Short story: a homeless man resisted assault by police officers by wildly flailing and attacking them, he was wrestled to the ground and the situation seemed okay when, according to one witness, he reached for an officer's gun. Policer officers repeatedly shout "Drop the gun!". The other officers then opened fire and shot the homeless man.
It's not fully clear what happened so far, but in general...forcefully resisting police officers is a no-go. If he was really reaching for a gun, then shooting him was the right reaction.
If we in the IDF used the same "he needed shootin'" criteria for Palestinians that American cops apply to American citizens, well...there'd be peace in the middle east I guess...
You can hear him being ordered to "drop the gun" at least 3 times by my count prior to the shot being fired, and this is after the taser was employed.
Until the police bodycam comes out - there was one - I'm going to withhold judgement but on the face of it this seems justified.
On the other hand, what warranted the violent arrest to begin with? I know the article lists a bystander version of events but it also indicates that the officers went straight to lethal force, which the video contradicts. I'm not sure a homeless guy who refused to fold his tent warrants a violent confrontation but who knows. These stories always develop more facts in a week or so.
the reports I've seen seem to suggest it was because he hadn't packed away his tent and moved off the street (a court order allows the homeless to 'camp; there at night, but not during the business day)
I would like to point out the impossibility of grabbing a police officers gun, if he isn't carrying one. The presence of the guns in this case is what caused the situation to escalate to where someone died.
Smacks wrote: I would like to point out the impossibility of grabbing a police officers gun, if he isn't carrying one. The presence of the guns in this case is what caused the situation to escalate to where someone died.
Smacks wrote: I would like to point out the impossibility of grabbing a police officers gun, if he isn't carrying one. The presence of the guns in this case is what caused the situation to escalate to where someone died.
Smacks wrote: I would like to point out the impossibility of grabbing a police officers gun, if he isn't carrying one. The presence of the guns in this case is what caused the situation to escalate to where someone died.
don't do that, you are smarter then that.
No, he really isn't.
Of course I'm not. We could talk about it all over again!
Come one guys, it'll be awesome! Call the gun clique to unite one last time!
Smacks wrote: I would like to point out the impossibility of grabbing a police officers gun, if he isn't carrying one. The presence of the guns in this case is what caused the situation to escalate to where someone died.
don't do that, you are smarter then that.
No, he really isn't.
Of course I'm not. We could talk about it all over again!
Come one guys, it'll be awesome! Call the gun clique to unite one last time!
Smacks wrote: I would like to point out the impossibility of grabbing a police officers gun, if he isn't carrying one. The presence of the guns in this case is what caused the situation to escalate to where someone died.
don't do that, you are smarter then that.
hey, if people hand no hands, they wouldnt be able to grab a cops gun either.
If there was no oxygen on earth the powder wouldnt be able to ignite too.
Had the evolutionary path of the earth not taken a turn, mankind would not exist to shoot itself with guns.
Smacks wrote: I would like to point out the impossibility of grabbing a police officers gun, if he isn't carrying one. The presence of the guns in this case is what caused the situation to escalate to where someone died.
don't do that, you are smarter then that.
No, he really isn't.
Of course I'm not. We could talk about it all over again!
Come one guys, it'll be awesome! Call the gun clique to unite one last time!
No it isn't. It is a completely logical statement. I can actually turn it into a syllogism to show you:
Premise 1: If a gun had not been there, he could not have grabbed it. Premise 2: Police shot him (in this case) because he grabbed a gun. Conclusion: If a gun had not been there, the police would not have shot him.
It is a completely sound statement. Your "But... but.. but... We need guns" argument does nothing to undermine the logic of the above statement. Show me where the logical fallacy is in my premise or conclusion?
hey, if people hand no hands, they wouldnt be able to grab a cops gun either.
This premise is false. People with no hands could still grab cop's guns, using hooks, or their feet etc... So you see I am not the one who is prone to committing fallacies.
What was a troll fallacy was the attempt at twisting the statement into bad analogies. A more apt analogy would be 'landmines'. Guns are much more like landmines than oxygen: they are both powder based weapons, and we're never quite sure who they are gonna hurt next. How about: "Hey, if we didn't keep dropping landmines everywhere, no one would get their legs blown off (by landmines)". This statement makes a lot of sense, we probably should get rid of landmines. I guess the whole "Maybe if we didn't ... then bad things wouldn't happen" turn of phrase isn't always as ridiculous as you tried to make out.
"Hey! maybe if I didn't put my junk in this meat grinder..." "Hey! maybe if I didn't try to respond to Smacks with badly thought out analogies..."
Please keep in mind you agreed to follow all the rules, including Rule Number One, when you made an account. And using your account to post is contingent upon following the rules.
Smacks wrote: I would like to point out the impossibility of grabbing a police officers gun, if he isn't carrying one. The presence of the guns in this case is what caused the situation to escalate to where someone died.
If a person grabs or tries to grab a police officer's gun, and that person is subsequently shot as a direct consequence of that action, it is that person's own fault. "Don't grab a police officer's weapon" is not a high bar to overcome.
Smacks' argument seems pretty good to me. I guess it hinges on whether police having guns prevents more deaths than it causes. Probably a hard sell in the US, though, what with all the guns everywhere.
