Law Enforcement Discussion (Statistics, ideology)

[quannum]

[Thunder]

New shitty mods, same as the old shitty mods. we need mod reform. I wish they'd stop modding this section all together.

I think bane's done a good job. I like his post-movings

One time I was legitimately confused which thread I posted stuff about bill cosby because it wasn't in the cosby thread. And then it was! Good on him

[Nephlite]

You end up justifying yet another murder of yet another unarmed black male because of this reason and that reason and this other reason over here.

First off, this is not murder. Period.

Second, I did no such thing. I have offered my own take on the Garner situation, and believe that the whole unit that responded should be brought on charges.

[Petitssk]

So basically, a taser would be great to deal with someone who's not a threat to others, but in cases where failure of the weapon would be harmful to police officer or other innocent people, use of lethal force is preferable.

I'm just wondering what the outrage was about, then. Particularly:

More ridiculous police news, cop from dc quoted as saying
as if the only way to stop a threat is to kill them.

Unless this was sarcasm, I don't see any viable alternatives to killing them. Assuming we've got an EDP with a knife actively attacking people or being about to, what are your options?

I'm not sure if talking is viable, regardless of whether the EDP is just threatening people or attacking them. Talking while pointing a weapon at them doesn't seem overly beneficial to the development of the negotiations and attempting to talk while they're actively attacking people doesn't seem like a good idea either.

If the taser fails, which I assume is not immediately recognizable, it doesn't seem unlikely that there would be victims. I don't exactly see a police officer walking up to the EDP and disarming them either, so there's one certain way to end the threat - killing the EDP with a handfire weapon.

I honestly don't see the issue here, it's not even strictly about the life of the police officer versus the life of a civilian here, as in the discussion before - failure can lead to victims, so why should they be taking that risk?

[Nephlite]

So basically, a taser would be great to deal with someone who's not a threat to others, but in cases where failure of the weapon would be harmful to police officer or other innocent people, use of lethal force is preferable.

I'm just wondering what the outrage was about, then. Particularly:



Unless this was sarcasm, I don't see any viable alternatives to killing them. Assuming we've got an EDP with a knife actively attacking people or being about to, what are your options?

I'm not sure if talking is viable, regardless of whether the EDP is just threatening people or attacking them. Talking while pointing a weapon at them doesn't seem overly beneficial to the development of the negotiations and attempting to talk while they're actively attacking people doesn't seem like a good idea either.

If the taser fails, which I assume is not immediately recognizable, it doesn't seem unlikely that there would be victims. I don't exactly see a police officer walking up to the EDP and disarming them either, so there's one certain way to end the threat - killing the EDP with a handfire weapon.

I honestly don't see the issue here, it's not even strictly about the life of the police officer versus the life of a civilian here, as in the discussion before - failure can lead to victims, so why should they be taking that risk?

The expectation is the Police Officer signed up for the job, and should be able to put themselves at risk to stop the threat.

That's public perception, and the reality is: the courts, reasonable expectations, and just basic human nature predicts that no one put themselves in danger for someone else. I've said it before, and will say it again: there's nothing in SOP, GO, or anything that says I have to put myself at risk for anyone. Morals, a personal code, and a departmental expectation is present when dealing with that type of risk, but in no way does it affect the way that a Police Officer conducts business. If I decide to put myself at risk, it is of my own volition. To put that type of expectation on anyone, regardless of ability or training, is irresponsible and reckless.

Granted, any police officer would be fully willing to sacrifice themselves for anyone, and there's thousands of examples of one doing so. But, that type of selfless sacrifice has indeed become the expectation, and directly translated to the term "Protect and Serve", which is an incorrect translation of the real meaning behind the code. It's not about following orders, or upholding some type of antiquated saying or motto. It goes beyond that, and most people will not understand that mentality until they have a) experienced it themselves, or b) have been in a situation that doesn't require a thought process or examination of the circumstances. It's pure instinct at that point, and that's what it means to be a protector and one who serves.

[hey]

So basically, a taser would be great to deal with someone who's not a threat to others, but in cases where failure of the weapon would be harmful to police officer or other innocent people, use of lethal force is preferable.

I'm just wondering what the outrage was about, then. Particularly:



Unless this was sarcasm, I don't see any viable alternatives to killing them. Assuming we've got an EDP with a knife actively attacking people or being about to, what are your options?

I'm not sure if talking is viable, regardless of whether the EDP is just threatening people or attacking them. Talking while pointing a weapon at them doesn't seem overly beneficial to the development of the negotiations and attempting to talk while they're actively attacking people doesn't seem like a good idea either.

