Your story brings up the point about departments training officers to deal more effectively with people with mental illness. Some have done a good job with this.
You've assumed this person has a mental illness?
No, it looked like you did when you labelled him "lunatic". I was just going with that theme.
Your story brings up the point about departments training officers to deal more effectively with people with mental illness. Some have done a good job with this.
You've assumed this person has a mental illness?
No, it looked like you did when you labelled him "lunatic". I was just going with that theme.
Hmmm.
It appears my vocabulary choices are slimming by the day.
What do you call some idiot wielding a machete in a public place looking to hack people with it?
Your story brings up the point about departments training officers to deal more effectively with people with mental illness. Some have done a good job with this.
You've assumed this person has a mental illness?
No, it looked like you did when you labelled him "lunatic". I was just going with that theme.
Hmmm.
It appears my vocabulary choices are slimming by the day.
What do you call some idiot wielding a machete in a public place looking to hack people with it?
Cops shot and killed a guy wielding a machete at Colorado University today. Full details have yet to be disclosed.
I'm pretty sure one of the comments below the story I was reading was a 10C member. It was in the form of a question and it read something like this: why couldn't they have just shot the machete out of his hands?
I didn't read many more of the comments, but I'm sure there would have been some suggesting the cops lock themselves in a room and try to talk to the lunatic through a door where they couldn't get hacked... maybe tell him to chill out or something. I dunno.
I do think that cops could aim for the leg more often... at least when there is some amount of space between the cop and the criminal. Yeah, if he was only a few meters away or whatever, they don't have time for that shit, but if he's farther away than that, shoot his damn leg or ass or even the stomach or something. I will always support cops doing their best, whenever possible, to avoid killing someone when they fire their guns. As far as I can tell, they are trained to shoot to kill no matter what. I think that's kind of shitty. Yes, I'm aware of the agruements for doing that. I just don't think they're very good arguments.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Do you mean shoot to injure only when lethal force is justified, or shoot to injure even in the case of someone running away. You really wouldn't want cops shooting to injure in either case. If someone is shot in the ass, then he was clearly running away and lethal force was not needed so he should not have been shot anywhere. Shooting someone in the stomach vs center mass is only a difference of a few inches. They are not going to be that accurate. And shooting a leg on a moving target that is more than a few meters away is going to be very difficult. Even aiming for center mass cops only hit their mark something like 30% of the time. That is because in a middle of a fight when you're moving and the target is moving it is pretty difficult to hit the main body of a target. Add aiming for the leg instead and they'll miss almost every time. There's really only 1 argument for "shoot to kill." And that is the trigger should only be pulled if you intend to kill the target. Aiming center mass is just the biggest target and most practical way to stop the threat. But it comes down to don't pull the trigger unless you mean to kill something. How is that not a good argument? I would not be opposed to more non-lethal tools, and use a shotgun with bean bags or things like that in some scenarios. But if you pull the trigger you need to intend to kill your target. If you don't intend to kill your target, don't pull the trigger.
No no, shoot to injure only when the cops' lives/safety is in jeopardy. Definitely not when someone is running away! If they train enough shooting without killing would probably be easier. Get them super duper good at using the guns and I think they could manage it. No, I don't think that is a good argument. I think it is reasonable to use a gun for self-defense without intending to kill. The intention would be to stop them, not to kill them. Sure, you could accidentally kill them anyway, but that isn't the same as their shoot to kill philosophy. Yes, tasers and bean bag guns are an okay option.... although tasers have killed a whole lot of people, so I don't think they should be considered non-lethal weapons at all. I think it is a huge mistake to do that because it leads to cops using them on people who have only committed minor offenses, and on kids and drunk teens, or simply when a cop is trying to avoid skinning a knee or whatever. They don't take the effects of tasers seriously enough. Of course, living in Vancouver, with the whole Robert Dziekański horror, I guess I'm sensitive about that issue.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Do you mean shoot to injure only when lethal force is justified, or shoot to injure even in the case of someone running away. You really wouldn't want cops shooting to injure in either case. If someone is shot in the ass, then he was clearly running away and lethal force was not needed so he should not have been shot anywhere. Shooting someone in the stomach vs center mass is only a difference of a few inches. They are not going to be that accurate. And shooting a leg on a moving target that is more than a few meters away is going to be very difficult. Even aiming for center mass cops only hit their mark something like 30% of the time. That is because in a middle of a fight when you're moving and the target is moving it is pretty difficult to hit the main body of a target. Add aiming for the leg instead and they'll miss almost every time. There's really only 1 argument for "shoot to kill." And that is the trigger should only be pulled if you intend to kill the target. Aiming center mass is just the biggest target and most practical way to stop the threat. But it comes down to don't pull the trigger unless you mean to kill something. How is that not a good argument? I would not be opposed to more non-lethal tools, and use a shotgun with bean bags or things like that in some scenarios. But if you pull the trigger you need to intend to kill your target. If you don't intend to kill your target, don't pull the trigger.
In the event a violent offender was a fugitive, on the cusp of being apprehended, and then began to flee... saving the shot and leaving him to 'catch another day' may place some person's life in danger as the offender roams freely for an extended period of time.
Do you mean shoot to injure only when lethal force is justified, or shoot to injure even in the case of someone running away. You really wouldn't want cops shooting to injure in either case. If someone is shot in the ass, then he was clearly running away and lethal force was not needed so he should not have been shot anywhere. Shooting someone in the stomach vs center mass is only a difference of a few inches. They are not going to be that accurate. And shooting a leg on a moving target that is more than a few meters away is going to be very difficult. Even aiming for center mass cops only hit their mark something like 30% of the time. That is because in a middle of a fight when you're moving and the target is moving it is pretty difficult to hit the main body of a target. Add aiming for the leg instead and they'll miss almost every time. There's really only 1 argument for "shoot to kill." And that is the trigger should only be pulled if you intend to kill the target. Aiming center mass is just the biggest target and most practical way to stop the threat. But it comes down to don't pull the trigger unless you mean to kill something. How is that not a good argument? I would not be opposed to more non-lethal tools, and use a shotgun with bean bags or things like that in some scenarios. But if you pull the trigger you need to intend to kill your target. If you don't intend to kill your target, don't pull the trigger.
In the event a violent offender was a fugitive, on the cusp of being apprehended, and then began to flee... saving the shot and leaving him to 'catch another day' may place some person's life in danger as the offender roams freely for an extended period of time.
And this type of action is a huge problem that constitutes police abuse. The only time someone is a fugitive is if they've been convicted and now busted out of custody. Otherwise they would be a suspect, and it's not the cops duty to issue out convictions and sentences by firing away at people. This type of thinking seems to underly justification for abuse, by saying it's making us safer in the long run.
Do you mean shoot to injure only when lethal force is justified, or shoot to injure even in the case of someone running away. You really wouldn't want cops shooting to injure in either case. If someone is shot in the ass, then he was clearly running away and lethal force was not needed so he should not have been shot anywhere. Shooting someone in the stomach vs center mass is only a difference of a few inches. They are not going to be that accurate. And shooting a leg on a moving target that is more than a few meters away is going to be very difficult. Even aiming for center mass cops only hit their mark something like 30% of the time. That is because in a middle of a fight when you're moving and the target is moving it is pretty difficult to hit the main body of a target. Add aiming for the leg instead and they'll miss almost every time. There's really only 1 argument for "shoot to kill." And that is the trigger should only be pulled if you intend to kill the target. Aiming center mass is just the biggest target and most practical way to stop the threat. But it comes down to don't pull the trigger unless you mean to kill something. How is that not a good argument? I would not be opposed to more non-lethal tools, and use a shotgun with bean bags or things like that in some scenarios. But if you pull the trigger you need to intend to kill your target. If you don't intend to kill your target, don't pull the trigger.
In the event a violent offender was a fugitive, on the cusp of being apprehended, and then began to flee... saving the shot and leaving him to 'catch another day' may place some person's life in danger as the offender roams freely for an extended period of time.
And this type of action is a huge problem that constitutes police abuse. The only time someone is a fugitive is if they've been convicted and now busted out of custody. Otherwise they would be a suspect, and it's not the cops duty to issue out convictions and sentences by firing away at people. This type of thinking seems to underly justification for abuse, by saying it's making us safer in the long run.
I agree.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Do you mean shoot to injure only when lethal force is justified, or shoot to injure even in the case of someone running away. You really wouldn't want cops shooting to injure in either case. If someone is shot in the ass, then he was clearly running away and lethal force was not needed so he should not have been shot anywhere. Shooting someone in the stomach vs center mass is only a difference of a few inches. They are not going to be that accurate. And shooting a leg on a moving target that is more than a few meters away is going to be very difficult. Even aiming for center mass cops only hit their mark something like 30% of the time. That is because in a middle of a fight when you're moving and the target is moving it is pretty difficult to hit the main body of a target. Add aiming for the leg instead and they'll miss almost every time. There's really only 1 argument for "shoot to kill." And that is the trigger should only be pulled if you intend to kill the target. Aiming center mass is just the biggest target and most practical way to stop the threat. But it comes down to don't pull the trigger unless you mean to kill something. How is that not a good argument? I would not be opposed to more non-lethal tools, and use a shotgun with bean bags or things like that in some scenarios. But if you pull the trigger you need to intend to kill your target. If you don't intend to kill your target, don't pull the trigger.