Smacks wrote: I would like to point out the impossibility of grabbing a police officers gun, if he isn't carrying one. The presence of the guns in this case is what caused the situation to escalate to where someone died.
If a person grabs or tries to grab a police officer's gun, and that person is subsequently shot as a direct consequence of that action, it is that person's own fault. "Don't grab a police officer's weapon" is not a high bar to overcome.
Neither is subduing a man in a 1v5 fight. But, here we are.....
Hordini wrote: If a person grabs or tries to grab a police officer's gun, and that person is subsequently shot as a direct consequence of that action, it is that person's own fault.
Assuming the person is mentally culpable, and aware of the risks. I will give you that.
"Don't grab a police officer's weapon" is not a high bar to overcome.
It shouldn't be, certainly not for you and me right? But when 12 year old boys and homeless men are allegedly giving the police "no choice" but to use deadly force, you have to wonder if maybe we can't always rely on people's good judgement. Remember, in this case the officer's safety was threatened by his own gun.
In all fairness, we are talking about the potential intersection of quite a few social problems here (mental health, homelessness, racial bias, perception of police) and I would argue the least of them is police officers being armed with pistols.
No one's going to riot over a homeless guy in a place like LA. If it's anything like NYC the homeless population is generally considered to be annoying scenery, like pigeons.
Large-scale homelessness in the US really only happens in like, 4 states, and the people who live there are pretty oblivious to their existence by and large.
To put it differently, if society gave a gak about people like him, he wouldn't have been living in a tent on the street in one of the richest countries in the world.
Manchu wrote: In all fairness, we are talking about the potential intersection of quite a few social problems here (mental health, homelessness, racial bias, perception of police) and I would argue the least of them is police officers being armed with pistols.
Appealing to bigger problems is not an argument, it is a deflection.
Smacks wrote: Appealing to bigger problems is not an argument, it is a deflection.
That's true enough. I should have said that the fact that police officers are armed with deadly weapons is not in my view a problem in itself nor is the fact that these deadly weapons are sometimes used to fatal effect necessarily a problem, either. Indeed, that is exactly the intended result and I think we have the legal, regulatory, and ethical infastructure to be reasonably assured of its justification generally. The problem is when a fatality or really any injury, whether caused by a firearm or otherwise, results inappropriately. Whether the result in these circumstances was inappropriate is not evident on the face of the available facts. And speculation does not afford grounds to judge.
Smacks wrote: I would like to point out the impossibility of grabbing a police officers gun, if he isn't carrying one. The presence of the guns in this case is what caused the situation to escalate to where someone died.
If a person grabs or tries to grab a police officer's gun, and that person is subsequently shot as a direct consequence of that action, it is that person's own fault. "Don't grab a police officer's weapon" is not a high bar to overcome.
Neither is subduing a man in a 1v5 fight. But, here we are.....
So tell me about your experience of subduing a man who had just shrugged a taser off. You're speaking with such absolute certainty, you obviously have personal knowledge of this.
So the US police has now taken to monthly executions of its own citizens? Good job...
I mean... Couldn't they think of any other way to stop him reaching for that gun except shooting him? Maybe they need more training in how to restrain people? Doesn't the US police carry pepper spray, batons etc. for restraining when their taser does not work?
Iron_Captain wrote: So the US police has now taken to monthly executions of its own citizens?
Good job...
I mean... Couldn't they think of any other way to stop him reaching for that gun except shooting him? Maybe they need more training in how to restrain people?
Iron_Captain wrote: So the US police has now taken to monthly executions of its own citizens?
Good job...
I mean... Couldn't they think of any other way to stop him reaching for that gun except shooting him? Maybe they need more training in how to restrain people?
Hey, how's that hyperbole working out for you?
I don't know. Are you supposed to pronounce it like hyperbowl or hyperbo-le?
I always make Jokes about Judge death in the dredd universe but murica cops are getting there.
Dredd was a wussy who'd get eaten alive in Compton.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote: So the US police has now taken to monthly executions of its own citizens? Good job...
I mean... Couldn't they think of any other way to stop him reaching for that gun except shooting him? Maybe they need more training in how to restrain people? Doesn't the US police carry pepper spray, batons etc. for restraining when their taser does not work?
Thats why the US beat the Soviets, our monthly culling of the weak. That and Tex Mex, the destroyer of empires (and bathrooms) for centuries.
IF someone points a gun a a policeman and doesn't drop it after being told to do so - well ....
IF a old, underfed homeless guy is able to get a gun while being arrested be FIVE policemen, well .... maybe your policemen need more/better training?
I (and I am aware I could be wrong) think, that if the USA would reduce the amount of money they spend for their military by 1% they could use one of the many billions they would save on better training for their police officers. That might actually save more lives.
In all fairness, if someone shrugs off a taser, they're one of two things; a zombie, or a vampire. And we don't want either of them becoming an epidemic.
thedarkavenger wrote: In all fairness, if someone shrugs off a taser, they're one of two things; a zombie, or a vampire. And we don't want either of them becoming an epidemic.
Speaking of which... I wonder if it's possible to train yourself to "overcome" a taser shot.
