of a car and then shoots the driver because "He was going right toward me!" Yes, this isn't a sport, when a cop steps in front of your car the acceptable course of action is to stop, you don't get a free shot at running him over because he's stopping your escape.
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 05:37 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:That UK video is ridiculous, the cops have absolutely zero control of that situation and likely the only reason none of the cops got hosed up was the guy with the machete is too fat and slow to catch any of the cops he's chasing. Uh... well I guess I don't know what to say to that other than I completely disagree and think that it's exactly how a civilized police force should handle that type of situation? The only moment any of the police were in any real danger was when they all rushed him, as evidenced by reality and what happened on the video, and what risk there was could be almost completely mitigated by specifically staging drills for that takedown. If you think police should never be asked to intentionally put themselves in dangerous or life-threatening situations as part of getting the job done then I don't really know what to tell you? deratomicdog posted:Evidently you missed the part where that head case who hurt nobody stabbed someone. Yeah, in which case the police are supposed to apprehend the suspect so he can be charged and have his day in court. They're not loving Judge Dredd. bango skank fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Dec 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Police constantly put themselves in dangerous situations. We shouldn't make them unnecessarily more dangerous by not giving them the tools they need to do the job. The U.K. Police try to use a trash can for christs sake.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
deratomicdog posted:Police constantly put themselves in dangerous situations. We shouldn't make them unnecessarily more dangerous by not giving them the tools they need to do the job. The U.K. Police try to use a trash can for christs sake. I agree. De-escalation training would probably help a lot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yes, this isn't a sport, when a cop steps in front of your car the acceptable course of action is to stop, you don't get a free shot at running him over because he's stopping your escape. why are you talking about a car, when we're talking about someone on foot? Moving towards the office as seen on the video, is not the same as attempting to run them over with a car. You're acting like we don't have video evidence here....
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
deratomicdog posted:Evidently you missed the part where that head case who hurt nobody stabbed someone. I wasn't clear. Once the cops arrived he hurt nobody else. It's not like they failed to protect the public once they were on scene. They did their job and hemmed in some dumbo and distracted him until they could deal with him. Good. That's actually a great way to handle the situation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Anyone not willing to accept a higher level of risk to save a civilian life shouldn't be a cop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:why are you talking about a car, when we're talking about someone on foot? Moving towards the office as seen on the video, is not the same as attempting to run them over with a car. You're acting like we don't have video evidence here.... I did bring it up as a comparison, but it's a similar situation. The officer was not in sufficient danger to justify shooting until he intentionally placed himself in danger that gave him justification. The guy wasn't exactly sprinting away from the police like Usain Bolt, which might actually justify stopping him if he tries to leave your circle of screaming men with guns (because clearly that's the best way to calm down a mentally ill man who's aggravated and injured). Likewise, if an officer steps in front of a moving car he's only justified in firing in the sense that he gave himself the justification. And then all the rest of the cops had such itchy trigger fingers that as soon as one of them fired, all of them immediately had a reason to start dumping their magazines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Javid posted:Anyone not willing to accept a higher level of risk to save a civilian life shouldn't be a cop. "all i know is im going home at the end of my shift"
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That UK video is ridiculous, the cops have absolutely zero control of that situation and likely the only reason none of the cops got hosed up was the guy with the machete is too fat and slow to catch any of the cops he's chasing. You do this literally every time cops in a civilized country behave in a professional way, you just start shouting "they're doing it wrong". Never mind the statistics, never mind the positive outcomes, if they ain't killing they're doing it wrong. I'm not sure if this is funny or sad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
deratomicdog posted:Police constantly put themselves in dangerous situations. We shouldn't make them unnecessarily more dangerous by not giving them the tools they need to do the job. The U.K. Police try to use a trash can for christs sake. You know the proverb about the man with a hammer, right? Just based on the relative number of police shootings, clearly US police are absolutely terrible at doing anything other then escalating a situation. The guns just need to be put away. There would not be some bloodbath if cops stopped carrying guns and instead stored them in their center console or trunk behind a lock. Any time that lock is opened, there needs to be a full report justifying the introduction of deadly force into a situation. In this situation where the suspect is ventilated by what seems to be a dozen cops, think of how differently that could have ended if the cops were able to show some restraint. Wildly dumping their magazines into the man basically just means they had decided to kill him and weren't going to stop until they accomplished that goal. Yet there are plenty of videos of cops in other countries, in the rare occasions that they have to resort to deadly force, there is usually an aimed shot or two fired. The situation is then re-assessed, and if the suspect is still a threat, more shots are fired. Taking control of a situation and calmly getting it under control is a hell of a lot better than running in, screaming like a pack of lunatics, then executing anyone who looks at them funny.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