In the event a violent offender was a fugitive, on the cusp of being apprehended, and then began to flee... saving the shot and leaving him to 'catch another day' may place some person's life in danger as the offender roams freely for an extended period of time.
And this type of action is a huge problem that constitutes police abuse. The only time someone is a fugitive is if they've been convicted and now busted out of custody. Otherwise they would be a suspect, and it's not the cops duty to issue out convictions and sentences by firing away at people. This type of thinking seems to underly justification for abuse, by saying it's making us safer in the long run.
First... I said 'may' place someone's life in danger. Are you refuting this?
Second... which of the following two errors would be a bigger error in your mind:
1. Allowing a known violent offender to get away because you didn't want to shoot him as he resisted arrest and proved to be a challenge... ultimately affording him the opportunity to hurt someone else (at a minimum setting the table for another run in with police with him anticipating it)?
or
2. Taking a shot that proved to be lethal for a known violent offender as he resisted arrest and tried to flee (taking his propensity for violence from the streets)?
Do you mean shoot to injure only when lethal force is justified, or shoot to injure even in the case of someone running away. You really wouldn't want cops shooting to injure in either case. If someone is shot in the ass, then he was clearly running away and lethal force was not needed so he should not have been shot anywhere. Shooting someone in the stomach vs center mass is only a difference of a few inches. They are not going to be that accurate. And shooting a leg on a moving target that is more than a few meters away is going to be very difficult. Even aiming for center mass cops only hit their mark something like 30% of the time. That is because in a middle of a fight when you're moving and the target is moving it is pretty difficult to hit the main body of a target. Add aiming for the leg instead and they'll miss almost every time. There's really only 1 argument for "shoot to kill." And that is the trigger should only be pulled if you intend to kill the target. Aiming center mass is just the biggest target and most practical way to stop the threat. But it comes down to don't pull the trigger unless you mean to kill something. How is that not a good argument? I would not be opposed to more non-lethal tools, and use a shotgun with bean bags or things like that in some scenarios. But if you pull the trigger you need to intend to kill your target. If you don't intend to kill your target, don't pull the trigger.
In the event a violent offender was a fugitive, on the cusp of being apprehended, and then began to flee... saving the shot and leaving him to 'catch another day' may place some person's life in danger as the offender roams freely for an extended period of time.
And this type of action is a huge problem that constitutes police abuse. The only time someone is a fugitive is if they've been convicted and now busted out of custody. Otherwise they would be a suspect, and it's not the cops duty to issue out convictions and sentences by firing away at people. This type of thinking seems to underly justification for abuse, by saying it's making us safer in the long run.
First... I said 'may' place someone's life in danger. Are you refuting this?
Second... which of the following two errors would be a bigger error in your mind:
1. Allowing a known violent offender to get away because you didn't want to shoot him as he resisted arrest and proved to be a challenge... ultimately affording him the opportunity to hurt someone else (at a minimum setting the table for another run in with police with him anticipating it)?
or
2. Taking a shot that proved to be lethal for a known violent offender as he resisted arrest and tried to flee (taking his propensity for violence from the streets)?
Number one is not an error at all. Like I said, cops are there to apprehend, not execute. It's part of our legal system, and part of what allows us to be free. We have a system for a reason and it shouldn't be discarded because of fear or what ifs or what someone might do in the future. Also, cops don't know the identity of the person with 100% certainty. They arrive on a scene and only have limited information.
No no, shoot to injure only when the cops' lives/safety is in jeopardy. Definitely not when someone is running away! If they train enough shooting without killing would probably be easier. Get them super duper good at using the guns and I think they could manage it. No, I don't think that is a good argument. I think it is reasonable to use a gun for self-defense without intending to kill. The intention would be to stop them, not to kill them. Sure, you could accidentally kill them anyway, but that isn't the same as their shoot to kill philosophy. Yes, tasers and bean bag guns are an okay option.... although tasers have killed a whole lot of people, so I don't think they should be considered non-lethal weapons at all. I think it is a huge mistake to do that because it leads to cops using them on people who have only committed minor offenses, and on kids and drunk teens, or simply when a cop is trying to avoid skinning a knee or whatever. They don't take the effects of tasers seriously enough. Of course, living in Vancouver, with the whole Robert Dziekański horror, I guess I'm sensitive about that issue.
I figured that's what you meant. But was a little unclear when you suggested shooting someone in the ass. Which in my opinion would rarely ever be acceptable since they well are obviously fleeing. The only exception maybe being Thirty's example with a fugative. And yes, a fugative
Do you mean shoot to injure only when lethal force is justified, or shoot to injure even in the case of someone running away. You really wouldn't want cops shooting to injure in either case. If someone is shot in the ass, then he was clearly running away and lethal force was not needed so he should not have been shot anywhere. Shooting someone in the stomach vs center mass is only a difference of a few inches. They are not going to be that accurate. And shooting a leg on a moving target that is more than a few meters away is going to be very difficult. Even aiming for center mass cops only hit their mark something like 30% of the time. That is because in a middle of a fight when you're moving and the target is moving it is pretty difficult to hit the main body of a target. Add aiming for the leg instead and they'll miss almost every time. There's really only 1 argument for "shoot to kill." And that is the trigger should only be pulled if you intend to kill the target. Aiming center mass is just the biggest target and most practical way to stop the threat. But it comes down to don't pull the trigger unless you mean to kill something. How is that not a good argument? I would not be opposed to more non-lethal tools, and use a shotgun with bean bags or things like that in some scenarios. But if you pull the trigger you need to intend to kill your target. If you don't intend to kill your target, don't pull the trigger.
In the event a violent offender was a fugitive, on the cusp of being apprehended, and then began to flee... saving the shot and leaving him to 'catch another day' may place some person's life in danger as the offender roams freely for an extended period of time.
And this type of action is a huge problem that constitutes police abuse. The only time someone is a fugitive is if they've been convicted and now busted out of custody. Otherwise they would be a suspect, and it's not the cops duty to issue out convictions and sentences by firing away at people. This type of thinking seems to underly justification for abuse, by saying it's making us safer in the long run.
First... I said 'may' place someone's life in danger. Are you refuting this?
Second... which of the following two errors would be a bigger error in your mind:
1. Allowing a known violent offender to get away because you didn't want to shoot him as he resisted arrest and proved to be a challenge... ultimately affording him the opportunity to hurt someone else (at a minimum setting the table for another run in with police with him anticipating it)?
or
2. Taking a shot that proved to be lethal for a known violent offender as he resisted arrest and tried to flee (taking his propensity for violence from the streets)?
Number one is not an error at all. Like I said, cops are there to apprehend, not execute. It's part of our legal system, and part of what allows us to be free. We have a system for a reason and it shouldn't be discarded because of fear or what ifs or what someone might do in the future. Also, cops don't know the identity of the person with 100% certainty. They arrive on a scene and only have limited information.
You don't see it as an error huh?
Tell that to the victim. Tell them- or their survivors- that police nearly had the violent offender in custody, but he proved to be too difficult to nab so they let him go.
Not that it would matter, but the media that looks to rile up people with the abuse headline would rile the same people up with a headline painting them as incompetent for letting the violent felon go when they tried to apprehend him.
And they came to apprehend. This wouldn't be an execution. This would be a matter of doing their job. Violent criminals should not get to dictate terms of their arrest- if they resist... then things are going to escalate.
Do you mean shoot to injure only when lethal force is justified, or shoot to injure even in the case of someone running away. You really wouldn't want cops shooting to injure in either case. If someone is shot in the ass, then he was clearly running away and lethal force was not needed so he should not have been shot anywhere. Shooting someone in the stomach vs center mass is only a difference of a few inches. They are not going to be that accurate. And shooting a leg on a moving target that is more than a few meters away is going to be very difficult. Even aiming for center mass cops only hit their mark something like 30% of the time. That is because in a middle of a fight when you're moving and the target is moving it is pretty difficult to hit the main body of a target. Add aiming for the leg instead and they'll miss almost every time. There's really only 1 argument for "shoot to kill." And that is the trigger should only be pulled if you intend to kill the target. Aiming center mass is just the biggest target and most practical way to stop the threat. But it comes down to don't pull the trigger unless you mean to kill something. How is that not a good argument? I would not be opposed to more non-lethal tools, and use a shotgun with bean bags or things like that in some scenarios. But if you pull the trigger you need to intend to kill your target. If you don't intend to kill your target, don't pull the trigger.
In the event a violent offender was a fugitive, on the cusp of being apprehended, and then began to flee... saving the shot and leaving him to 'catch another day' may place some person's life in danger as the offender roams freely for an extended period of time.
And this type of action is a huge problem that constitutes police abuse. The only time someone is a fugitive is if they've been convicted and now busted out of custody. Otherwise they would be a suspect, and it's not the cops duty to issue out convictions and sentences by firing away at people. This type of thinking seems to underly justification for abuse, by saying it's making us safer in the long run.
First... I said 'may' place someone's life in danger. Are you refuting this?