Regardless, from what I've seen at LAPD, it appears that the officers is fully justified.
No one's going to riot over a homeless guy in a place like LA. If it's anything like NYC the homeless population is generally considered to be annoying scenery, like pigeons.
Large-scale homelessness in the US really only happens in like, 4 states, and the people who live there are pretty oblivious to their existence by and large.
To put it differently, if society gave a gak about people like him, he wouldn't have been living in a tent on the street in one of the richest countries in the world.
yeah, you only riot over people whose face you can put on a sign
von Hohenstein wrote: IF someone points a gun a a policeman and doesn't drop it after being told to do so - well ....
IF a old, underfed homeless guy is able to get a gun while being arrested be FIVE policemen, well .... maybe your policemen need more/better training?
Or the perp is on drugs.
I have been part of an 8 person dogpile of a guy on PCP who was able to come of the ground with all of us on top of him. That was after he ripped the padded wall from the cell that was secured with giant anchors into the concrete. During that fight he was able to grab the baton of one of the officers from his belt.
No one's going to riot over a homeless guy in a place like LA. If it's anything like NYC the homeless population is generally considered to be annoying scenery, like pigeons.
Large-scale homelessness in the US really only happens in like, 4 states, and the people who live there are pretty oblivious to their existence by and large.
To put it differently, if society gave a gak about people like him, he wouldn't have been living in a tent on the street in one of the richest countries in the world.
yeah, you only riot over people whose face you can put on a sign
It was the same way back during the civil rights marches. Do you really think Rosa Parks was the first person to refuse to give up her seat? She was the most sympathetic, so she became the face of the movement.
von Hohenstein wrote: IF someone points a gun a a policeman and doesn't drop it after being told to do so - well ....
IF a old, underfed homeless guy is able to get a gun while being arrested be FIVE policemen, well .... maybe your policemen need more/better training?
Or the perp is on drugs.
I have been part of an 8 person dogpile of a guy on PCP who was able to come of the ground with all of us on top of him. That was after he ripped the padded wall from the cell that was secured with giant anchors into the concrete. During that fight he was able to grab the baton of one of the officers from his belt.
I don't know the facts about this case but I think some people have the mistaken impression that if you are unarmed, you should be able to fight with cops and expect not to be shot.
KiloFiX wrote: I don't know the facts about this case but I think some people have the mistaken impression that if you are unarmed, you should be able to fight with cops and expect not to be shot.
I think that people have the non-mistaken impression that resistance should be met with appropriate levels of force. The question remaining is "what is the appropriate level of force".
KiloFiX wrote: I don't know the facts about this case but I think some people have the mistaken impression that if you are unarmed, you should be able to fight with cops and expect not to be shot.
My friend who is a police officer says he sees this sentiment on a weekly basis. People believe that they have the right to fight, and that they expect a cop to only 'fight back' using the same level of effort. So if they want a fist fight, they think the cop is legally obligated to disarm and only subdue the person with their bare hands, one-on-one. Like if they 'win' they are not going to get arrested.
I mean... Couldn't they think of any other way to stop him reaching for that gun except shooting him? Maybe they need more training in how to restrain people? Doesn't the US police carry pepper spray, batons etc. for restraining when their taser does not work?
If Tasers don't work on a subject then pepper spray and batons aren't going to work either.
OT: Seems insane that 5 police man cant take down 1 homeless dude after a tazor. ether they are fresh desk jockeys out for a field run or the homeless guy is on some crazy stuff.
OT: Seems insane that 5 police man cant take down 1 homeless dude after a tazor. ether they are fresh desk jockeys out for a field run or the homeless guy is on some crazy stuff.
Desubot wrote: or the homeless guy is on some crazy stuff.
Which isn't exactly uncommon. Adrenaline also can let you do something you shouldn't normally be able to do.
Adrenaline doesn't help against a taser attack if you're untrained. Adrenaline can help if you are trained and your muscle memory takes over. Realistically, the only chance to counter a taser (gun) attack is to remove one of the probes. If this is possible, depends on where you have been hit, then you can attempt to take it down / off or break the cables...if you can still move your hands. But in the end, most of the time, you're out of luck.
von Hohenstein wrote: IF someone points a gun a a policeman and doesn't drop it after being told to do so - well ....
IF a old, underfed homeless guy is able to get a gun while being arrested be FIVE policemen, well .... maybe your policemen need more/better training?
Or the perp is on drugs.
I have been part of an 8 person dogpile of a guy on PCP who was able to come of the ground with all of us on top of him. That was after he ripped the padded wall from the cell that was secured with giant anchors into the concrete. During that fight he was able to grab the baton of one of the officers from his belt.
Reminds me of a story my Pop likes to tell about a man running down a hallway at Charity while pulling two EMTs and gurney, which he happened to be strapped to, at the time. Makes me glad I'm aiming for Peds.
Anyway, to the OT, it's always horribly sad to hear about someone being shot, especially when it involves an officer. That being said, it seems, based on what had been mentioned, that the shooting was likely justified (horrible word to use, but it works). I'll wait to see how the story unfolds before I really formalize an opinion on this, though.
Smacks wrote: I would like to point out the impossibility of grabbing a police officers gun, if he isn't carrying one. The presence of the guns in this case is what caused the situation to escalate to where someone died.