botany posted:You do this literally every time cops in a civilized country behave in a professional way, you just start shouting "they're doing it wrong". Never mind the statistics, never mind the positive outcomes, if they ain't killing they're doing it wrong. I'm not sure if this is funny or sad. I could understand "those cops just got lucky" if that UK example was an isolated event but the US police have a huge body count that no other first world country has so the idea that everyone else is doing it wrong but with somehow far better results for both police and suspects is ludicrous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
Radish posted:I could understand "those cops just got lucky" if that UK example was an isolated event but the US police have a huge body count that no other first world country has so the idea that everyone else is doing it wrong but with somehow far better results for both police and suspects is ludicrous. You'd want to control for population size difference and gun ownership rates, at a minimum, in making that comparison.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 00:35
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That clip looks bad mostly because of the absolutely ridiculous amount of cops that are surrounding the guy, but the truth is its irrelevant because excess manpower doesn't really make grappling a guy with a knife less dangerous. Dude just stabbed someone and is continuing to move toward a cop after taking multiple non-lethal rounds and still not going down, no one is getting charged in that situation. Jarmak appears to be relaying what department policy and the current state of jurisprudence is. And I am actually in agreement with him, that initially it was a good shoot; knife-wielding man suspected of a stabbing is not listening to orders to drop the weapon so that officers can move in safely and make an arrest. Less-lethal weapons had already been tried, to no effect. As others have said already, the line between good and bad shoots should probably be placed right after "one bullet from one cop". If the suspect didn't respond to less-lethal rounds, escalate things once and see if the subject responds. It is ridiculous that so many police officers felt a need -- and will be protected by policy -- for overwhelming use of force that killed a man who was completely surrounded and showing no signs that escape was imminent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
It is a little scary that the idea of a 'good shoot' even exists. The fact that death and violence can even be considered an acceptable, or even appropriate outcome, because it can be justified in some way, even hypothetically, instead of what it should be seen as, at best an unfortunate failure of the system, its policies and agents to produce a better outcome. Given the current state of 'comply or die' I don't think that man, no matter how mentally ill, unless he had dropped to his knees and put his hands behind his head had even a slim hope of surviving that gallery of guns trained on him. What exactly constitutes an unnecessary risk when you are allowed, if not encouraged shoot to force a conclusion to prevent any increased risk to oneself?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 01:21
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You'd want to control for population size difference and gun ownership rates, at a minimum, in making that comparison. Compare for population size? United States had a population of 318.9 million in 2014. The German population was 81.2 million by the same metric. The United States police were involved in 1108 civilian deaths in 2014. This includes not only shootings, but also people who died of apparent medical issues during custody (such as the infamous "excited delirium" that probably doesn't exist), poor reactions to a taser, or in car crashes during a pursuit. German police were involved in only a single known killing in 2014, a marijuana dealer who was shot in the back of the head as he ran away. I believe the case is under investigation, but I can't accurately find German sources on the matter. I can't find any easy sources on people simply dying in police custody or during an arrest or pursuit for non-shooting reasons in Germany, so I'm going to control this a bit by simply counting shootings over a period of time. Going by Killed by Police, the United States saw 63 police-related deaths in February. By my count, 52 of these incidents were "officer-involved shootings". I chose February only because it had the smallest number of civilians killed by police. I should point out that of the cases that didn't involve shootings, most of them were mysterious and unexplained deaths while in custody, including of restrained suspects and at least one proven instance of a person being beaten to death by an officer; the number would be larger if I used one of the more typical months (which see between 90 and 100 deaths each) or included direct murder through means other than gunfire, like beating or choking. This gives a ratio of 1 shooting death per 6,132,692 people. By comparison, Germany saw a ratio of 1 shooting death per 81,198,000 people. Again, using the least deadly month for police in the entire year saw more than an order of magnitude more shootings than an entire year in another first-world country. If you read the articles for yourself, you'll also find that not all of those 52 involved guns. Many involved knives, bats, bayonets, and in one case someone who threw a rock at a Border Patrol officer. At least one instance had the police backpedaling on whether or not the suspect had a gun at all. And considering how many times just this year the police narrative has been called into question, it's debatable how many of the "definite" instances of gunmen being killed by police actually had armed shooters or if they threatened anyone with the gun. At least two that I remember were suicidal people who the police claimed aimed the gun at them, but I think we can safely take it with a grain of salt after all the bullshit uncovered recently.