Second... which of the following two errors would be a bigger error in your mind:
1. Allowing a known violent offender to get away because you didn't want to shoot him as he resisted arrest and proved to be a challenge... ultimately affording him the opportunity to hurt someone else (at a minimum setting the table for another run in with police with him anticipating it)?
or
2. Taking a shot that proved to be lethal for a known violent offender as he resisted arrest and tried to flee (taking his propensity for violence from the streets)?
Number one is not an error at all. Like I said, cops are there to apprehend, not execute. It's part of our legal system, and part of what allows us to be free. We have a system for a reason and it shouldn't be discarded because of fear or what ifs or what someone might do in the future. Also, cops don't know the identity of the person with 100% certainty. They arrive on a scene and only have limited information.
You don't see it as an error huh?
Tell that to the victim. Tell them- or their survivors- that police nearly had the violent offender in custody, but he proved to be too difficult to nab so they let him go.
Not that it would matter, but the media that looks to rile up people with the abuse headline would rile the same people up with a headline painting them as incompetent for letting the violent felon go when they tried to apprehend him.
If you want to apply an emotional argument to Constitutional rights, that won't convince me to give up those rights. If cops have a SUSPECT in custody, and he gets away, then the cops can explain to the victims how they blew it by not keeping him secure. And if the guy outruns them, then they explain that they're too slow. There's other avenues to try and get the guy later. Media reaction shouldn't play a role in how the law is applied.
No no, shoot to injure only when the cops' lives/safety is in jeopardy. Definitely not when someone is running away! If they train enough shooting without killing would probably be easier. Get them super duper good at using the guns and I think they could manage it. No, I don't think that is a good argument. I think it is reasonable to use a gun for self-defense without intending to kill. The intention would be to stop them, not to kill them. Sure, you could accidentally kill them anyway, but that isn't the same as their shoot to kill philosophy. Yes, tasers and bean bag guns are an okay option.... although tasers have killed a whole lot of people, so I don't think they should be considered non-lethal weapons at all. I think it is a huge mistake to do that because it leads to cops using them on people who have only committed minor offenses, and on kids and drunk teens, or simply when a cop is trying to avoid skinning a knee or whatever. They don't take the effects of tasers seriously enough. Of course, living in Vancouver, with the whole Robert Dziekański horror, I guess I'm sensitive about that issue.
I doubt it would ever be much easier, and definitely not easier to shoot to injure. No matter how much training they are still shooting at a moving target and most likely moving themselves. As it is they miss center mass more often than not. And more importantly, if someone is pointing a gun at me or someone else, shooting him in the leg is not going to keep him from pulling the trigger and killing several others. Either we just disagree on the principle, or we have different threats in mind. When I say you shouldnt pull the trigger unless you intend to kill, I mean if you don't do it you have a good reason to believe you or someone else may be killed. A guy with a gun, charging you with a knife, hand to hand fight and he reaches for your weapon. All those cases shooting in the leg won't prevent him from killing you. Even the guy with a knife. My dad was a cop for 33 years and thankfully never had to pull his trigger on duty. Probably why I feel strongly about these topics. He was a great cop. Saved many lives. Recieved commendations from the governor (or Governator) for his actions. He was the first ever deputy of the year at our local police station when he got promoted and had to work in downtown LA. He worked downtown through the Rodney King riots, my mom cried every morning when he left for weeks. My mom would cry every time he didn't come home on time, which was several times a month. But I heard stories of it taking 5 or 6 guys to take a suspect down when he was on drugs. If he was armed they would have shot him. On those days I remember waking at 2 am when my dad finally came home, usually bruised and still bloody from the fight. He was run over by a motorcycle while arresting the dudes friend. It's not a safe job, but he was proud to do it. Some dude charging with a knife you can't take the chance a shot in the leg is enough to stop him, assuming you even hit that moving target.
Some dude breaks into your house. You spot him on down the hall 10 meters away and he has a knife. Behind you are the rooms to your kids and wife. Are you really going to aim for his leg if you have a gun when he starts charging?
Do you mean shoot to injure only when lethal force is justified, or shoot to injure even in the case of someone running away. You really wouldn't want cops shooting to injure in either case. If someone is shot in the ass, then he was clearly running away and lethal force was not needed so he should not have been shot anywhere. Shooting someone in the stomach vs center mass is only a difference of a few inches. They are not going to be that accurate. And shooting a leg on a moving target that is more than a few meters away is going to be very difficult. Even aiming for center mass cops only hit their mark something like 30% of the time. That is because in a middle of a fight when you're moving and the target is moving it is pretty difficult to hit the main body of a target. Add aiming for the leg instead and they'll miss almost every time. There's really only 1 argument for "shoot to kill." And that is the trigger should only be pulled if you intend to kill the target. Aiming center mass is just the biggest target and most practical way to stop the threat. But it comes down to don't pull the trigger unless you mean to kill something. How is that not a good argument? I would not be opposed to more non-lethal tools, and use a shotgun with bean bags or things like that in some scenarios. But if you pull the trigger you need to intend to kill your target. If you don't intend to kill your target, don't pull the trigger.
In the event a violent offender was a fugitive, on the cusp of being apprehended, and then began to flee... saving the shot and leaving him to 'catch another day' may place some person's life in danger as the offender roams freely for an extended period of time.
And this type of action is a huge problem that constitutes police abuse. The only time someone is a fugitive is if they've been convicted and now busted out of custody. Otherwise they would be a suspect, and it's not the cops duty to issue out convictions and sentences by firing away at people. This type of thinking seems to underly justification for abuse, by saying it's making us safer in the long run.
First... I said 'may' place someone's life in danger. Are you refuting this?
Second... which of the following two errors would be a bigger error in your mind:
1. Allowing a known violent offender to get away because you didn't want to shoot him as he resisted arrest and proved to be a challenge... ultimately affording him the opportunity to hurt someone else (at a minimum setting the table for another run in with police with him anticipating it)?
or
2. Taking a shot that proved to be lethal for a known violent offender as he resisted arrest and tried to flee (taking his propensity for violence from the streets)?
Number one is not an error at all. Like I said, cops are there to apprehend, not execute. It's part of our legal system, and part of what allows us to be free. We have a system for a reason and it shouldn't be discarded because of fear or what ifs or what someone might do in the future. Also, cops don't know the identity of the person with 100% certainty. They arrive on a scene and only have limited information.
You don't see it as an error huh?
Tell that to the victim. Tell them- or their survivors- that police nearly had the violent offender in custody, but he proved to be too difficult to nab so they let him go.
Not that it would matter, but the media that looks to rile up people with the abuse headline would rile the same people up with a headline painting them as incompetent for letting the violent felon go when they tried to apprehend him.
If you want to apply an emotional argument to Constitutional rights, that won't convince me to give up those rights. If cops have a SUSPECT in custody, and he gets away, then the cops can explain to the victims how they blew it by not keeping him secure. And if the guy outruns them, then they explain that they're too slow. There's other avenues to try and get the guy later. Media reaction shouldn't play a role in how the law is applied.
I was only pointing out the fact that the same media that sells police abuse would be selling police incompetence and the public would be lapping up both whenever it was served. In other words... the police can't win.
In my mind, you forfeit your constitutional rights the moment you act outside of it. You can't expect to be protected by law when you disregard it- hurting others and then ignoring those assigned to uphold it.
"We were too slow so sorry"? Lame. Not to mention this implies you would prefer the cops engaged in hand to hand combat (tackling the fleeing offender and getting into a fight?). Geezuz man.
And what other avenues do you speak of that might be employed where the violent one might be more agreeable? Catch him as he has a nap? As far as I'm concerned, each time someone bests officers... they would become more brazen and more dangerous.
"My brain's a good brain!"
0
Options
hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
That was powerful, mace. Good on your dad, and bless your mom. And you as well.
Yesterday we lost a Sergeant with the LA County Sheriff's Department. He was essentially executed during a burglary call.
RIP, Steve Owen.
Not all officers are racist assholes. Deal with those who are (in any profession or walk of life), but know there are some incredibly brave and generous men and women doing what they do with the best of intentions...among them, surviving while serving.
No no, shoot to injure only when the cops' lives/safety is in jeopardy. Definitely not when someone is running away! If they train enough shooting without killing would probably be easier. Get them super duper good at using the guns and I think they could manage it. No, I don't think that is a good argument. I think it is reasonable to use a gun for self-defense without intending to kill. The intention would be to stop them, not to kill them. Sure, you could accidentally kill them anyway, but that isn't the same as their shoot to kill philosophy. Yes, tasers and bean bag guns are an okay option.... although tasers have killed a whole lot of people, so I don't think they should be considered non-lethal weapons at all. I think it is a huge mistake to do that because it leads to cops using them on people who have only committed minor offenses, and on kids and drunk teens, or simply when a cop is trying to avoid skinning a knee or whatever. They don't take the effects of tasers seriously enough. Of course, living in Vancouver, with the whole Robert Dziekański horror, I guess I'm sensitive about that issue.
