Ridiculous Police News (Specific events)

[Nephlite]

No. It isn't. Please continue missing the point and getting frustrated with those of us who are still sane. I'd rather talk to Thunder, who at least appreciates when I'm being serious and doesn't act like he's King of All.

I'm getting frustrated with the fact that I just spent the majority of the day explaining the point and you're asking the same exact questions. Did you just ignore all of today's postings?

Because you need to assess more than just "this guy is trying to kill me." If you can disarm them, despite the fact they are trying to kill you, then that is what you should do. If a guy in a wheelchair comes at a cop with a paperclip and cop just shoots him in the head, he's a bad cop. Doesn't matter if the guy was trying to kill him.

You're missing the point. If I assess someone is trying to kill me, I have already done enough assessing to formulate that mentality. There is no infinite assessment state. You have to act eventually, or you will die. Police officers, and people in general, make split second decisions that mean the difference between life or death every day. If you spent an eternity assessing it, then you'll never get anywhere. If the perception is deadly force, then it's deadly force. Not "Wait, let me wait and see if this is legit" because that's how people die.

And on an extreme point that you're always twisting this, why is the not-so-extreme assessment I did that the officers in Pasco, Washington tried to use less lethal and other control methods FIRST to control him, then he escalated which resulted in his death, dismissed so casually? You say a guy in a wheelchair with a paperclip, and I'll ask: how big is he? How long have I been fighting with him? What was the call? Time of day? Am I injured? Did he assault me? What state of mind am I in before the contact? Is the wife and kids okay? Bills all paid? Car running okay? Had enough to drink and enough cigarettes before the call?

There's so many factors that play in to these scenarios. And that is why I keep an open mind and wait for all the evidence to come out, because half of those questions I will never have an answer to, but are 100% relevant to the incident.

[Yuri-G]

Your bills and your wife and your kids have nothing to do with killing a dude in a wheelchair with a paperclip. If you can't separate that shit, don't be a police officer. I don't want to die because you're going through a divorce.

I don't even know what to say. I will let other people continue this debate. lol

[jmc]

Your bills and your wife and your kids have nothing to do with killing a dude in a wheelchair with a paperclip. If you can't separate that shit, don't be a police officer. I don't want to die because you're going through a divorce.

I don't even know what to say. I will let other people continue this debate. lol

Honestly, then there will be no police officers left.

I have not encountered anyone in my life that doesn't have their work life change due to stress outside of work.

[NynJa]

Hey guys, I have this great idea on how to not get shot by the fucking cops, no matter what potential weapon you have at your disposal.

DONT ATTACK THE FUCKING COPS

[Aragon of Odin]

I don't think you'll die cause he's going through a divorce, I think you'd likely die because you were doing something you weren't supposed to be, then resisted or escalated the situation instead of following instructions and allowing yourself to be detained instead of fighting back.

My life > yours. Probably how each individual ranks themselves against another individual correct? So if you're threatening my life, you best be prepared to give up yours. And then, realize that the whole situation was most likely brought on because YOU were in the wrong to begin with, doing something which drew the cops to you. I doubt the cops woke up that day and said "Hey, I wanna go find some dude throwing rocks and kill him", chances are they were summoned to the situation.

[Acevalefor]

And don't point a gun at an intruder in your own home because it might be a cop breaking in to see if you are still alive. (Sarcastic and facetious.jpg)

[Acevalefor]

I don't think you'll die cause he's going through a divorce, I think you'd likely die because you were doing something you weren't supposed to be, then resisted or escalated the situation instead of following instructions and allowing yourself to be detained instead of fighting back.

My life > yours. Probably how each individual ranks themselves against another individual correct? So if you're threatening my life, you best be prepared to give up yours. And then, realize that the whole situation was most likely brought on because YOU were in the wrong to begin with, doing something which drew the cops to you. I doubt the cops woke up that day and said "Hey, I wanna go find some dude throwing rocks and kill him", chances are they were summoned to the situation.

I agree. Self preservation is paramount in most people's minds. This thread is chock full of incidents that were taken too far by the police though. We have another thread about citizens taking it too far. What has been said here is that policy needs to be reviewed and changed from officer interactions all the way up to drug policy and incarceration reform on a national level. I understand that Great Britain is an entirely different country, but maybe something can be learned from them in how to handle lethal force with non-lethal force.

America is no longer a leader in freedom and liberty. We are no longer the world economic power. We have the highest incarceration rate in the world. Andalusian posted some great information about all that. It is proof that we need to change the law and the way it is enforced. Not just with policing either. We need to review and change the legal system so that it does not prey on the poor and give passes to those with money.