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:It is a little scary that the idea of a 'good shoot' even exists. The fact that death and violence can even be considered an acceptable, or even appropriate outcome, because it can be justified in some way, even hypothetically, instead of what it should be seen as, at best an unfortunate failure of the system, its policies and agents to produce a better outcome. This is taking it a bit too far, if the life of the office is at serious risk (suspect has a gun pointed at them for example), then yes, of course the officer should be allowed to shoot. There are possible good shoot scenarios.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:You'd want to control for population size difference and gun ownership rates, at a minimum, in making that comparison. Is it really that hard to believe US police practices are kind of poo poo?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Yet there are plenty of videos of cops in other countries, in the rare occasions that they have to resort to deadly force, there is usually an aimed shot or two fired. The situation is then re-assessed, and if the suspect is still a threat, more shots are fired.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I don't understand your logic here. If the police are in a situation which justifies in using deadly force to stop a suspect or defend themselves, then it's by definition acceptable if the suspect dies. If the police aren't justified in shooting someone twenty times, they aren't justified in shooting them once. If after they have been shot once they are no longer a threat, there is no need to shoot a further 19 times.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That clip looks bad mostly because of the absolutely ridiculous amount of cops that are surrounding the guy, but the truth is its irrelevant because excess manpower doesn't really make grappling a guy with a knife less dangerous. Dude just stabbed someone and is continuing to move toward a cop after taking multiple non-lethal rounds and still not going down, no one is getting charged in that situation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
bango skank posted:Uh... well I guess I don't know what to say to that other than I completely disagree and think that it's exactly how a civilized police force should handle that type of situation? The only moment any of the police were in any real danger was when they all rushed him, as evidenced by reality and what happened on the video, and what risk there was could be almost completely mitigated by specifically staging drills for that takedown. I don't think the police should have to put themselves in life threatening situations in order to preserve the life of the person who's threatening it Trabisnikof posted:why are you talking about a car, when we're talking about someone on foot? Moving towards the office as seen on the video, is not the same as attempting to run them over with a car. You're acting like we don't have video evidence here.... Are you serious? Because the post I loving quoted was talking about the car scenario. Grundulum posted:Jarmak appears to be relaying what department policy and the current state of jurisprudence is. And I am actually in agreement with him, that initially it was a good shoot; knife-wielding man suspected of a stabbing is not listening to orders to drop the weapon so that officers can move in safely and make an arrest. Less-lethal weapons had already been tried, to no effect. We need to get get police better trained at using their firearms when they do shoot, the "everyone dumps their mag" thing is excessive and has all sorts of bad results, not the least of which cops shooting bystanders. chitoryu12 posted:Compare for population size? The first five shootings I pulled up included 2 incidents of the cops getting shot at, 2 of them shooting someone who brandished a gun, and a murder-suicide that had absolutely nothing to do with the cops duties. The US also has 17.65 times the firearm homicide rate of Germany. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Dec 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Jarmak appears to be relaying what department policy and the current state of jurisprudence is. And I am actually in agreement with him, that initially it was a good shoot; knife-wielding man suspected of a stabbing is not listening to orders to drop the weapon so that officers can move in safely and make an arrest. Less-lethal weapons had already been tried, to no effect. if pain compliance isn't making the guy do exactly what you want, escalate to execution, but do it real clean like
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The first five shootings I pulled up included 2 incidents of the cops getting shot at, 2 of them shooting someone who brandished a gun, and a murder-suicide that had absolutely nothing to do with the cops duties. If only the cops hadn't shot at those CA terrorists, the numbers would lower! No seriously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
Samog posted:if pain compliance isn't making the guy do exactly what you want, escalate to execution, but do it real clean like What do you suggest the officers do in this scenario? They don't have access to tasers in San Francisco, I think, so beanbag rounds were the best they could do in the less-lethal department. Are you saying that one or more officers should have moved into arm's reach of a person who was holding a knife and refused orders to drop it? A single gunshot wound (depending on location) is survivable with quick medical care; hell of a lot more so than 15.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I don't think the police should have to put themselves in life threatening situations in order to preserve the life of the person who's threatening it Take a guess at how many UK police have been stabbed to death in the last decade.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I don't think the police should have to put themselves in life threatening situations in order to preserve the life of the person who's threatening it They keep intentionally doing things that put themselves in danger, like trying to run in front of cars and walking to block people who are slowly shuffling away while carrying a knife. Should those cops not be disciplined or fired, then?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
