Police abuse

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung said:

Not when cops that fear for their lives use them.

What about all the scaredy cat Cletuses?

unsung

Eh, you lost me there. It's been a long week.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung said:

Eh, you lost me there. It's been a long week.

You said guns don't make us safer when scared cops walk among us. You say that as if the scaredy cat Cletuses walking among us with their guns are not a risk.

unsung

I'm saying there are too many trigger happy cops out that that claim the fear of the lives line so that they can get out of murdering someone.

Very few get charged.

ponytd

unsung said:

End the drug war and you end cartels. Done.

I don't like police. I haven't been shy about it. There's just not much I can say about people that have little regard for shooting others and getting away with it because they have a badge. I won't even begin to go into how much they like shooting dogs. They are scared, they should find others lines of work.

Glad to see you're not lumping all cops into 1 bucket because of a handful of bad ones.

dignin

Speaking of bad apples.

John Oliver nails it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaD84DTGULo

PJ_Soul

ponytd said:

unsung said:

End the drug war and you end cartels. Done.

I don't like police. I haven't been shy about it. There's just not much I can say about people that have little regard for shooting others and getting away with it because they have a badge. I won't even begin to go into how much they like shooting dogs. They are scared, they should find others lines of work.

Glad to see you're not lumping all cops into 1 bucket because of a handful of bad ones.

I think it's a lot more than a handful, but sure, it's never bad to acknowledge the good ones. There are plenty of them too..... However, let's not allow our concern about acknowledging the good ones get in the way of pinpointing the bad ones, and why there are more and more of them all the time. There is clearly a major systemic problem in police forces, to the point where it is kind of an emergency situation. And the most difficult part is that the good cops are basically not allowed to have anything to do with fixing those problems, because they get blackballed due to the systemic problems we need them to fix. It is quite the conundrum.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

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.

Go Beavers

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Go Beavers said:

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?

Go Beavers

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

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?

Go Beavers

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Go Beavers said:

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?

Call him whatever you want. I'm thinking it's likely mental health related and I figured you were thinking the same thing. Although after reading the article, I'm sure he'll be labelled a Christian extremist and most likely a terrorist:
nydailynews.com/news/national/man-machete-sinners-shot-dead-cu-boulder-article-1.2818922

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

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.

mace1229

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.

PJ_Soul

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

mace1229 said:

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.

Go Beavers

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mace1229 said:

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.

PJ_Soul

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mace1229 said:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Go Beavers said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mace1229 said:

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)?