[Aragon of Odin]

I get what you're saying about the police taking it too far, I do, but to me that's not where the problem lies, it starts much much before the police even have the ability to take it too far(in most cases). In most instances, someone has already taken it too far before the police have even arrived, which is why the police have to arrive at all, period. So fix the problem leading up to the scenario where a cop has to get involved, instead of just trying to go after the cops.

[NynJa]

We need to review and change the legal system so that it does not prey on the poor and give passes to those with money.

Why is that a legal system problem? How about taxing the rich as hard as you tax the poor folk?

[Lucavi]

Why is that a legal system problem? How about taxing the rich as hard as you tax the poor folk?

Because the rich are the ones who make the systems in place. Who wants to tax themself?

[Acevalefor]

I get what you're saying about the police taking it too far, I do, but to me that's not where the problem lies, it starts much much before the police even have the ability to take it too far(in most cases). In most instances, someone has already taken it too far before the police have even arrived, which is why the police have to arrive at all, period. So fix the problem leading up to the scenario where a cop has to get involved, instead of just trying to go after the cops.

I don't think that is fixable in a free society. There are certainly things that can be done to minimize terrible behavior. It is so incredibly broad though. Economics, abortion laws, legal system and the involvement of money in the system, war on drugs, incarcerations, kids missing one or both parents, bad parents, mental health...it is so dauntingly huge and will never be fixed as long as politics dictate that partizan shenanigans MUST happen and nobody can get anything done because democrats hate republicans hate democrats.

[Acevalefor]

Why is that a legal system problem? How about taxing the rich as hard as you tax the poor folk?

I am not talking about taxation. I am talking about paying for legal representation. If you are poor, you get a public defender who is so heavily burdened with a huge case load that they won't do shit for you except convince you to take a plea deal that is not in your best interest (hi-2-u tow truck flashing lights guy). If you get a traffic citation and cannot pay it or even get a payment plan set up because they won't accept anything less than $x per month and x happens to be your food budget, you get caught in a cycle of the legal system preying on you and ensuring you remain poor. If you are named in a civil suit and cannot afford an attorney, you better be good at navigating the legal system yourself, because the suit continues with or without you and you will get a default judgement against you if you don't know how to respond correctly. (This happened to my old boss when he was named in a suit against the company we both worked for. He was on the hook for $13,000 because the company successfully petitioned to have their name removed and he didn't respond to a summons because it was delivered to the business instead of his house.)

There are thousands of examples of how our ENTIRE legal system is stacked against the poor. Maybe we can start fixing this problem first.

[Ksandra]

This thread is chock full of incidents that were taken too far by the police though.

I think this needs to be restated. I think the guy who threw the rocks (and many of the stories found in here) should have been prosecuted with jail time. The problem is whether or not these incidents deserved death.

I don't think we can make the police force perfect. There will always be accidents, but we can try to work towards limiting them as much as possible.

[Nephlite]

Nah, I'm not. I'm just seriously curious how far "I'm in danger" extends beyond logical reason.

I should ask you that question. When do you feel your life is in danger? You know why that question is important? Because it is YOUR perception. It's not any less, or more valid than my own perception. It's different from person to person. It's what it means to be objective and reasonable. If you can reasonably articulate why you feel your life is in danger, then it is not to be ignored when assessing a situation like this.

I personally feel a rock is a dangerous instrument that can kill me. I have seen what a well placed rock can do to people, and I have personally felt what a rock to the head feels like. So I would perceive being hit with a rock as a Deadly Force threat immediately, and that is how I have been trained as well.

You can't deny that neph was trying to make it pretty clear that if anyone tries to kill him, he will kill them first no matter the weapon. But it illustrates a huge point. That shouldn't be just about someone trying to kill you, but whether or not you can realistically stop them without killing them.

How is it not about someone trying to kill me? Realistically speaking, I wouldn't respond with trying to stop a threat unless that threat exists. There would be no need for that type of response if there's no threat or perception of it.

And this is exactly what people - myself, at least - cannot accept. There is a huge difference between shooting at you and throwing rocks. You can't blanket "trying to kill me" like that and expect people to accept it.

By all means, if someone is coming at you with a knife, please do shoot him. But don't shoot the rock-throwing guy. The fact that you can't seem to see the difference is really depressing to me.

Trying to kill you means trying to kill you. That's a blanket for any action that will result in my life being lost. And my perception that a rock is a dangerous weapon isn't an invalid statement, just like your (blind) view that a rock is not a dangerous weapon. You know nothing of my perception or how that perception is formulated.

Wait, is that true? A police officer is legally justified to kill that guy without even attempting less-lethal means? Please dear god tell me that's not true. That is frightening.