I doubt it would ever be much easier, and definitely not easier to shoot to injure. No matter how much training they are still shooting at a moving target and most likely moving themselves. As it is they miss center mass more often than not. And more importantly, if someone is pointing a gun at me or someone else, shooting him in the leg is not going to keep him from pulling the trigger and killing several others. Either we just disagree on the principle, or we have different threats in mind. When I say you shouldnt pull the trigger unless you intend to kill, I mean if you don't do it you have a good reason to believe you or someone else may be killed. A guy with a gun, charging you with a knife, hand to hand fight and he reaches for your weapon. All those cases shooting in the leg won't prevent him from killing you. Even the guy with a knife. My dad was a cop for 33 years and thankfully never had to pull his trigger on duty. Probably why I feel strongly about these topics. He was a great cop. Saved many lives. Recieved commendations from the governor (or Governator) for his actions. He was the first ever deputy of the year at our local police station when he got promoted and had to work in downtown LA. He worked downtown through the Rodney King riots, my mom cried every morning when he left for weeks. My mom would cry every time he didn't come home on time, which was several times a month. But I heard stories of it taking 5 or 6 guys to take a suspect down when he was on drugs. If he was armed they would have shot him. On those days I remember waking at 2 am when my dad finally came home, usually bruised and still bloody from the fight. He was run over by a motorcycle while arresting the dudes friend. It's not a safe job, but he was proud to do it. Some dude charging with a knife you can't take the chance a shot in the leg is enough to stop him, assuming you even hit that moving target.
Some dude breaks into your house. You spot him on down the hall 10 meters away and he has a knife. Behind you are the rooms to your kids and wife. Are you really going to aim for his leg if you have a gun when he starts charging?
Cops are people like our parents, our children, or our neighbours. My father in law was a great cop and I'm glad to hear your father was too.
My hometown. Our police chief is saying all the right things.
3 Calgary police officers charged with assault in violent arrest caught on video One officer allegedly dug the point of a key into man's neck when he was handcuffed
Do you mean shoot to injure only when lethal force is justified, or shoot to injure even in the case of someone running away. You really wouldn't want cops shooting to injure in either case. If someone is shot in the ass, then he was clearly running away and lethal force was not needed so he should not have been shot anywhere. Shooting someone in the stomach vs center mass is only a difference of a few inches. They are not going to be that accurate. And shooting a leg on a moving target that is more than a few meters away is going to be very difficult. Even aiming for center mass cops only hit their mark something like 30% of the time. That is because in a middle of a fight when you're moving and the target is moving it is pretty difficult to hit the main body of a target. Add aiming for the leg instead and they'll miss almost every time. There's really only 1 argument for "shoot to kill." And that is the trigger should only be pulled if you intend to kill the target. Aiming center mass is just the biggest target and most practical way to stop the threat. But it comes down to don't pull the trigger unless you mean to kill something. How is that not a good argument? I would not be opposed to more non-lethal tools, and use a shotgun with bean bags or things like that in some scenarios. But if you pull the trigger you need to intend to kill your target. If you don't intend to kill your target, don't pull the trigger.
In the event a violent offender was a fugitive, on the cusp of being apprehended, and then began to flee... saving the shot and leaving him to 'catch another day' may place some person's life in danger as the offender roams freely for an extended period of time.
And this type of action is a huge problem that constitutes police abuse. The only time someone is a fugitive is if they've been convicted and now busted out of custody. Otherwise they would be a suspect, and it's not the cops duty to issue out convictions and sentences by firing away at people. This type of thinking seems to underly justification for abuse, by saying it's making us safer in the long run.
First... I said 'may' place someone's life in danger. Are you refuting this?
Second... which of the following two errors would be a bigger error in your mind:
1. Allowing a known violent offender to get away because you didn't want to shoot him as he resisted arrest and proved to be a challenge... ultimately affording him the opportunity to hurt someone else (at a minimum setting the table for another run in with police with him anticipating it)?
or
2. Taking a shot that proved to be lethal for a known violent offender as he resisted arrest and tried to flee (taking his propensity for violence from the streets)?
Number one is not an error at all. Like I said, cops are there to apprehend, not execute. It's part of our legal system, and part of what allows us to be free. We have a system for a reason and it shouldn't be discarded because of fear or what ifs or what someone might do in the future. Also, cops don't know the identity of the person with 100% certainty. They arrive on a scene and only have limited information.
You don't see it as an error huh?
Tell that to the victim. Tell them- or their survivors- that police nearly had the violent offender in custody, but he proved to be too difficult to nab so they let him go.
Not that it would matter, but the media that looks to rile up people with the abuse headline would rile the same people up with a headline painting them as incompetent for letting the violent felon go when they tried to apprehend him.
If you want to apply an emotional argument to Constitutional rights, that won't convince me to give up those rights. If cops have a SUSPECT in custody, and he gets away, then the cops can explain to the victims how they blew it by not keeping him secure. And if the guy outruns them, then they explain that they're too slow. There's other avenues to try and get the guy later. Media reaction shouldn't play a role in how the law is applied.
I was only pointing out the fact that the same media that sells police abuse would be selling police incompetence and the public would be lapping up both whenever it was served. In other words... the police can't win.
In my mind, you forfeit your constitutional rights the moment you act outside of it. You can't expect to be protected by law when you disregard it- hurting others and then ignoring those assigned to uphold it.
"We were too slow so sorry"? Lame. Not to mention this implies you would prefer the cops engaged in hand to hand combat (tackling the fleeing offender and getting into a fight?). Geezuz man.
And what other avenues do you speak of that might be employed where the violent one might be more agreeable? Catch him as he has a nap? As far as I'm concerned, each time someone bests officers... they would become more brazen and more dangerous.
You're giving me a Geezuz? Re-read your second paragraph. Maybe you're not really thinking about what you're proposing would look like in reality. And really, you think if someone is a suspect they have no constitutional rights? You're proposing that people comply with police or be shot. This is the thinking that supports a police state, but thankfully we have people committed to countering this. And I was talking about cops later arresting someone who is a suspect, whether they got away the first go around or not. You're saying they should shoot the guy in the back, because it's going to take more work to apprehend them later.
Do you mean shoot to injure only when lethal force is justified, or shoot to injure even in the case of someone running away. You really wouldn't want cops shooting to injure in either case. If someone is shot in the ass, then he was clearly running away and lethal force was not needed so he should not have been shot anywhere. Shooting someone in the stomach vs center mass is only a difference of a few inches. They are not going to be that accurate. And shooting a leg on a moving target that is more than a few meters away is going to be very difficult. Even aiming for center mass cops only hit their mark something like 30% of the time. That is because in a middle of a fight when you're moving and the target is moving it is pretty difficult to hit the main body of a target. Add aiming for the leg instead and they'll miss almost every time. There's really only 1 argument for "shoot to kill." And that is the trigger should only be pulled if you intend to kill the target. Aiming center mass is just the biggest target and most practical way to stop the threat. But it comes down to don't pull the trigger unless you mean to kill something. How is that not a good argument? I would not be opposed to more non-lethal tools, and use a shotgun with bean bags or things like that in some scenarios. But if you pull the trigger you need to intend to kill your target. If you don't intend to kill your target, don't pull the trigger.
In the event a violent offender was a fugitive, on the cusp of being apprehended, and then began to flee... saving the shot and leaving him to 'catch another day' may place some person's life in danger as the offender roams freely for an extended period of time.
And this type of action is a huge problem that constitutes police abuse. The only time someone is a fugitive is if they've been convicted and now busted out of custody. Otherwise they would be a suspect, and it's not the cops duty to issue out convictions and sentences by firing away at people. This type of thinking seems to underly justification for abuse, by saying it's making us safer in the long run.
First... I said 'may' place someone's life in danger. Are you refuting this?
Second... which of the following two errors would be a bigger error in your mind:
1. Allowing a known violent offender to get away because you didn't want to shoot him as he resisted arrest and proved to be a challenge... ultimately affording him the opportunity to hurt someone else (at a minimum setting the table for another run in with police with him anticipating it)?
or
2. Taking a shot that proved to be lethal for a known violent offender as he resisted arrest and tried to flee (taking his propensity for violence from the streets)?
What about 3, where you kill a suspect that wasn't, in fact, a known violent offender who poses no threat to society?
It surely has happened, and it's not surprising that you don't consider this scenario at all.
Do you mean shoot to injure only when lethal force is justified, or shoot to injure even in the case of someone running away. You really wouldn't want cops shooting to injure in either case. If someone is shot in the ass, then he was clearly running away and lethal force was not needed so he should not have been shot anywhere. Shooting someone in the stomach vs center mass is only a difference of a few inches. They are not going to be that accurate. And shooting a leg on a moving target that is more than a few meters away is going to be very difficult. Even aiming for center mass cops only hit their mark something like 30% of the time. That is because in a middle of a fight when you're moving and the target is moving it is pretty difficult to hit the main body of a target. Add aiming for the leg instead and they'll miss almost every time. There's really only 1 argument for "shoot to kill." And that is the trigger should only be pulled if you intend to kill the target. Aiming center mass is just the biggest target and most practical way to stop the threat. But it comes down to don't pull the trigger unless you mean to kill something. How is that not a good argument? I would not be opposed to more non-lethal tools, and use a shotgun with bean bags or things like that in some scenarios. But if you pull the trigger you need to intend to kill your target. If you don't intend to kill your target, don't pull the trigger.
In the event a violent offender was a fugitive, on the cusp of being apprehended, and then began to flee... saving the shot and leaving him to 'catch another day' may place some person's life in danger as the offender roams freely for an extended period of time.