Irrelevant, as unless the political landscape of the US changes drastically, a weapon will always be there. Worry about the things we can change first before the things we will likely never be able to, at least not within the foreseeable future.
hotsauceman1 wrote: But isn't that what batons are for, was a gun necessary?
I can't remember the last time I've seen a cop carry a night stick. Nowadays (around here at least) they carry a collapsible steel baton, which can kill and maim fairly easily. Would have been a bad decision to use that in a 5 on 1 pileup. Cop swings with one of those, hobo dips out the way, and he winds up cracking open another officers skull.
Smacks wrote: I would like to point out the impossibility of grabbing a police officers gun, if he isn't carrying one. The presence of the guns in this case is what caused the situation to escalate to where someone died.
If a person grabs or tries to grab a police officer's gun, and that person is subsequently shot as a direct consequence of that action, it is that person's own fault. "Don't grab a police officer's weapon" is not a high bar to overcome.
Neither is subduing a man in a 1v5 fight. But, here we are.....
So tell me about your experience of subduing a man who had just shrugged a taser off. You're speaking with such absolute certainty, you obviously have personal knowledge of this.
I have never had to subdue a homeless man before who has been hit by a taser. I have however had to subdue patients with mental illnesses who have shrugged off drugs meant to keep them calm and are actively throwing punches and flailing at me. It took me (I am not a big guy) and three tiny nurses.
Smacks wrote: I would like to point out the impossibility of grabbing a police officers gun, if he isn't carrying one. The presence of the guns in this case is what caused the situation to escalate to where someone died.
If a person grabs or tries to grab a police officer's gun, and that person is subsequently shot as a direct consequence of that action, it is that person's own fault. "Don't grab a police officer's weapon" is not a high bar to overcome.
Neither is subduing a man in a 1v5 fight. But, here we are.....
So tell me about your experience of subduing a man who had just shrugged a taser off. You're speaking with such absolute certainty, you obviously have personal knowledge of this.
I have never had to subdue a homeless man before who has been hit by a taser. I have however had to subdue patients with mental illnesses who have shrugged off drugs meant to keep them calm and are actively throwing punches and flailing at me. It took me (I am not a big guy) and three tiny nurses.
1 homeless crackhead vs 5 cops isn't that impressive, this meth head managed beat on 15 cops in a bathroom while pleasuring himself. Evidently he was hard and dangerous.
When somebody is on drugs they don't register pain like normal and certainly aren't in their right mind which lets them do stuff and endure things that'd stop a normal person many time over. I've seen somebody on meth run an entire city block after breaking free of 8 cops all the while he had a shattered leg with the bone sticking clear out of his calf. It's not uncommon for them to drop dead from their injuries once they come down off their high, but while high they don't feel a thing.
This one is just nuts, can't even tell how many cops are there and the guy even manages not to die.
stanman wrote: 1 homeless crackhead vs 5 cops isn't that impressive, this meth head managed beat on 15 cops in a bathroom while pleasuring himself. Evidently he was hard and dangerous.
When somebody is on drugs they don't register pain like normal and certainly aren't in their right mind which lets them do stuff and endure things that'd stop a normal person many time over. I've seen somebody on meth run an entire city block after breaking free of 8 cops all the while he had a shattered leg with the bone sticking clear out of his calf. It's not uncommon for them to drop dead from their injuries once they come down off their high, but while high they don't feel a thing.
This one is just nuts, can't even tell how many cops are there and the guy even manages not to die.
That was awesome. Although, I'm not sure what you mean by not die, they shot him with paintballs.
That was awesome. Although, I'm not sure what you mean by not die, they shot him with paintballs.
The fact that they managed to use only tasers and riot rounds and not use their guns was pretty impressive, when he kept moving for as long as he did it shows that somebody can take a lot of non-lethal force and keep fighting. (had there been only a few officers he probably would not have been able to be subdued) Usually these type of situations resolve in a much more grim and bloody fashion. Given that he's also black, it shows an extra amount of restraint being used by the police in that video, were it in LA or NY he probably would have died in a hail of bullets as being black typically puts you on the short list of resolution options. There's plenty of those types of shootings on video as well but with Dakka being kid friendly it isn't the place to post those.
It was on the news in Germany as well. They said, that there are around 1500 homeless people living in that area. WHAT?!? 1500 humans have to sleep on the street and no one cares?? What are you paying taxes for? Lockheed Martin?
Are you gonna tell me, that the richest national economy on this planet is not able to provide basic food and shelter for it's citizens? Is that true, or did the newsagent got some numbers wrong?
A lot of homeless people in the US aren't homeless due to money issues. A very high percentage of them are suffering form severe mental issues or drugs problems (often they use drugs to self medicate) Because of those issues they are not capable of integrating within normal society so they live on the streets. Skid Row in LA tends to have a very highly concentrated population of homeless as it's one of the few areas in the city that has rent controlled housing, it's also the center of much of the city's drug activity as well as community outreach programs so that's where the people who are down and out end up staying as they get kicked out of the more affluent areas.