This particular instance, if he immediately threw a rock at the responding officers, they'd be legally justified with killing him. The fact that they didn't is a good exercise in restraint and good training. However, be mindful of this:

If he had other weapons, then depending on the weapon, I might agree with you. With the information we have, I don't.

We don't have all the information, which is why I always say: "Don't judge until you have all the information."

Unfortunately, that didn't stop the pitchforks, but whatever.

Neph, my problem is this: You keep throwing out hypotheticals, what if they tried to tackle him and couldn't, what if he had other weapons, what if they were injured or exhausted - and you're right, it's not impossible that they didn't use wildly excessive force. Maybe this guy was a trained takedown stuffer with epic cardio and a lethal rock throwing arm who was clearly trying to kill a cop, as opposed to being a belligerent, mentally unstable man who didn't want to be brought in. It's not impossible, the cops may have acted appropriately.

What I want to know is, if there was no other weapon, if they didn't try to tackle him, if they weren't exhausted or injured - is it possible in your estimation that they used excessive force? Or are all the hypotheticals you are throwing out meaningless to you when it comes down to it?

Barring no other hypotheticals, then yes, this can be excessive force. However, we don't have all of the information, so in theory, my hypotheticals should be meaningless until all of the information is out. I'm providing a look in to why it could be justified, possible reasons why they fired, but it's not an absolute.

Your bills and your wife and your kids have nothing to do with killing a dude in a wheelchair with a paperclip. If you can't separate that shit, don't be a police officer. I don't want to die because you're going through a divorce.

I don't even know what to say. I will let other people continue this debate. lol

You should just stop, then. Go look up an activation of the Sympathetic Nervous System and it's relation to Deadly Force threats in Police Officers and come back with a valid viewpoint.

I think this needs to be restated. I think the guy who threw the rocks (and many of the stories found in here) should have been prosecuted with jail time. The problem is whether or not these incidents deserved death.

I don't think we can make the police force perfect. There will always be accidents, but we can try to work towards limiting them as much as possible.

We should replace our cops with robots.

ftfy

[NynJa]

Most of the problems against the poor are merely a byprouct of "poor get poorer, rich get richer"

[Aragon of Odin]

I think this needs to be restated. I think the guy who threw the rocks (and many of the stories found in here) should have been prosecuted with jail time. The problem is whether or not these incidents deserved death.

I don't think we can make the police force perfect. There will always be accidents, but we can try to work towards limiting them as much as possible.

Here's the thing. The guy who threw rocks would have been prosecuted with jail time, had he allowed himself to be detained, instead he decided it was in his best interest to escalate it further, to the point where he was shot. He didn't deserve death, but to act like he had no part in bringing it on himself, and that it was all wrong in the cops doing is naïve.

Society is imperfect, and the police are just a part of society, and just like the rest of society, the police are imperfect as well. In order to work towards limiting the number of incidents, you have to educate everyone in the society, not just a select group(cops in this instance).

[Acevalefor]

Most of the problems against the poor are merely a byprouct of "poor get poorer, rich get richer"

Probably. So now that I understand your line of thinking in how you came to the conclusion of taxing the rich, I think that would be a great addition to the things I listed. Maybe it will actually solve the problem of the rich getting richer, but somehow, I doubt it. They will find other ways to hoard their money or they will leave the US for places that reward the rich. Call me cynical, but unless the US closes all tax loopholes and sets a flat, standard tax rate for everyone (including businesses), changing tax code will just move the money out of America.

[Ksandra]

Here's the thing. The guy who threw rocks would have been prosecuted with jail time, had he allowed himself to be detained, instead he decided it was in his best interest to escalate it further, to the point where he was shot. He didn't deserve death, but to act like he had no part in bringing it on himself, and that it was all wrong in the cops doing is naïve.

Society is imperfect, and the police are just a part of society, and just like the rest of society, the police are imperfect as well. In order to work towards limiting the number of incidents, you have to educate everyone in the society, not just a select group(cops in this instance).

I don't think running away should be considered escalating to the point of being shot. Fight or flight is a real thing, and I think that running away should not be an automatic response to shoot. Feels more like they were trying to stop him from getting away vs. trying to defend themselves.

[Aragon of Odin]

I don't think running was what escalated it to him being shot. And more than most others here, I get fight or flight, and don't see how that applies here considering he drew the attention to himself.

[archibaldcrane]

Barring no other hypotheticals, then yes, this can be excessive force. However, we don't have all of the information, so in theory, my hypotheticals should be meaningless until all of the information is out. I'm providing a look in to why it could be justified, possible reasons why they fired, but it's not an absolute.

Oh. Ok cool. I thought you were basically throwing out hypotheticals that you didn't actually care about, that you'd already decided they were definitely in the right/open and shut/sprinkle some crack on him and let's go mode.