And this type of action is a huge problem that constitutes police abuse. The only time someone is a fugitive is if they've been convicted and now busted out of custody. Otherwise they would be a suspect, and it's not the cops duty to issue out convictions and sentences by firing away at people. This type of thinking seems to underly justification for abuse, by saying it's making us safer in the long run.
First... I said 'may' place someone's life in danger. Are you refuting this?
Second... which of the following two errors would be a bigger error in your mind:
1. Allowing a known violent offender to get away because you didn't want to shoot him as he resisted arrest and proved to be a challenge... ultimately affording him the opportunity to hurt someone else (at a minimum setting the table for another run in with police with him anticipating it)?
or
2. Taking a shot that proved to be lethal for a known violent offender as he resisted arrest and tried to flee (taking his propensity for violence from the streets)?
Number one is not an error at all. Like I said, cops are there to apprehend, not execute. It's part of our legal system, and part of what allows us to be free. We have a system for a reason and it shouldn't be discarded because of fear or what ifs or what someone might do in the future. Also, cops don't know the identity of the person with 100% certainty. They arrive on a scene and only have limited information.
You don't see it as an error huh?
Tell that to the victim. Tell them- or their survivors- that police nearly had the violent offender in custody, but he proved to be too difficult to nab so they let him go.
Not that it would matter, but the media that looks to rile up people with the abuse headline would rile the same people up with a headline painting them as incompetent for letting the violent felon go when they tried to apprehend him.
If you want to apply an emotional argument to Constitutional rights, that won't convince me to give up those rights. If cops have a SUSPECT in custody, and he gets away, then the cops can explain to the victims how they blew it by not keeping him secure. And if the guy outruns them, then they explain that they're too slow. There's other avenues to try and get the guy later. Media reaction shouldn't play a role in how the law is applied.
I was only pointing out the fact that the same media that sells police abuse would be selling police incompetence and the public would be lapping up both whenever it was served. In other words... the police can't win. In my mind, you forfeit your constitutional rights the moment you act outside of it. You can't expect to be protected by law when you disregard it- hurting others and then ignoring those assigned to uphold it.
"We were too slow so sorry"? Lame. Not to mention this implies you would prefer the cops engaged in hand to hand combat (tackling the fleeing offender and getting into a fight?). Geezuz man.
And what other avenues do you speak of that might be employed where the violent one might be more agreeable? Catch him as he has a nap? As far as I'm concerned, each time someone bests officers... they would become more brazen and more dangerous.
That is utterly preposterous! Batshit crazy even.
If you fit the description of someone who commits a crime, you lose your constitutional rights??? Fucking insane.
I guess there's no abuse here, they were perceived to be criminals so they have no constitutional rights. I guess there's no such thing as police abuse at all, just Judge Dredd's and their infallible judgement.
Do you mean shoot to injure only when lethal force is justified, or shoot to injure even in the case of someone running away. You really wouldn't want cops shooting to injure in either case. If someone is shot in the ass, then he was clearly running away and lethal force was not needed so he should not have been shot anywhere. Shooting someone in the stomach vs center mass is only a difference of a few inches. They are not going to be that accurate. And shooting a leg on a moving target that is more than a few meters away is going to be very difficult. Even aiming for center mass cops only hit their mark something like 30% of the time. That is because in a middle of a fight when you're moving and the target is moving it is pretty difficult to hit the main body of a target. Add aiming for the leg instead and they'll miss almost every time. There's really only 1 argument for "shoot to kill." And that is the trigger should only be pulled if you intend to kill the target. Aiming center mass is just the biggest target and most practical way to stop the threat. But it comes down to don't pull the trigger unless you mean to kill something. How is that not a good argument? I would not be opposed to more non-lethal tools, and use a shotgun with bean bags or things like that in some scenarios. But if you pull the trigger you need to intend to kill your target. If you don't intend to kill your target, don't pull the trigger.
In the event a violent offender was a fugitive, on the cusp of being apprehended, and then began to flee... saving the shot and leaving him to 'catch another day' may place some person's life in danger as the offender roams freely for an extended period of time.
And this type of action is a huge problem that constitutes police abuse. The only time someone is a fugitive is if they've been convicted and now busted out of custody. Otherwise they would be a suspect, and it's not the cops duty to issue out convictions and sentences by firing away at people. This type of thinking seems to underly justification for abuse, by saying it's making us safer in the long run.
First... I said 'may' place someone's life in danger. Are you refuting this?
Second... which of the following two errors would be a bigger error in your mind:
1. Allowing a known violent offender to get away because you didn't want to shoot him as he resisted arrest and proved to be a challenge... ultimately affording him the opportunity to hurt someone else (at a minimum setting the table for another run in with police with him anticipating it)?
or
2. Taking a shot that proved to be lethal for a known violent offender as he resisted arrest and tried to flee (taking his propensity for violence from the streets)?
Number one is not an error at all. Like I said, cops are there to apprehend, not execute. It's part of our legal system, and part of what allows us to be free. We have a system for a reason and it shouldn't be discarded because of fear or what ifs or what someone might do in the future. Also, cops don't know the identity of the person with 100% certainty. They arrive on a scene and only have limited information.
You don't see it as an error huh?
Tell that to the victim. Tell them- or their survivors- that police nearly had the violent offender in custody, but he proved to be too difficult to nab so they let him go.
Not that it would matter, but the media that looks to rile up people with the abuse headline would rile the same people up with a headline painting them as incompetent for letting the violent felon go when they tried to apprehend him.
If you want to apply an emotional argument to Constitutional rights, that won't convince me to give up those rights. If cops have a SUSPECT in custody, and he gets away, then the cops can explain to the victims how they blew it by not keeping him secure. And if the guy outruns them, then they explain that they're too slow. There's other avenues to try and get the guy later. Media reaction shouldn't play a role in how the law is applied.
I was only pointing out the fact that the same media that sells police abuse would be selling police incompetence and the public would be lapping up both whenever it was served. In other words... the police can't win. In my mind, you forfeit your constitutional rights the moment you act outside of it. You can't expect to be protected by law when you disregard it- hurting others and then ignoring those assigned to uphold it.
"We were too slow so sorry"? Lame. Not to mention this implies you would prefer the cops engaged in hand to hand combat (tackling the fleeing offender and getting into a fight?). Geezuz man.
And what other avenues do you speak of that might be employed where the violent one might be more agreeable? Catch him as he has a nap? As far as I'm concerned, each time someone bests officers... they would become more brazen and more dangerous.
That is utterly preposterous! Batshit crazy even.
If you fit the description of someone who commits a crime, you lose your constitutional rights??? Fucking insane.
Come on, use a little common sense. I think your comment was a stretch on what Thirty had said. No one ever said if you match a description of a someone who committed a crime police have the right to shoot you. I believe he a was talking about a known violent criminal who has known intentions of hurting and killing others. These would be pretty rare examples. Like the 2 guys who escaped from the NY prison about a year ago. They were already convicted with violent murders and was known they were killing to kill again. Or a couple of years ago when one guy declared he was going to kill any cop he sees and had a kill list that included judges and their family members. He did kill several of them, including an innocent wife or daughter of someone on his list. I forget the details, but I think he was an ex-cop. That doesn't mean anyone who looks kind of like them is going to get shot. It means when you confront that individual and he fleas, then you need to stop that threat because you know his armed and dangerous and his only intentions are to kill as many people as he can before he is killed. That is completely reasonable. They don't just go shoot someone matching his description, they get several witnesses to positively ID the person along with whatever special forces are involved. And if you don't, you are choosing to trade this scumbag's life for the dozen other people he is going to kill after. He made his choice, the innocent people he intends to kill didn't chose that.
Do you mean shoot to injure only when lethal force is justified, or shoot to injure even in the case of someone running away. You really wouldn't want cops shooting to injure in either case. If someone is shot in the ass, then he was clearly running away and lethal force was not needed so he should not have been shot anywhere. Shooting someone in the stomach vs center mass is only a difference of a few inches. They are not going to be that accurate. And shooting a leg on a moving target that is more than a few meters away is going to be very difficult. Even aiming for center mass cops only hit their mark something like 30% of the time. That is because in a middle of a fight when you're moving and the target is moving it is pretty difficult to hit the main body of a target. Add aiming for the leg instead and they'll miss almost every time. There's really only 1 argument for "shoot to kill." And that is the trigger should only be pulled if you intend to kill the target. Aiming center mass is just the biggest target and most practical way to stop the threat. But it comes down to don't pull the trigger unless you mean to kill something. How is that not a good argument? I would not be opposed to more non-lethal tools, and use a shotgun with bean bags or things like that in some scenarios. But if you pull the trigger you need to intend to kill your target. If you don't intend to kill your target, don't pull the trigger.
In the event a violent offender was a fugitive, on the cusp of being apprehended, and then began to flee... saving the shot and leaving him to 'catch another day' may place some person's life in danger as the offender roams freely for an extended period of time.
And this type of action is a huge problem that constitutes police abuse. The only time someone is a fugitive is if they've been convicted and now busted out of custody. Otherwise they would be a suspect, and it's not the cops duty to issue out convictions and sentences by firing away at people. This type of thinking seems to underly justification for abuse, by saying it's making us safer in the long run.