There are a lot of outreach and public housing programs at work in the area, but most require sobriety in order to receives services and test them to see if they are high or drunk, sadly most of the people who need those services can't keep clean enough to stay there for long.
Check out this documentary it's a pretty eye opening review of the complex issues at work there
1,500 homeless might sound shocking but consider that LA has a population of almost 3.9 million people, compared to the city population it's a fairly small percentage. California is also one of the largest welfare states in the US, which draws a lot of poor and homeless that are seeking help from those programs and it also has a climate where they won't freeze to death like they would in Chicago or New York. LA is also a major epicenter for the drug trades. Florida has an incredibly large homeless population for many of the same reasons.
You can have all the public care programs in the world, but when it comes to dealing with very severe cases of addiction and mental illness (and in lots of cases; both) there are some people that will always remain beyond the ability to be helped. It's not an excuse to stop offering help and we should always try to help people whenever we can, but there's always some people who refuse help that's offered or simply can't function even with constant care. Addiction and mental illness really feths people up.
I mean... Couldn't they think of any other way to stop him reaching for that gun except shooting him? Maybe they need more training in how to restrain people? Doesn't the US police carry pepper spray, batons etc. for restraining when their taser does not work?
If Tasers don't work on a subject then pepper spray and batons aren't going to work either.
Well, if you break his wrists or arms with a baton, he is at the very least not going to grab any guns.
If he's already done jail time, been in a mental unit, and is living under a stolen identity it may have triggered a violent reaction to the police for fear of returning to prison. Sometimes people would prefer to take their chances of dying while fighting the cops over returning to jail.
I mean... Couldn't they think of any other way to stop him reaching for that gun except shooting him? Maybe they need more training in how to restrain people? Doesn't the US police carry pepper spray, batons etc. for restraining when their taser does not work?
If Tasers don't work on a subject then pepper spray and batons aren't going to work either.
Well, if you break his wrists or arms with a baton, he is at the very least not going to grab any guns.
Not true. If you're hopped up on something you can easily disregard broken bones. You would literally have to shatter their arms and hands beyond repair to prevent them from being used.
I mean... Couldn't they think of any other way to stop him reaching for that gun except shooting him? Maybe they need more training in how to restrain people? Doesn't the US police carry pepper spray, batons etc. for restraining when their taser does not work?
If Tasers don't work on a subject then pepper spray and batons aren't going to work either.
Well, if you break his wrists or arms with a baton, he is at the very least not going to grab any guns.
Not true. If you're hopped up on something you can easily disregard broken bones. You would literally have to shatter their arms and hands beyond repair to prevent them from being used.
That is a better solution than just killing the guy, no?
Also, with broken finger bones, it is really hard to bend them far enough to pull a trigger, because there are no muscles in the finger itself.
Maybe I'm draconian but I feel like if someone is resisting arrest with force (i.e. fighting with cops), then cops shouldn't really have to go out of their way to try to keep that person alive at the risk of their own safety.
Cops want to get back to their families alive too.
KiloFiX wrote: Maybe I'm draconian but I feel like if someone is resisting arrest with force (i.e. fighting with cops), then cops shouldn't really have to go out of their way to try to keep that person alive at the risk of their own safety.
Cops want to get back to their families alive too.
Have you ever been in a physical fight? If so does that mean the person fighting with you was attempting to murder you?
Police should be able to defend themselves, and others, with deadly force if their life is in danger. Not just because someone is fighting them, but because their life is in danger. Of course their own perception of their risk will be a factor there.
KiloFiX wrote: Maybe I'm draconian but I feel like if someone is resisting arrest with force (i.e. fighting with cops), then cops shouldn't really have to go out of their way to try to keep that person alive at the risk of their own safety.
Cops want to get back to their families alive too.
Have you ever been in a physical fight? If so does that mean the person fighting with you was attempting to murder you?
Police should be able to defend themselves, and others, with deadly force if their life is in danger. Not just because someone is fighting them, but because their life is in danger. Of course their own perception of their risk will be a factor there.
Since you asked:
I've been in a great many physical fights - one of which was in jail. I've been shot at on more than one occasion. I've been stabbed twice.
The next time someone tries to fight me, I'm going to run away but if I can't, then I'm not going to hesitate to shoot; instead of trying to spend time to determine if they're really trying to kill me or not and the appropriate level of force.
On one occasion, I had SWAT break down the door of my house. They were looking for a kidnap victim but had gotten the address wrong. I (legally) carry a handgun on my person but when SWAT showed up, there and there I didn't hesitate, I didnt argue my innocence, I didnt resist and most importantly, I didnt even try to disarm. I went straight to the ground and put my hands on my head. They threw me in jail before figuring out that they had the wrong house and wrong guy and let me go. But not before some dude decided to fight me in jail.
From personal experience, both resisting arrest and taking time to determine the appropriate level of force to use, is very risky to everyone.
That said, you can argue, and I may accept that cops should be held to a higher standard. But remember they're humans with families too.
KiloFiX wrote: Maybe I'm draconian but I feel like if someone is resisting arrest with force (i.e. fighting with cops), then cops shouldn't really have to go out of their way to try to keep that person alive at the risk of their own safety.
Cops want to get back to their families alive too.
