Ridiculous Police News (Specific events)

[#686578]

I always thought the police shot to kill because if they tried to tackle someone and they injured the person... well dead people cant sue.

[Nephlite]

I always thought the police shot to kill because if they tried to tackle someone and they injured the person... well dead people cant sue.

Can't leave witnesses either.

[Tokitoki]

Not only do you still have to worry about the rocks, but people are forgetting the police also received a report the guy might've had a gun. That would cause them to be more on alert than anything. They already used a Taser on him once, which was ineffective (they aren't perfect, they are prone to failure, and some people aren't affected by them). We don't know how long they were fighting with him prior to the encounter, and what the circumstances were before the video. Two officers were also injured by the guy throwing rocks. Knee jerk "They should have shown more restraint!" Opinions without a full grasp of the entire incident, and judging the incident off of a 20 second video are stupid

I mentioned the gun. You just repeated everything I acknowledged and just brushed off the rest.

The problem is the video shows the end of the confrontation with the suspect on the floor after being shot. He was less than 30 feet (30 feet was conservative, but it looks more like 15 feet max) from the officers at the time, had turned to face them, and did not have a rock that we could see.

Even if he had hit another officer with a rock, if you could catch him at that point why wouldn't you? Would it not be better to take the guy in for trial than to deal with the repercussions of shooting someone (both personal and within the agency)?

It really boils down to the guy being less than 30 feet from the officers, arms waving around in the air (nowhere near a waistline, leg, foot, etc. to reach for a gun), and he gets shot instead of 3 officers running to him. The rest of the confrontation does not matter as much once the guy is running away, no gun being drawn, no rocks in hand, and the officers have to do little more than reach their arms out to be able to touch him, but decide to shoot him instead.

[SephYuyX]

It really boils down to the guy being less than 30 feet from the officers, arms waving around in the air (nowhere near a waistline, leg, foot, etc. to reach for a gun), and he gets shot instead of 3 officers running to him. The rest of the confrontation does not matter as much once the guy is running away, no gun being drawn, no rocks in hand, and the officers have to do little more than reach their arms out to be able to touch him, but decide to shoot him instead.

[Tokitoki]

I'm not sure what you're trying to support with this video. That an officer should always have a gun drawn? That they should always just shoot a suspect because they draw too slowly to fight off a knife? Or that maybe they shouldn't resort to drawing a gun when a suspect comes at them with a knife or handheld weapon?

The officers already had their guns drawn and pointed at the suspect. Drawing has nothing to do with this argument. Also, as I had stated and is seen in the video, the guys arms were waving around in the air. They weren't even idle at his sides, they were in the air.

If you're a normal citizen out with your two friends and a guy starts throwing rocks at you, what do you do? Do you and your two friends go tackle the guy or do you pull guns out and shoot the guy? I'm going to go with the former being the answer from the majority of people. Why? Because he was throwing fucking rocks.

If they really needed to shoot the guy, why couldn't they have shot him in the leg?

[Ksandra]

Not only do you still have to worry about the rocks, but people are forgetting the police also received a report the guy might've had a gun.

This doesn't defend anything. Cops need to stop fucking relying on secondary sources on whether the suspect has a gun. Fuck, this is so dumb it hurts my head. Cops are becoming willing assassins with this shit.

The US military follows the same use of force policies and ROE as the police. Every vet who pulls that nonsense forgets the FLETC use of force model that's taught during BCT, is the exact same policy that all Law Enforcement across the county follows. It's the standard for a reason.

This defense just proves you guys need to be trained differently. You aren't military. Your suspects are not the enemy.

[Eurell]

If they really needed to shoot the guy, why couldn't they have shot him in the leg?

Can we please stop asking this question every page?

[kuronosan]

Thunder, your logic seriously scares me.

There are doctors who get paid shit wages and guess what?

They still have those skills. It's fucking required.

So get out of here with that shit. If money is the motivator for being good at your job quit your fucking job.

[archibaldcrane]

Can we please stop asking this question every page?

Usually it's a shit argument (because usually when cops fire they need to).

It's pretty valid here, since they were in minimal danger.

Or at least just shoot him center mass...once.