First... I said 'may' place someone's life in danger. Are you refuting this?
Second... which of the following two errors would be a bigger error in your mind:
1. Allowing a known violent offender to get away because you didn't want to shoot him as he resisted arrest and proved to be a challenge... ultimately affording him the opportunity to hurt someone else (at a minimum setting the table for another run in with police with him anticipating it)?
or
2. Taking a shot that proved to be lethal for a known violent offender as he resisted arrest and tried to flee (taking his propensity for violence from the streets)?
Number one is not an error at all. Like I said, cops are there to apprehend, not execute. It's part of our legal system, and part of what allows us to be free. We have a system for a reason and it shouldn't be discarded because of fear or what ifs or what someone might do in the future. Also, cops don't know the identity of the person with 100% certainty. They arrive on a scene and only have limited information.
You don't see it as an error huh?
Tell that to the victim. Tell them- or their survivors- that police nearly had the violent offender in custody, but he proved to be too difficult to nab so they let him go.
Not that it would matter, but the media that looks to rile up people with the abuse headline would rile the same people up with a headline painting them as incompetent for letting the violent felon go when they tried to apprehend him.
If you want to apply an emotional argument to Constitutional rights, that won't convince me to give up those rights. If cops have a SUSPECT in custody, and he gets away, then the cops can explain to the victims how they blew it by not keeping him secure. And if the guy outruns them, then they explain that they're too slow. There's other avenues to try and get the guy later. Media reaction shouldn't play a role in how the law is applied.
I was only pointing out the fact that the same media that sells police abuse would be selling police incompetence and the public would be lapping up both whenever it was served. In other words... the police can't win. In my mind, you forfeit your constitutional rights the moment you act outside of it. You can't expect to be protected by law when you disregard it- hurting others and then ignoring those assigned to uphold it.
"We were too slow so sorry"? Lame. Not to mention this implies you would prefer the cops engaged in hand to hand combat (tackling the fleeing offender and getting into a fight?). Geezuz man.
And what other avenues do you speak of that might be employed where the violent one might be more agreeable? Catch him as he has a nap? As far as I'm concerned, each time someone bests officers... they would become more brazen and more dangerous.
That is utterly preposterous! Batshit crazy even.
If you fit the description of someone who commits a crime, you lose your constitutional rights??? Fucking insane.
Come on, use a little common sense. I think your comment was a stretch on what Thirty had said. No one ever said if you match a description of a someone who committed a crime police have the right to shoot you. I believe he a was talking about a known violent criminal who has known intentions of hurting and killing others. These would be pretty rare examples. Like the 2 guys who escaped from the NY prison about a year ago. They were already convicted with violent murders and was known they were killing to kill again. Or a couple of years ago when one guy declared he was going to kill any cop he sees and had a kill list that included judges and their family members. He did kill several of them, including an innocent wife or daughter of someone on his list. I forget the details, but I think he was an ex-cop. That doesn't mean anyone who looks kind of like them is going to get shot. It means when you confront that individual and he fleas, then you need to stop that threat because you know his armed and dangerous and his only intentions are to kill as many people as he can before he is killed. That is completely reasonable. They don't just go shoot someone matching his description, they get several witnesses to positively ID the person along with whatever special forces are involved. And if you don't, you are choosing to trade this scumbag's life for the dozen other people he is going to kill after. He made his choice, the innocent people he intends to kill didn't chose that.
Do you have any idea how many police abuse complaints begin with the police "questioning" someone who "matches the description" of a violent criminal? Everyone can agree on the most cut and dry cases, but the police can't be given permission to perform extra-judicial executions simply because their authority is challenged.
You may think I am stretching Thirty's words, but you may also not be as familiar with Thirty's posts on the topic, where he very regularly waives suspects' due process rights whenever they question the authority of police, even if only verbally.
Do you mean shoot to injure only when lethal force is justified, or shoot to injure even in the case of someone running away. You really wouldn't want cops shooting to injure in either case. If someone is shot in the ass, then he was clearly running away and lethal force was not needed so he should not have been shot anywhere. Shooting someone in the stomach vs center mass is only a difference of a few inches. They are not going to be that accurate. And shooting a leg on a moving target that is more than a few meters away is going to be very difficult. Even aiming for center mass cops only hit their mark something like 30% of the time. That is because in a middle of a fight when you're moving and the target is moving it is pretty difficult to hit the main body of a target. Add aiming for the leg instead and they'll miss almost every time. There's really only 1 argument for "shoot to kill." And that is the trigger should only be pulled if you intend to kill the target. Aiming center mass is just the biggest target and most practical way to stop the threat. But it comes down to don't pull the trigger unless you mean to kill something. How is that not a good argument? I would not be opposed to more non-lethal tools, and use a shotgun with bean bags or things like that in some scenarios. But if you pull the trigger you need to intend to kill your target. If you don't intend to kill your target, don't pull the trigger.
In the event a violent offender was a fugitive, on the cusp of being apprehended, and then began to flee... saving the shot and leaving him to 'catch another day' may place some person's life in danger as the offender roams freely for an extended period of time.
And this type of action is a huge problem that constitutes police abuse. The only time someone is a fugitive is if they've been convicted and now busted out of custody. Otherwise they would be a suspect, and it's not the cops duty to issue out convictions and sentences by firing away at people. This type of thinking seems to underly justification for abuse, by saying it's making us safer in the long run.
First... I said 'may' place someone's life in danger. Are you refuting this?
Second... which of the following two errors would be a bigger error in your mind:
1. Allowing a known violent offender to get away because you didn't want to shoot him as he resisted arrest and proved to be a challenge... ultimately affording him the opportunity to hurt someone else (at a minimum setting the table for another run in with police with him anticipating it)?
or
2. Taking a shot that proved to be lethal for a known violent offender as he resisted arrest and tried to flee (taking his propensity for violence from the streets)?
Number one is not an error at all. Like I said, cops are there to apprehend, not execute. It's part of our legal system, and part of what allows us to be free. We have a system for a reason and it shouldn't be discarded because of fear or what ifs or what someone might do in the future. Also, cops don't know the identity of the person with 100% certainty. They arrive on a scene and only have limited information.
You don't see it as an error huh?
Tell that to the victim. Tell them- or their survivors- that police nearly had the violent offender in custody, but he proved to be too difficult to nab so they let him go.
Not that it would matter, but the media that looks to rile up people with the abuse headline would rile the same people up with a headline painting them as incompetent for letting the violent felon go when they tried to apprehend him.
If you want to apply an emotional argument to Constitutional rights, that won't convince me to give up those rights. If cops have a SUSPECT in custody, and he gets away, then the cops can explain to the victims how they blew it by not keeping him secure. And if the guy outruns them, then they explain that they're too slow. There's other avenues to try and get the guy later. Media reaction shouldn't play a role in how the law is applied.
I was only pointing out the fact that the same media that sells police abuse would be selling police incompetence and the public would be lapping up both whenever it was served. In other words... the police can't win. In my mind, you forfeit your constitutional rights the moment you act outside of it. You can't expect to be protected by law when you disregard it- hurting others and then ignoring those assigned to uphold it.
"We were too slow so sorry"? Lame. Not to mention this implies you would prefer the cops engaged in hand to hand combat (tackling the fleeing offender and getting into a fight?). Geezuz man.
And what other avenues do you speak of that might be employed where the violent one might be more agreeable? Catch him as he has a nap? As far as I'm concerned, each time someone bests officers... they would become more brazen and more dangerous.
That is utterly preposterous! Batshit crazy even.
If you fit the description of someone who commits a crime, you lose your constitutional rights??? Fucking insane.
Come on, use a little common sense. I think your comment was a stretch on what Thirty had said. No one ever said if you match a description of a someone who committed a crime police have the right to shoot you. I believe he a was talking about a known violent criminal who has known intentions of hurting and killing others. These would be pretty rare examples. Like the 2 guys who escaped from the NY prison about a year ago. They were already convicted with violent murders and was known they were killing to kill again. Or a couple of years ago when one guy declared he was going to kill any cop he sees and had a kill list that included judges and their family members. He did kill several of them, including an innocent wife or daughter of someone on his list. I forget the details, but I think he was an ex-cop. That doesn't mean anyone who looks kind of like them is going to get shot. It means when you confront that individual and he fleas, then you need to stop that threat because you know his armed and dangerous and his only intentions are to kill as many people as he can before he is killed. That is completely reasonable. They don't just go shoot someone matching his description, they get several witnesses to positively ID the person along with whatever special forces are involved. And if you don't, you are choosing to trade this scumbag's life for the dozen other people he is going to kill after. He made his choice, the innocent people he intends to kill didn't chose that.
They've leaped to an extreme, ridiculous example to counter what I have said.
After licking their wounds when their 'iron clad study that definitively stated cops were racist killers' was debunked... they've resorted to nonsense to justify cops shrugging their shoulders and looking at each other with a "Meh. What can you do?" in the event a 'known' (this would imply identified or... in the truest sense of the word... 'known') violent felon resists arrest and tries to flee before escalating tactics.
Funny too: they cite the old 'make you safer' line as a fear tactic to get behind and enable police abuse, yet they toss out the old 'what about an innocent person' line that serves their line of thinking the same way.