Going to have to disagree with you here...LEOs signed up to "protect and serve." It is the job of Law Enforcement to PROTECT and SERVE the public, not to get home safe as a primary consideration, and definitely not to kill them.
There are plenty of people out there who are willing to extort money from you for personal benefit, and who weigh self-preservation very strongly. These people are also known as criminals. If LE expects to be viewed differently from criminals who do basically the same thing but without state-sponsorship and legal legitimacy, they need to accept the fact that they serve the community; the community does not exist for their benefit. If they want to walk around all jocked up on gear and testosterone claiming they have a dangerous job, then let them actually do the dangerous job of protecting the community. As it is, these cases highlight the fact that many are scared children who shoot first and think later, knowing that they'll be protected by the system.
The next time someone tries to fight me, I'm going to run away but if I can't, then I'm not going to hesitate to shoot; instead of trying to spend time to determine if they're really trying to kill me or not and the appropriate level of force.
Thank you for helping the anti-gun crowd make a case against the right to self defense .
In the officers defense the training involved with the mentally ill and homeless is very much PC and PR related. The reason for so many of them is that a single officer is unlikely to handle such a tense situation.
(For instance, worked with the mentally ill. For a single situation, the more involved/witnesses are better.)
According the LA chief, they had sensitivity training each year along with the above.
However this is LA. If you look in websters for Police Brutality, LAPD is next to it.
Also, this thread made me improve my day. I ignored Smacks. (If I didn't I'd say things that I wouldn't regret and I would get baned.)
KiloFiX wrote: Maybe I'm draconian but I feel like if someone is resisting arrest with force (i.e. fighting with cops), then cops shouldn't really have to go out of their way to try to keep that person alive at the risk of their own safety.
Cops want to get back to their families alive too.
Going to have to disagree with you here...LEOs signed up to "protect and serve." It is the job of Law Enforcement to PROTECT and SERVE the public, not to get home safe as a primary consideration
I've spend 5 years with the fire department, and while everything that we do was centered around safety we all knew that there was a very real chance that we might not go home to our families after any call. Nobody wanted to die, nobody was planning on dying, but everybody knew that it was a possibility and everybody was still willing to run into that burning building and risk our life to save that of another. We have all gone to funerals of other firefighters that died in the line of duty, and we (and our families) knew that we could be next. But when the tones went off, we got back on that engine and responded.
Nobody wants to die, but we all knew that we may. I might sound callous, but I expect every fire fighter/cop/soldier to be aware (and accepting of) that possibility.
Our job was never to go home to our family, our hope was to go home to our family.
Someone tries to get physical with her - run first and run fast. But if she can't run, shoot. Sounds more than fair to me.
I agree that the anti-gun crowd won't like that. And I agree that the anti-gun crowd will try to build a case against exactly that mindset. But that's exactly why they are wrong.
Only someone who's actually been attacked will understand.
That said @nuggz - I can understand and perhaps accept that cops should be held to a higher standard.
KiloFiX wrote: Maybe I'm draconian but I feel like if someone is resisting arrest with force (i.e. fighting with cops), then cops shouldn't really have to go out of their way to try to keep that person alive at the risk of their own safety.
Cops want to get back to their families alive too.
Going to have to disagree with you here...LEOs signed up to "protect and serve." It is the job of Law Enforcement to PROTECT and SERVE the public, not to get home safe as a primary consideration, and definitely not to kill them.
There are plenty of people out there who are willing to extort money from you for personal benefit, and who weigh self-preservation very strongly. These people are also known as criminals. If LE expects to be viewed differently from criminals who do basically the same thing but without state-sponsorship and legal legitimacy, they need to accept the fact that they serve the community; the community does not exist for their benefit. If they want to walk around all jocked up on gear and testosterone claiming they have a dangerous job, then let them actually do the dangerous job of protecting the community. As it is, these cases highlight the fact that many are scared children who shoot first and think later, knowing that they'll be protected by the system.
By that logic when someone raises their hand to join the military/police force, they totally disregard their own lives right? Most people I knew who went to Iraq wanted to come home.
You wrote "Law Enforcement to PROTECT and SERVE the public, not to get home safe as a primary consideration, and definitely not to kill them. "
He wrote "Want." Most the cops and soldiers I know want to get home safely. Yes they swore to do their job and they would give their lives to do so. But, at the same time do you think they're fatalistic and don't want to go home at night to their family? That they'd prefer to die doing their job?
KiloFiX wrote: My wife operates under the same principle.
Someone tries to get physical with her - run first and run fast. But if she can't run, shoot. Sounds more than fair to me.
I agree that the anti-gun crowd won't like that. And I agree that the anti-gun crowd will try to build a case against exactly that mindset. But that's exactly why they are wrong.
Only someone who's actually been attacked will understand.
That said @nuggz - I can understand and perhaps accept that cops should be held to a higher standard.
Appreciated...It's my hope that some LEOs will approach their work with that mindset. Judging by blind support by the public for LEOs in questionable shootings, on one hand, and blind criticism of LEO performance by the other side, though, it seems like very few people are genuinely interested in holding them to a fair higher standard.