If the taser fails, which I assume is not immediately recognizable, it doesn't seem unlikely that there would be victims. I don't exactly see a police officer walking up to the EDP and disarming them either, so there's one certain way to end the threat - killing the EDP with a handfire weapon.

I honestly don't see the issue here, it's not even strictly about the life of the police officer versus the life of a civilian here, as in the discussion before - failure can lead to victims, so why should they be taking that risk?

If they can't handle a depressed person with a knife without killing them, then they shouldn't be a cop.

[kuronosan]

If they can't handle a depressed person with a knife without killing them, then they shouldn't be a cop.

This. Seems like the prevailing thought is shoot first, worry about particulars later. I mean, there are situations where lethal force is unavoidable. It feels as though it's becoming more commonplace and acceptable to just let every situation require lethal force.

[Petitssk]

I understand why you'd think that way, but how are they supposed to do that? They're police officers, not Magneto. A person with a knife, regardless of how depressed they are, can cause lethal injuries to others, that's the point of knives and weapons - empower people. A knife to the throat can and will kill people, so what's the police officer supposed to do?

The expectation is the Police Officer signed up for the job, and should be able to put themselves at risk to stop the threat.

That's public perception, and the reality is: the courts, reasonable expectations, and just basic human nature predicts that no one put themselves in danger for someone else. I've said it before, and will say it again: there's nothing in SOP, GO, or anything that says I have to put myself at risk for anyone. Morals, a personal code, and a departmental expectation is present when dealing with that type of risk, but in no way does it affect the way that a Police Officer conducts business. If I decide to put myself at risk, it is of my own volition. To put that type of expectation on anyone, regardless of ability or training, is irresponsible and reckless.

Granted, any police officer would be fully willing to sacrifice themselves for anyone, and there's thousands of examples of one doing so. But, that type of selfless sacrifice has indeed become the expectation, and directly translated to the term "Protect and Serve", which is an incorrect translation of the real meaning behind the code. It's not about following orders, or upholding some type of antiquated saying or motto. It goes beyond that, and most people will not understand that mentality until they have a) experienced it themselves, or b) have been in a situation that doesn't require a thought process or examination of the circumstances. It's pure instinct at that point, and that's what it means to be a protector and one who serves.

That certainly does sound problematic. Isn't that what "going beyond the call of duty" is supposed to be about? For people to approach police officers with the mindset that sacrificing themselves is part of the duty sounds awful, considering that people might be quite likely to consider you a failure as police officer if you don't sacrifice yourself in a situation in which you could have done so.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, that sounds quite unrealistic even. If I recall correctly, police officers don't exactly have the highest income, so, as far as income is concerned, they have a regular job and a family at home. What happens to the family if the police officer dies? Is there any monetary aid the family can expect in the event of the officer's death so they can, for instance, pay the mortgage or send the kids to college?

Even if there is, I'm fairly sure the family would like to have the father/mother at home and I'm also sure the officer would like to be there as well and not dead.

Given all that, I really can't understand why people would outright expect officers to sacrifice themselves - shouldn't it be enough that they stand up for regular citizens, maintain law and sacrifice themselves only if they feel that it's worth it, same as every other person who gets into that kind of situation?

[hey]

I understand why you'd think that way, but how are they supposed to do that? They're police officers, not Magneto. A person with a knife, regardless of how depressed they are, can cause lethal injuries to others, that's the point of knives and weapons - empower people. A knife to the throat can and will kill people, so what's the police officer supposed to do?

I don't know, why don't you ask the cops in countries where cops don't carry guns. Somehow they do just fine without killing people left and right.

[Acevalefor]

Cops will stop carrying guns in the US as soon as citizens in the US stop owning guns. Neither will happen in our lifetime.

Nobody reasonable is asking cops to sacrifice themselves. We are asking cops to reevaluate policy and general orders on use of force and consider changing their approach. In several of the videos that have been posted here and other threads, Thinking of myself in the position of the subject, I would be pretty scared and probably defiant, in a fight or flight reaction, to a police officer with a gun pointed at me. Your use of force will not magically make me want to comply. My life is in far more danger than yours is and I am fighting for every second if it comes to that.

I understand the violent and selfish behavior of Americans and I am not saying lethal force is never necessary. Being quick to draw and trigger happy because someone was backing out of a parking lot is not a time for lethal force though. Driving through the grass and jumping out of a moving car and killing a 12-year-old before he can even comprehend wtf is happening is not acceptable either, as we have already established. Just review and change use of force policy. To go along with it, review and change tort to protect officers and limit liability.

I had a thought about somehow tying civil actions to liability in a criminal court for officers. Change the way investigations happen so that police cannot clear themselves of wrongdoing, when and if criminal liability is established, then a civil suit can follow. Or maybe if a civil suit is filed and damages awarded, that in itself becomes the catalyst for criminal charges. This all requires some pretty broad changes to civil liability laws as well as criminal internal investigations.