Do you mean shoot to injure only when lethal force is justified, or shoot to injure even in the case of someone running away. You really wouldn't want cops shooting to injure in either case. If someone is shot in the ass, then he was clearly running away and lethal force was not needed so he should not have been shot anywhere. Shooting someone in the stomach vs center mass is only a difference of a few inches. They are not going to be that accurate. And shooting a leg on a moving target that is more than a few meters away is going to be very difficult. Even aiming for center mass cops only hit their mark something like 30% of the time. That is because in a middle of a fight when you're moving and the target is moving it is pretty difficult to hit the main body of a target. Add aiming for the leg instead and they'll miss almost every time. There's really only 1 argument for "shoot to kill." And that is the trigger should only be pulled if you intend to kill the target. Aiming center mass is just the biggest target and most practical way to stop the threat. But it comes down to don't pull the trigger unless you mean to kill something. How is that not a good argument? I would not be opposed to more non-lethal tools, and use a shotgun with bean bags or things like that in some scenarios. But if you pull the trigger you need to intend to kill your target. If you don't intend to kill your target, don't pull the trigger.
In the event a violent offender was a fugitive, on the cusp of being apprehended, and then began to flee... saving the shot and leaving him to 'catch another day' may place some person's life in danger as the offender roams freely for an extended period of time.
And this type of action is a huge problem that constitutes police abuse. The only time someone is a fugitive is if they've been convicted and now busted out of custody. Otherwise they would be a suspect, and it's not the cops duty to issue out convictions and sentences by firing away at people. This type of thinking seems to underly justification for abuse, by saying it's making us safer in the long run.
First... I said 'may' place someone's life in danger. Are you refuting this?
Second... which of the following two errors would be a bigger error in your mind:
1. Allowing a known violent offender to get away because you didn't want to shoot him as he resisted arrest and proved to be a challenge... ultimately affording him the opportunity to hurt someone else (at a minimum setting the table for another run in with police with him anticipating it)?
or
2. Taking a shot that proved to be lethal for a known violent offender as he resisted arrest and tried to flee (taking his propensity for violence from the streets)?
Number one is not an error at all. Like I said, cops are there to apprehend, not execute. It's part of our legal system, and part of what allows us to be free. We have a system for a reason and it shouldn't be discarded because of fear or what ifs or what someone might do in the future. Also, cops don't know the identity of the person with 100% certainty. They arrive on a scene and only have limited information.
You don't see it as an error huh?
Tell that to the victim. Tell them- or their survivors- that police nearly had the violent offender in custody, but he proved to be too difficult to nab so they let him go.
Not that it would matter, but the media that looks to rile up people with the abuse headline would rile the same people up with a headline painting them as incompetent for letting the violent felon go when they tried to apprehend him.
If you want to apply an emotional argument to Constitutional rights, that won't convince me to give up those rights. If cops have a SUSPECT in custody, and he gets away, then the cops can explain to the victims how they blew it by not keeping him secure. And if the guy outruns them, then they explain that they're too slow. There's other avenues to try and get the guy later. Media reaction shouldn't play a role in how the law is applied.
I was only pointing out the fact that the same media that sells police abuse would be selling police incompetence and the public would be lapping up both whenever it was served. In other words... the police can't win. In my mind, you forfeit your constitutional rights the moment you act outside of it. You can't expect to be protected by law when you disregard it- hurting others and then ignoring those assigned to uphold it.
"We were too slow so sorry"? Lame. Not to mention this implies you would prefer the cops engaged in hand to hand combat (tackling the fleeing offender and getting into a fight?). Geezuz man.
And what other avenues do you speak of that might be employed where the violent one might be more agreeable? Catch him as he has a nap? As far as I'm concerned, each time someone bests officers... they would become more brazen and more dangerous.
That is utterly preposterous! Batshit crazy even.
If you fit the description of someone who commits a crime, you lose your constitutional rights??? Fucking insane.
Come on, use a little common sense. I think your comment was a stretch on what Thirty had said. No one ever said if you match a description of a someone who committed a crime police have the right to shoot you. I believe he a was talking about a known violent criminal who has known intentions of hurting and killing others. These would be pretty rare examples. Like the 2 guys who escaped from the NY prison about a year ago. They were already convicted with violent murders and was known they were killing to kill again. Or a couple of years ago when one guy declared he was going to kill any cop he sees and had a kill list that included judges and their family members. He did kill several of them, including an innocent wife or daughter of someone on his list. I forget the details, but I think he was an ex-cop. That doesn't mean anyone who looks kind of like them is going to get shot. It means when you confront that individual and he fleas, then you need to stop that threat because you know his armed and dangerous and his only intentions are to kill as many people as he can before he is killed. That is completely reasonable. They don't just go shoot someone matching his description, they get several witnesses to positively ID the person along with whatever special forces are involved. And if you don't, you are choosing to trade this scumbag's life for the dozen other people he is going to kill after. He made his choice, the innocent people he intends to kill didn't chose that.
That's much more narrow than the scenario thirty described, and yours still isn't reasonable. Despite the high level of threat the people you described pose, you cannot be executed by cops because of what you think and say. You also can't put the decision making on police to determine if a certain level of potential risk means they can go kill someone. You realize that a perceived risk plays a role with why unarmed blacks are shot at a higher rate than whites?
I guess there's no abuse here, they were perceived to be criminals so they have no constitutional rights. I guess there's no such thing as police abuse at all, just Judge Dredd's and their infallible judgement.
Mace...
Here's a fresh example for what I was getting at. The pigs are all Judge Dredds now.
Of course there are examples of police abuse and their always will be. Human beings are police officers. Human beings are prone to error and some human beings are not nice. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of cases handled by the police go very professionally!
To prevent the possibility of becoming part of a rare case... here's a tip to anyone: don't break the law. And if you do break the law and encounter police as you break the law... don't resist arrest or engage the officers in a fight. That can't go well for you.
(The other double standard: accountability for police... but not hardened criminals... it's not their fault they resist... my Gawd man... theyre trying not to go to jail)
Do you mean shoot to injure only when lethal force is justified, or shoot to injure even in the case of someone running away. You really wouldn't want cops shooting to injure in either case. If someone is shot in the ass, then he was clearly running away and lethal force was not needed so he should not have been shot anywhere. Shooting someone in the stomach vs center mass is only a difference of a few inches. They are not going to be that accurate. And shooting a leg on a moving target that is more than a few meters away is going to be very difficult. Even aiming for center mass cops only hit their mark something like 30% of the time. That is because in a middle of a fight when you're moving and the target is moving it is pretty difficult to hit the main body of a target. Add aiming for the leg instead and they'll miss almost every time. There's really only 1 argument for "shoot to kill." And that is the trigger should only be pulled if you intend to kill the target. Aiming center mass is just the biggest target and most practical way to stop the threat. But it comes down to don't pull the trigger unless you mean to kill something. How is that not a good argument? I would not be opposed to more non-lethal tools, and use a shotgun with bean bags or things like that in some scenarios. But if you pull the trigger you need to intend to kill your target. If you don't intend to kill your target, don't pull the trigger.
In the event a violent offender was a fugitive, on the cusp of being apprehended, and then began to flee... saving the shot and leaving him to 'catch another day' may place some person's life in danger as the offender roams freely for an extended period of time.
And this type of action is a huge problem that constitutes police abuse. The only time someone is a fugitive is if they've been convicted and now busted out of custody. Otherwise they would be a suspect, and it's not the cops duty to issue out convictions and sentences by firing away at people. This type of thinking seems to underly justification for abuse, by saying it's making us safer in the long run.
First... I said 'may' place someone's life in danger. Are you refuting this?
Second... which of the following two errors would be a bigger error in your mind:
1. Allowing a known violent offender to get away because you didn't want to shoot him as he resisted arrest and proved to be a challenge... ultimately affording him the opportunity to hurt someone else (at a minimum setting the table for another run in with police with him anticipating it)?
or
2. Taking a shot that proved to be lethal for a known violent offender as he resisted arrest and tried to flee (taking his propensity for violence from the streets)?
Number one is not an error at all. Like I said, cops are there to apprehend, not execute. It's part of our legal system, and part of what allows us to be free. We have a system for a reason and it shouldn't be discarded because of fear or what ifs or what someone might do in the future. Also, cops don't know the identity of the person with 100% certainty. They arrive on a scene and only have limited information.
You don't see it as an error huh?
Tell that to the victim. Tell them- or their survivors- that police nearly had the violent offender in custody, but he proved to be too difficult to nab so they let him go.
Not that it would matter, but the media that looks to rile up people with the abuse headline would rile the same people up with a headline painting them as incompetent for letting the violent felon go when they tried to apprehend him.
If you want to apply an emotional argument to Constitutional rights, that won't convince me to give up those rights. If cops have a SUSPECT in custody, and he gets away, then the cops can explain to the victims how they blew it by not keeping him secure. And if the guy outruns them, then they explain that they're too slow. There's other avenues to try and get the guy later. Media reaction shouldn't play a role in how the law is applied.
I was only pointing out the fact that the same media that sells police abuse would be selling police incompetence and the public would be lapping up both whenever it was served. In other words... the police can't win. In my mind, you forfeit your constitutional rights the moment you act outside of it. You can't expect to be protected by law when you disregard it- hurting others and then ignoring those assigned to uphold it.