As it is, if an average Joe shoots somebody, he'll likely face life-changing hardship in terms of legal ramifications even if it's 100% justified. Cops shoot somebody, and it's "well at least he went home safe." I'd like to see LE held to a much higher standard of accountability, especially given the circumstances surrounding shootings. I'd like to see accountability for judges as well. If a judge signs off on a no-knock warrant and the SWAT team hits the wrong house, and somebody dies, throw his ass in jail for first degree murder. After all, he planned (premeditated) an armed raid on an innocent person's home. Once we have real accountability, we will start having real law enforcement that we can trust. As of right now, I have about as much sympathy for the guys I watch getting toasted on Syriatube as I do for US LE. Most of the publicized interactions are more along the lines of, "When A-holes collide."
KiloFiX wrote: Maybe I'm draconian but I feel like if someone is resisting arrest with force (i.e. fighting with cops), then cops shouldn't really have to go out of their way to try to keep that person alive at the risk of their own safety.
Cops want to get back to their families alive too.
Going to have to disagree with you here...LEOs signed up to "protect and serve." It is the job of Law Enforcement to PROTECT and SERVE the public, not to get home safe as a primary consideration
I've spend 5 years with the fire department, and while everything that we do was centered around safety we all knew that there was a very real chance that we might not go home to our families after any call. Nobody wanted to die, nobody was planning on dying, but everybody knew that it was a possibility and everybody was still willing to run into that burning building and risk our life to save that of another. We have all gone to funerals of other firefighters that died in the line of duty, and we (and our families) knew that we could be next. But when the tones went off, we got back on that engine and responded.
Nobody wants to die, but we all knew that we may. I might sound callous, but I expect every fire fighter/cop/soldier to be aware (and accepting of) that possibility.
Our job was never to go home to our family, our hope was to go home to our family.
Thanks for your service d-usa.
Based on your post, I've rethought my previous statements. I understand "Mission fist, people always" too.
I won't likely be changing my own personal priorities anytime soon, but you're a better man than I and perhaps we should all hope that cops are better too.
KiloFiX wrote: Maybe I'm draconian but I feel like if someone is resisting arrest with force (i.e. fighting with cops), then cops shouldn't really have to go out of their way to try to keep that person alive at the risk of their own safety.
Cops want to get back to their families alive too.
Going to have to disagree with you here...LEOs signed up to "protect and serve." It is the job of Law Enforcement to PROTECT and SERVE the public, not to get home safe as a primary consideration, and definitely not to kill them.
There are plenty of people out there who are willing to extort money from you for personal benefit, and who weigh self-preservation very strongly. These people are also known as criminals. If LE expects to be viewed differently from criminals who do basically the same thing but without state-sponsorship and legal legitimacy, they need to accept the fact that they serve the community; the community does not exist for their benefit. If they want to walk around all jocked up on gear and testosterone claiming they have a dangerous job, then let them actually do the dangerous job of protecting the community. As it is, these cases highlight the fact that many are scared children who shoot first and think later, knowing that they'll be protected by the system.
By that logic when someone raises their hand to join the military/police force, they totally disregard their own lives right? Most people I knew who went to Iraq wanted to come home.
You wrote "Law Enforcement to PROTECT and SERVE the public, not to get home safe as a primary consideration, and definitely not to kill them. "
He wrote "Want." Most the cops and soldiers I know want to get home safely. Yes they swore to do their job and they would give their lives to do so. But, at the same time do you think they're fatalistic and don't want to go home at night to their family? That they'd prefer to die doing their job?
Yes and no. At least in the military, you swear an oath to defend your country with your life. I don't know much about what LEOs swear to. The point is that the primary consideration is NOT "getting home safe." I'd much rather see a cop hesitate and take a bullet than shoot an innocent person - THAT would be fulfilling his job. That would legitimate the bragging rights. Right now, the heuristic seems to be, "If the cops shot him, he must have been a bad guy. Let's start digging for dirt."
I agree that the anti-gun crowd won't like that. And I agree that the anti-gun crowd will try to build a case against exactly that mindset. But that's exactly why they are wrong.
And they would be able to point to your post and make a case that you wanted to kill someone and you already said that you are just waiting to "shoot first & ask questions later" without actually worrying if your life is in danger.
I'm not dinging the idea of wanting to defend yourself, including lethal force if needed (I carry), I'm just saying that making a statement that could be interpreted as "I'll kill the next guy that tries to start something" on a public forum might not be in the best interest of gun owners. That's all, didn't mean it as an attack against you or anything like that.
I agree that the anti-gun crowd won't like that. And I agree that the anti-gun crowd will try to build a case against exactly that mindset. But that's exactly why they are wrong.
And they would be able to point to your post and make a case that you wanted to kill someone and you already said that you are just waiting to "shoot first & ask questions later" without actually worrying if your life is in danger.
I'm not dinging the idea of wanting to defend yourself, including lethal force if needed (I carry), I'm just saying that making a statement that could be interpreted as "I'll kill the next guy that tries to start something" on a public forum might not be in the best interest of gun owners. That's all, didn't mean it as an attack against you or anything like that.
Actually I said I would run away first.
I'm not spoiling to draw.
If they prevented me from running and wanted to fight then that's an automatic "my life is in danger".
But I get what you are saying. We are actually on the same page.