[Abandon]

Not only do you still have to worry about the rocks, but people are forgetting the police also received a report the guy might've had a gun. That would cause them to be more on alert than anything. They already used a Taser on him once, which was ineffective (they aren't perfect, they are prone to failure, and some people aren't affected by them). We don't know how long they were fighting with him prior to the encounter, and what the circumstances were before the video. Two officers were also injured by the guy throwing rocks. Knee jerk "They should have shown more restraint!" Opinions without a full grasp of the entire incident, and judging the incident off of a 20 second video are stupid



Being a combat veteran doesn't mean you're not an idiot and you "know shit". It also doesn't mean you automatically deserve respect because you've "seen some shit". I argue with vets all the time and guess what? The US military follows the same use of force policies and ROE as the police. Every vet who pulls that nonsense forgets the FLETC use of force model that's taught during BCT, is the exact same policy that all Law Enforcement across the county follows. It's the standard for a reason.

kindly shut the fuck up. if that were the case, sooo many of these incidents would not have gone as far as they did.

[archibaldcrane]

Cmon abandon, you know you blasted everyone who threw a rock at you.

[AidenCarby]

Imagine if the military just clapped every little kid in the middle east that would throw rocks at their tanks.

[Abandon]

Imagine if the military just clapped every little kid in the middle east that would throw rocks at their tanks.

there wouldn't be much of iraq left

[Abandon]

or congress

[Xajii]

I wanna shit talk Neph too but I live in DC so I'm still holding out hope that next time I get in trouble I ask the cop if he knows dat blue gartr and end up gettin off

[Thunder]

Thunder, your logic seriously scares me.

There are doctors who get paid shit wages and guess what?

They still have those skills. It's fucking required.

So get out of here with that shit. If money is the motivator for being good at your job quit your fucking job.

It isn't just money, I thought I've been pretty clear with that:

As for your surgeon comparison... if they were paid shit money and had little fear of real consequences.... yeah, we should understand if they kill someone and it's okay to not have those skills

If a cop is getting paid that much and RARELY (according to this thread and the news stories in it) lose their jobs then why da fk would "steve" down the block work so much harder to protect your life?

It's money + actually having consequences for negligence or sloth+unreliability.

If you think you'd do just as well at your job if you knew you had 0 chance of REAL consequences and all your pay was guaranteed.... get out of here with that shit, yo I mean, let's also consider that you're probably brighter than a lot of these guys going into the police force who only finished high school (and probably did a shit job at that too)

This isn't rocket science. If someone has no incentives to perform as best they possibly can.. they wont. You can be an X worker working your ass off because you "believe" in a higher cause, you love what you do, or whatever and that's awesome.. but let's not kid ourselves and pretend that the entire police force should be so saintly

[Thunder]

Oh and speaking about the medical field and "yeah we should understand if they kill someone":

According to the journal of the american medical association (JAMA) the 3rd highest cause of deaths in the US are people who have had "iatrogenic deaths" (225,000 cases). Which means inadvertent death caused by a dactor, hospital, or incorrect/unnecessary medical procedure.

How many people are killed by police who were too forceful, arrogant, etc a year?

I'm not here to lambast the medical field... it's just when you're dealing with a population north of 300 million, you're going to get these weird cases. That's just the way things work. Police arrogance/ineptitude's always been around (shit pay + poor oversight due to police having ultimate discretion makes it PRIME for unreliability) and it's just the new hot topic for media. And for good reason, people are loving it.

[noblemountain]

You are seriously saying your training is what a serviceman's is Neph? That basic training is the first step, as you know. You train weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly...as a group. Cops don't have 1/100th of the real training that military do. Most cops I talk to bitch because they aren't allowed to fire more than 100 rounds a year at the range. I just read an article saying that the assumed avg for cops is between 15-20 hours a year on the range. That is pathetic and I did more than that a month while in the military.

[Nephlite]

I mentioned the gun. You just repeated everything I acknowledged and just brushed off the rest.

The problem is the video shows the end of the confrontation with the suspect on the floor after being shot. He was less than 30 feet (30 feet was conservative, but it looks more like 15 feet max) from the officers at the time, had turned to face them, and did not have a rock that we could see.

Even if he had hit another officer with a rock, if you could catch him at that point why wouldn't you? Would it not be better to take the guy in for trial than to deal with the repercussions of shooting someone (both personal and within the agency)?

It really boils down to the guy being less than 30 feet from the officers, arms waving around in the air (nowhere near a waistline, leg, foot, etc. to reach for a gun), and he gets shot instead of 3 officers running to him. The rest of the confrontation does not matter as much once the guy is running away, no gun being drawn, no rocks in hand, and the officers have to do little more than reach their arms out to be able to touch him, but decide to shoot him instead.

Officers don't have to wait for a gun to be drawn or pointed at them in order to justify the perception. If the subject just committed a Deadly Force threat (throwing rocks), and he is unable to be controlled, the end result is if he does anything other than lay down and surrender, the threat still persists because of the unknown if he still has a firearm. Look closely at the video, and it looks like he winds up right before he's shot. It's unclear if he still had a rock in his hands, or what the perception was from the officers. That's all I'm saying, is to wait for more evidence to come out. From what I see so far, it looks justified, but that could change depending on what other evidence comes out.