[Petitssk]

I don't know, why don't you ask the cops in countries where cops don't carry guns. Somehow they do just fine without killing people left and right.

Which the UK would be one example of (minus Northern Ireland); doesn't seem like it always works out overly well.

Furthermore, we're talking about entirely different expectations when comparing North America to other regions, especially in regard to gun laws.

[hey]

Which the UK would be one example of (minus Northern Ireland); doesn't seem like it always works out overly well.

And....? Shit happens, no matter what. Single incidents don't mean anything. Cops still get attacked with knives even when they have guns. There's no way to be 100% safe when dealing with dangerous people. If a cop gets killed by someone, 99% of the time it's with a gun or car. Being a cop is not nearly as dangerous as its made to seem. And certainly if they are in imminent danger, they should do what they have to to stay safe, but according to the stats, knife fights aren't really that dangerous. Remember these aren't just your average citizens, they are police officers who are trained for these situations. If they cannot handle it, they shouldn't be a cop.

[Nephlite]

And....? Shit happens, no matter what. Single incidents don't mean anything. Cops still get attacked with knives even when they have guns. There's no way to be 100% safe when dealing with dangerous people. If a cop gets killed by someone, 99% of the time it's with a gun or car. Being a cop is not nearly as dangerous as its made to seem. And certainly if they are in imminent danger, they should do what they have to to stay safe, but according to the stats, knife fights aren't really that dangerous. Remember these aren't just your average citizens, they are police officers who are trained for these situations. If they cannot handle it, they shouldn't be a cop.

This is another mindset that happens to be a prevailing argument for why police officers don't need the tools we have today. Tactics, equipment, and mindset of policing to fit current standards is an evolution to meet the threat. Rapid declines of Law Enforcement Officer deaths over the decades; what's the cause? A better economy? Better technology? Less crime? The crime stats seem to indicate less violent crimes, but why is that? Are people suddenly getting better?

I think that it's evolution in it's simplest form. Mankind evolves to meet the threats that are presented to them. In a profession as dynamic and charged with maintaining order and peace, there's only one hope to meet the threat that was presented to them. Back in the 50's, 60's, and the bloody 70's, LEO deaths by acts of violence were twice, three times, even four times as high as they are now. Aside from killing and incarcerating the violent ones, what changed in the dynamic to help officers prevail?Any old timer will tell you how much different policing is nowadays. Now we have ballistic vests that stop gunshots from higher caliber rounds, sweep and secure tactics and Use of Force policies that evolved from some of the bloodiest years in history, better medical equipment, better driving abilities, better training overall.

I don't believe people have gotten any better. Our murder rate is down, but it's still 13,000 deaths per year too many. And yeah, Officer deaths are down; that doesn't make the job any less dangerous. Endgame danger is indeed death, but that's not the only aspect to danger. How many police officers are shot and live every year? Beaten nearly to death? Attacked with any weapon, including stabbed? Exposed to any number of dangerous situations that average citizens don't get involved in, like highway accidents, domestic violence, robberies, etc? Police don't run from danger, we run towards it. And without any concrete facts to say it's less dangerous other than just deaths is silly.

And, I would like to ask what training you think police get that makes them super efficient at knife attacks? We're told in the academy that if you go hands on, you're going to get cut with the knife. There's no question. You're GOING to get cut. Where you get cut at can be determined by training, but the human body is so fragile. There's a million different ways you can get a nick on your body that can kill you. Why take that risk? Use your Taser if you can, or Pepper Spray, or use your MRAP to get in close to the EDP to take them down. You still have to get the knife out of their hand, and you still have to control them.

[Petitssk]

And....? Shit happens, no matter what. Single incidents don't mean anything. Cops still get attacked with knives even when they have guns. There's no way to be 100% safe when dealing with dangerous people. If a cop gets killed by someone, 99% of the time it's with a gun or car. Being a cop is not nearly as dangerous as its made to seem. And certainly if they are in imminent danger, they should do what they have to to stay safe, but according to the stats, knife fights aren't really that dangerous. Remember these aren't just your average citizens, they are police officers who are trained for these situations. If they cannot handle it, they shouldn't be a cop.

Sorry, I should have specified that the article refers to the Police Memorial Trust, an organization which has been supporting families of slain police officers in the UK. Up until 2010, the article makes mention of 38 deaths which could have been prevented had the police officers been properly equipped. And those are only the ones that died.