I absolutely agree that cops who put themselves in front of moving vehicles and then claim self defense are full of poo poo, and I also agree that it might be a good idea, or at least an idea worth exploring, that if you feel you have to resort to bullets, to maybe try one bullet before the whole posse unloads like they're fighting Bonnie and Clyde, at least whenever circumstances allow it. But slowly shuffling guy had already (allegedly) demonstrated a willingness to stab somebody and was slowly shuffling closer to a stopped city bus. He's only 20-25' from the people filming. Almost every time I hear the phrase 'totality of circumstances' I brace myself for some awful cop apologist logic, but in this case it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the police would feel a need to hem this guy in where he was and not let him get closer to a bunch of civilians. I don't think anybody could fairly call me a police apologist, but in this instance I can see why they might have felt some urgency with regard to resolving the situation right then and there. edit: Honestly I'm still a bit unsure about the 'fire one bullet first thing' because I worry it'd be interpreted as 'shoot them once before it's absolutely necessary, so we still have time to shoot the poo poo out of them if we need to." While you might have less people turned into swiss cheese, you might have a whole lot more who get shot 'just once.' I'm not sure that's going to save lives overall. Terraplane fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Dec 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
If there's any appropriate time to shoot, it's at a guy that's armed and already stabbed somebody. This is pretty much the exact use case for a taser though, so the fact that they don't have them is kinda 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
Terraplane posted:edit: Honestly I'm still a bit unsure about the 'fire one bullet first thing' because I worry it'd be interpreted as 'shoot them once before it's absolutely necessary, so we still have time to shoot the poo poo out of them if we need to." While you might have less people turned into swiss cheese, you might have a whole lot more who get shot 'just once.' I'm not sure that's going to save lives overall. That one is easy. If your gun is out before your less-lethal alternatives, your bodycam had better prove that there was no time to try anything else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
Terraplane posted:
Some kind of warning shot or shooting to wound is not a good idea. Basically, a firearm is the wrong tool for inflicting non-lethal force.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:What do you suggest the officers do in this scenario? They don't have access to tasers in San Francisco, I think, so beanbag rounds were the best they could do in the less-lethal department. Are you saying that one or more officers should have moved into arm's reach of a person who was holding a knife and refused orders to drop it? A single gunshot wound (depending on location) is survivable with quick medical care; hell of a lot more so than 15. Use a method other than surrounding a likely mentally ill man with a crowd of screaming men with guns to try and make him surrender peacefully and shooting him if he does anything other than drop the knife and lay on the ground? The escalation we appear to have gotten was: 1. Fire beanbags, don't get immediate effect, decide they don't work. 2. Scream and threaten to kill the man if he doesn't surrender. 3. Begin shooting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Use a method other than surrounding a likely mentally ill man with a crowd of screaming men with guns to try and make him surrender peacefully and shooting him if he does anything other than drop the knife and lay on the ground? I assumed (perhaps mistakenly) that there was a step 0.5 and 1.5 involving talking to the dude. There surely ought to be even in a progression that includes firing once after exhausting all the other possibilities.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
I feel like, if the police have surrounded you, pepper sprayed you, shot you with beanbags, and yelled at you to drop the weapon or they will fire, you've had a lot of chances to give up peaceably at that point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 08:51
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I feel like, if the police have surrounded you, pepper sprayed you, shot you with beanbags, and yelled at you to drop the weapon or they will fire, you've had a lot of chances to give up peaceably at that point. Agreed, and the people who haven't are probably mentally ill and need help.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 08:56
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Agreed, and the people who haven't are probably mentally ill and need help. Or, y'know, too stunned and sore to think rationally. That guy did not look like he was in a good way. Before all the bullets, I mean.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 09:10
|
|
|
Why don't we have working net guns?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 09:34
|
|
|
An interesting article on California rethinking its rules on whether children can waive their right to remain silent. http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-kids-confess-20151129-story.html The story starts with a 10-year-old (!) who confessed to killing his father and was subsequently convicted of murder, but this also jumped out at me: quote:A San Francisco-based state appeals court recently condemned police tactics in the case of a 13-year-old found to have committed a lewd and lascivious act upon a child.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
Tubesock posted:Some kind of warning shot or shooting to wound is not a good idea. Basically, a firearm is the wrong tool for inflicting non-lethal force. Yeah, just ignore that police in civilized countries use legshots successfully, it is definitely not a good idea. America is different! Nothing can be done! It's the price for freedom!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 11:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 05:37 |
|
|
botany posted:Yeah, just ignore that police in civilized countries use legshots successfully, it is definitely not a good idea. America is different! Nothing can be done! It's the price for freedom! I would love to see what countries use legshots as a policy and where it works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2015 12:58
|
|