This doesn't defend anything. Cops need to stop fucking relying on secondary sources on whether the suspect has a gun. Fuck, this is so dumb it hurts my head. Cops are becoming willing assassins with this shit.



This defense just proves you guys need to be trained differently. You aren't military. Your suspects are not the enemy.

If someone tries to kill you, then they are your enemy. There's nothing around that, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter. You can't impose your own feelings of self-worth or self-defense on someone else. Your perceptions may, or may not, be similar or different from another person. Regardless, I can't tell you what you may perceive as Deadly Force, and I don't disregard that, because the perception changes depending on the person. As long as you're in reasonable fear of your life at risk or others, then it's justified use of Deadly Force if you respond with it. It's like that for non-police officers too.

Usually it's a shit argument (because usually when cops fire they need to).

It's pretty valid here, since they were in minimal danger.

Or at least just shoot him center mass...once.

Shooting someone in the leg can still kill them. Additionally, shooting someone in the leg can miss because it's a small target, can easily move, and can hit someone else and kill them. The theory is center mass does the most damage to stop the threat, and provides the most back-stop to keep projectiles from penetrating through to cause collateral damage.

There's also the theory that you don't use a firearm unless your life or someone else's is in danger. A shot to the leg or otherwise not on center mass would mean that the perception was not Serious Bodily Harm or Deadly Force.

kindly shut the fuck up. if that were the case, sooo many of these incidents would not have gone as far as they did.

I don't need to point out the thousands of examples of anecdotal evidence of the military doing the same thing as Law Enforcement, in much more egregious behavior that wasn't prosecuted under the UCMJ.

Additionally:

https://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf

So kindly kiss my ass.

Imagine if the military just clapped every little kid in the middle east that would throw rocks at their tanks.

There has, and there's still cases being prosecuted and examined as violations of the UCMJ. Like the behaviors of Law Enforcement, it doesn't happen that often that it's an issue that's widespread. The good thing about the Military is it punishes the offenders individually, and there's usually no Union to protect the bad officers for technicality fuck ups, although they do happen.

I wanna shit talk Neph too but I live in DC so I'm still holding out hope that next time I get in trouble I ask the cop if he knows dat blue gartr and end up gettin off

I'm not an unreasonable guy. Just mention "By any chance do you BG?" and if it's me I'll be sure to back off the abuse.

You are seriously saying your training is what a serviceman's is Neph? That basic training is the first step, as you know. You train weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly...as a group. Cops don't have 1/100th of the real training that military do. Most cops I talk to bitch because they aren't allowed to fire more than 100 rounds a year at the range. I just read an article saying that the assumed avg for cops is between 15-20 hours a year on the range. That is pathetic and I did more than that a month while in the military.

You Qual one time a year like police do, but like the police, you can range any time you want. The officers you talk to who say they aren't allowed to range are lying. Any QM will tell you that you can put as many rounds through your weapon as you want, as long as it's authorized and you're doing in on time off. Also, how often do you hand-to-hand recert? Never. Once OSUT is over, CQC is never practical on any Qual. Unless you're switching MOS to a specialty job, you don't get extra training. If you're talking about maneuvers, then yeah, you may get a bit more training than the police do in regards to that. Not practical, nor is it a standard for the police to do that type of training.

What does firearms training have to do with the totality of what the police do on average? Most police officers go their entire career without firing their weapons, however, 99% of police officers will have to use force of some type on a subject at least once a week on average. Training is great, but real life application is always different. How often does a soldier get to apply basic application of their combat training? Rarely. Continuing education, seeing what works, how your application of your basic training applies to what you deal with day in and day out, and how it gets articulated on paper.

[Ksandra]

If someone tries to kill you, then they are your enemy. There's nothing around that, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter. You can't impose your own feelings of self-worth or self-defense on someone else. Your perceptions may, or may not, be similar or different from another person. Regardless, I can't tell you what you may perceive as Deadly Force, and I don't disregard that, because the perception changes depending on the person. As long as you're in reasonable fear of your life at risk or others, then it's justified use of Deadly Force if you respond with it. It's like that for non-police officers too.

Having rocks thrown at you is not reasonable fear enough to use deadly force. If a person thinks that then they should not be a cop.

This concept is not that fucking hard.

Not everyone deserves to be a cop. Wake up and realize you are setting the bar way too low on what standards we should have.