"We were too slow so sorry"? Lame. Not to mention this implies you would prefer the cops engaged in hand to hand combat (tackling the fleeing offender and getting into a fight?). Geezuz man.
And what other avenues do you speak of that might be employed where the violent one might be more agreeable? Catch him as he has a nap? As far as I'm concerned, each time someone bests officers... they would become more brazen and more dangerous.
That is utterly preposterous! Batshit crazy even.
If you fit the description of someone who commits a crime, you lose your constitutional rights??? Fucking insane.
Come on, use a little common sense. I think your comment was a stretch on what Thirty had said. No one ever said if you match a description of a someone who committed a crime police have the right to shoot you. I believe he a was talking about a known violent criminal who has known intentions of hurting and killing others. These would be pretty rare examples. Like the 2 guys who escaped from the NY prison about a year ago. They were already convicted with violent murders and was known they were killing to kill again. Or a couple of years ago when one guy declared he was going to kill any cop he sees and had a kill list that included judges and their family members. He did kill several of them, including an innocent wife or daughter of someone on his list. I forget the details, but I think he was an ex-cop. That doesn't mean anyone who looks kind of like them is going to get shot. It means when you confront that individual and he fleas, then you need to stop that threat because you know his armed and dangerous and his only intentions are to kill as many people as he can before he is killed. That is completely reasonable. They don't just go shoot someone matching his description, they get several witnesses to positively ID the person along with whatever special forces are involved. And if you don't, you are choosing to trade this scumbag's life for the dozen other people he is going to kill after. He made his choice, the innocent people he intends to kill didn't chose that.
That's much more narrow than the scenario thirty described, and yours still isn't reasonable. Despite the high level of threat the people you described pose, you cannot be executed by cops because of what you think and say. You also can't put the decision making on police to determine if a certain level of potential risk means they can go kill someone. You realize that a perceived risk plays a role with why unarmed blacks are shot at a higher rate than whites?
You keep twisting the example used.
Known violent fugitive. Resists arrests as cops try to arrest after doing good police work and find him. Attempts to flee.
This is much different than 'random guy I think i got a hunch it's him' person.
Comments
It appears my vocabulary choices are slimming by the day.
What do you call some idiot wielding a machete in a public place looking to hack people with it?
nydailynews.com/news/national/man-machete-sinners-shot-dead-cu-boulder-article-1.2818922
You really wouldn't want cops shooting to injure in either case.
If someone is shot in the ass, then he was clearly running away and lethal force was not needed so he should not have been shot anywhere. Shooting someone in the stomach vs center mass is only a difference of a few inches. They are not going to be that accurate. And shooting a leg on a moving target that is more than a few meters away is going to be very difficult.
Even aiming for center mass cops only hit their mark something like 30% of the time. That is because in a middle of a fight when you're moving and the target is moving it is pretty difficult to hit the main body of a target. Add aiming for the leg instead and they'll miss almost every time.
There's really only 1 argument for "shoot to kill." And that is the trigger should only be pulled if you intend to kill the target. Aiming center mass is just the biggest target and most practical way to stop the threat. But it comes down to don't pull the trigger unless you mean to kill something. How is that not a good argument?
I would not be opposed to more non-lethal tools, and use a shotgun with bean bags or things like that in some scenarios. But if you pull the trigger you need to intend to kill your target. If you don't intend to kill your target, don't pull the trigger.
If they train enough shooting without killing would probably be easier. Get them super duper good at using the guns and I think they could manage it.
No, I don't think that is a good argument. I think it is reasonable to use a gun for self-defense without intending to kill. The intention would be to stop them, not to kill them. Sure, you could accidentally kill them anyway, but that isn't the same as their shoot to kill philosophy. Yes, tasers and bean bag guns are an okay option.... although tasers have killed a whole lot of people, so I don't think they should be considered non-lethal weapons at all. I think it is a huge mistake to do that because it leads to cops using them on people who have only committed minor offenses, and on kids and drunk teens, or simply when a cop is trying to avoid skinning a knee or whatever. They don't take the effects of tasers seriously enough. Of course, living in Vancouver, with the whole Robert Dziekański horror, I guess I'm sensitive about that issue.
Second... which of the following two errors would be a bigger error in your mind:
1. Allowing a known violent offender to get away because you didn't want to shoot him as he resisted arrest and proved to be a challenge... ultimately affording him the opportunity to hurt someone else (at a minimum setting the table for another run in with police with him anticipating it)?
or
2. Taking a shot that proved to be lethal for a known violent offender as he resisted arrest and tried to flee (taking his propensity for violence from the streets)?
Tell that to the victim. Tell them- or their survivors- that police nearly had the violent offender in custody, but he proved to be too difficult to nab so they let him go.
Not that it would matter, but the media that looks to rile up people with the abuse headline would rile the same people up with a headline painting them as incompetent for letting the violent felon go when they tried to apprehend him.
And they came to apprehend. This wouldn't be an execution. This would be a matter of doing their job. Violent criminals should not get to dictate terms of their arrest- if they resist... then things are going to escalate.
My dad was a cop for 33 years and thankfully never had to pull his trigger on duty. Probably why I feel strongly about these topics. He was a great cop. Saved many lives. Recieved commendations from the governor (or Governator) for his actions. He was the first ever deputy of the year at our local police station when he got promoted and had to work in downtown LA. He worked downtown through the Rodney King riots, my mom cried every morning when he left for weeks. My mom would cry every time he didn't come home on time, which was several times a month. But I heard stories of it taking 5 or 6 guys to take a suspect down when he was on drugs. If he was armed they would have shot him. On those days I remember waking at 2 am when my dad finally came home, usually bruised and still bloody from the fight. He was run over by a motorcycle while arresting the dudes friend. It's not a safe job, but he was proud to do it. Some dude charging with a knife you can't take the chance a shot in the leg is enough to stop him, assuming you even hit that moving target.
Some dude breaks into your house. You spot him on down the hall 10 meters away and he has a knife. Behind you are the rooms to your kids and wife. Are you really going to aim for his leg if you have a gun when he starts charging?
In my mind, you forfeit your constitutional rights the moment you act outside of it. You can't expect to be protected by law when you disregard it- hurting others and then ignoring those assigned to uphold it.
"We were too slow so sorry"? Lame. Not to mention this implies you would prefer the cops engaged in hand to hand combat (tackling the fleeing offender and getting into a fight?). Geezuz man.
And what other avenues do you speak of that might be employed where the violent one might be more agreeable? Catch him as he has a nap? As far as I'm concerned, each time someone bests officers... they would become more brazen and more dangerous.
Yesterday we lost a Sergeant with the LA County Sheriff's Department. He was essentially executed during a burglary call.
RIP, Steve Owen.
Not all officers are racist assholes. Deal with those who are (in any profession or walk of life), but know there are some incredibly brave and generous men and women doing what they do with the best of intentions...among them, surviving while serving.
3 Calgary police officers charged with assault in violent arrest caught on video
One officer allegedly dug the point of a key into man's neck when he was handcuffed
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/calgary-police-officers-criminal-charges-arrest-assault-1.3792181
It surely has happened, and it's not surprising that you don't consider this scenario at all.
Batshit crazy even.
If you fit the description of someone who commits a crime, you lose your constitutional rights???
Fucking insane.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3063996/Horrific-moment-police-dog-savages-man-s-face-puts-hands-surrender-captured-cop-s-body-camera.html
I guess there's no abuse here, they were perceived to be criminals so they have no constitutional rights.
I guess there's no such thing as police abuse at all, just Judge Dredd's and their infallible judgement.
Everyone can agree on the most cut and dry cases, but the police can't be given permission to perform extra-judicial executions simply because their authority is challenged.
You may think I am stretching Thirty's words, but you may also not be as familiar with Thirty's posts on the topic, where he very regularly waives suspects' due process rights whenever they question the authority of police, even if only verbally.
After licking their wounds when their 'iron clad study that definitively stated cops were racist killers' was debunked... they've resorted to nonsense to justify cops shrugging their shoulders and looking at each other with a "Meh. What can you do?" in the event a 'known' (this would imply identified or... in the truest sense of the word... 'known') violent felon resists arrest and tries to flee before escalating tactics.
Funny too: they cite the old 'make you safer' line as a fear tactic to get behind and enable police abuse, yet they toss out the old 'what about an innocent person' line that serves their line of thinking the same way.
Here's a fresh example for what I was getting at. The pigs are all Judge Dredds now.
Of course there are examples of police abuse and their always will be. Human beings are police officers. Human beings are prone to error and some human beings are not nice. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of cases handled by the police go very professionally!
To prevent the possibility of becoming part of a rare case... here's a tip to anyone: don't break the law. And if you do break the law and encounter police as you break the law... don't resist arrest or engage the officers in a fight. That can't go well for you.
(The other double standard: accountability for police... but not hardened criminals... it's not their fault they resist... my Gawd man... theyre trying not to go to jail)
Known violent fugitive. Resists arrests as cops try to arrest after doing good police work and find him. Attempts to flee.
This is much different than 'random guy I think i got a hunch it's him' person.