Nonetheless, I think it's a bold statement to make that "knife fights aren't really that dangerous" - there should be a lot of factors to consider, such as capability of the perpetrator, distance to the police officer, element of surprise etc. . What's more, you claim that 99% of police officers are killed with guns or cars; aren't you stating that under the assumption that police officers handle incidents involving knives by gunning down the person wielding the knife? If so, it wouldn't be surprising if those numbers were correct. More relevant would be the numbers without use of firearms in such situations.

In general, I think we agree that wielding a knife does not necessarily have to lead to death. However, without proper information regarding the imminent dangers of engaging an assailant wielding a knife, I find it hard to draw a definite conclusion as to when shooting them is justified - as should you.

[hey]

This is another mindset that happens to be a prevailing argument for why police officers don't need the tools we have today. Tactics, equipment, and mindset of policing to fit current standards is an evolution to meet the threat. Rapid declines of Law Enforcement Officer deaths over the decades; what's the cause? A better economy? Better technology? Less crime? The crime stats seem to indicate less violent crimes, but why is that? Are people suddenly getting better?

I think that it's evolution in it's simplest form. Mankind evolves to meet the threats that are presented to them. In a profession as dynamic and charged with maintaining order and peace, there's only one hope to meet the threat that was presented to them. Back in the 50's, 60's, and the bloody 70's, LEO deaths by acts of violence were twice, three times, even four times as high as they are now. Aside from killing and incarcerating the violent ones, what changed in the dynamic to help officers prevail?Any old timer will tell you how much different policing is nowadays. Now we have ballistic vests that stop gunshots from higher caliber rounds, sweep and secure tactics and Use of Force policies that evolved from some of the bloodiest years in history, better medical equipment, better driving abilities, better training overall.

I don't believe people have gotten any better. Our murder rate is down, but it's still 13,000 deaths per year too many. And yeah, Officer deaths are down; that doesn't make the job any less dangerous. Endgame danger is indeed death, but that's not the only aspect to danger. How many police officers are shot and live every year? Beaten nearly to death? Attacked with any weapon, including stabbed? Exposed to any number of dangerous situations that average citizens don't get involved in, like highway accidents, domestic violence, robberies, etc? Police don't run from danger, we run towards it. And without any concrete facts to say it's less dangerous other than just deaths is silly.

And, I would like to ask what training you think police get that makes them super efficient at knife attacks? We're told in the academy that if you go hands on, you're going to get cut with the knife. There's no question. You're GOING to get cut. Where you get cut at can be determined by training, but the human body is so fragile. There's a million different ways you can get a nick on your body that can kill you. Why take that risk? Use your Taser if you can, or Pepper Spray, or use your MRAP to get in close to the EDP to take them down. You still have to get the knife out of their hand, and you still have to control them.

I'm not arguing for taking away guns or anything else. But you should pick a weapon appropriate for the situation at hand, rather than just defaulting to gunning people down if they present the slightest threat. Sure, maybe it's not as easy as just shooting them, but those are real people you are killing. You shouldn't be killing people just because it's easier. If you're unwilling to accept a little risk, then again, you shouldn't be a cop. If you need to kill someone to save your life, do it. But if you don't, then what are you even doing?

[RKenshin]

If they can't handle a depressed person with a knife without killing them, then they shouldn't be a cop.

'If you can't handle a mentally unstable person with a weapon, then you shouldn't be a cop'

.... yeah, I think that's a little unfair.

I didn't read the story so I don't know the details, but it sure sounds unreasonable to expect anyone to be able to diffuse that kind of a situation successfully 100% of the time. Perhaps they did a poor job or made mistakes, but it's not exactly a traffic stop for a broken tail light.

[hey]

'If you can't handle a mentally unstable person with a weapon, then you shouldn't be a cop'

.... yeah, I think that's a little unfair.

I didn't read the story so I don't know the details, but it sure sounds unreasonable to expect anyone to be able to diffuse that kind of a situation successfully 100% of the time. Perhaps they did a poor job or made mistakes, but it's not exactly a traffic stop for a broken tail light.

I don't expect 100% success rate, i expect them to at least try, rather well going "oh well, he's got a knife, no choice but to blow a hole in his chest, like any other joe blow on the street".

[Melena]

If they can't handle a depressed person with a knife without killing them, then they shouldn't be a cop.

Obviously you have so much experience in dealing with mental illness. Please tell me how a suicidal person who keeps threatening to harm someone should be dealt with.

[hey]

Obviously you have so much experience in dealing with mental illness. Please tell me how a suicidal person who keeps threatening to harm someone should be dealt with.

If their threats are realistic and imminent (for example, if they have a gun in their hand), do anything you have to do to stop them. Otherwise, put them in handcuffs, and take them to a hospital.

[hey]

Honestly, from reading that article it sounds like a good shoot.

If this account is accurate, i'm tempted to agree. Who knows if it is though..