KiloFiX wrote: Maybe I'm draconian but I feel like if someone is resisting arrest with force (i.e. fighting with cops), then cops shouldn't really have to go out of there way to try to keep that person alive at the risk of their own safety.
Cops want to get back to their families alive too.
Going to have to disagree with you here...LEOs signed up to "protect and serve." It is the job of Law Enforcement to PROTECT and SERVE the public, not to get home safe as a primary consideration, and definitely not to kill them.
There are plenty of people out there who are willing to extort money from you for personal benefit, and who weigh self-preservation very strongly. These people are also known as criminals. If LE expects to be viewed differently from criminals who do basically the same thing but without state-sponsorship and legal legitimacy, they need to accept the fact that they serve the community; the community does not exist for their benefit. If they want to walk around all jocked up on gear and testosterone claiming they have a dangerous job, then let them actually do the dangerous job of protecting the community. As it is, these cases highlight the fact that many are scared children who shoot first and think later, knowing that they'll be protected by the system.
By that logic when someone raises their hand to join the military/police force, they totally disregard their own lives right? Most people I knew who went to Iraq wanted to come home.
You wrote "Law Enforcement to PROTECT and SERVE the public, not to get home safe as a primary consideration, and definitely not to kill them. "
He wrote "Want." Most the cops and soldiers I know want to get home safely. Yes they swore to do their job and they would give their lives to do so. But, at the same time do you think they're fatalistic and don't want to go home at night to their family? That they'd prefer to die doing their job?
Yes and no. At least in the military, you swear an oath to defend your country with your life. I don't know much about what LEOs swear to. The point is that the primary consideration is NOT "getting home safe." I'd much rather see a cop hesitate and take a bullet than shoot an innocent person - THAT would be fulfilling his job. That would legitimate the bragging rights. Right now, the heuristic seems to be, "If the cops shot him, he must have been a bad guy. Let's start digging for dirt."
Yes and...? Your point? The keyword in question is "want."
Yes soldiers/Marines do swear their lives on the line. I familiar with the process. However the context of that quote is discussing the want/desire to return home to the family. The way the quote was written made it sound as if the job was put first which, it is honestly but, there is still the gnawing feeling of wanting to return home. Something that was not addressed in the quote I replied to.
The way the block of text had been written was that the urge to return home wasn't their or implied to be non-existent. As if when you swear to become a soldier/cop that suddenly your home and family don't matter.
Edit for clarity: I am not entirely disagreeing with you. I agree that the mission comes first but, you do think of home when on the job. As noble as swearing to defend/protect and serve is, the officer/soldier will try to protect themselves with any means possible if it means returning home in a life or death situation.
KiloFiX wrote: Maybe I'm draconian but I feel like if someone is resisting arrest with force (i.e. fighting with cops), then cops shouldn't really have to go out of their way to try to keep that person alive at the risk of their own safety.
Cops want to get back to their families alive too.
Going to have to disagree with you here...LEOs signed up to "protect and serve." It is the job of Law Enforcement to PROTECT and SERVE the public, not to get home safe as a primary consideration, and definitely not to kill them.
There are plenty of people out there who are willing to extort money from you for personal benefit, and who weigh self-preservation very strongly. These people are also known as criminals. If LE expects to be viewed differently from criminals who do basically the same thing but without state-sponsorship and legal legitimacy, they need to accept the fact that they serve the community; the community does not exist for their benefit. If they want to walk around all jocked up on gear and testosterone claiming they have a dangerous job, then let them actually do the dangerous job of protecting the community. As it is, these cases highlight the fact that many are scared children who shoot first and think later, knowing that they'll be protected by the system.
By that logic when someone raises their hand to join the military/police force, they totally disregard their own lives right? Most people I knew who went to Iraq wanted to come home.
You wrote "Law Enforcement to PROTECT and SERVE the public, not to get home safe as a primary consideration, and definitely not to kill them. "
He wrote "Want." Most the cops and soldiers I know want to get home safely. Yes they swore to do their job and they would give their lives to do so. But, at the same time do you think they're fatalistic and don't want to go home at night to their family? That they'd prefer to die doing their job?
Yes and no. At least in the military, you swear an oath to defend your country with your life. I don't know much about what LEOs swear to. The point is that the primary consideration is NOT "getting home safe." I'd much rather see a cop hesitate and take a bullet than shoot an innocent person - THAT would be fulfilling his job. That would legitimate the bragging rights. Right now, the heuristic seems to be, "If the cops shot him, he must have been a bad guy. Let's start digging for dirt."
Yes and...? Your point? The keyword in question is "want."
Yes soldiers/Marines do swear their lives on the line. I familiar with the process. However the context of that quote is discussing the want/desire to return home to the family. The way the quote was written made it sound as if the job was put first which, it is honestly but, there is still the gnawing feeling of wanting to return home. Something that was not addressed in the quote I replied to.
The way the block of text had been written was that the urge to return home wasn't their or implied to be non-existent. As if when you swear to become a soldier/cop that suddenly your home and family don't matter.
It should be non-existent in the extent to which it (a) drives decision making for individuals, and (b) drives decision making for administration. The extent to which it infringes upon those processes should be viewed as error or bad form. As it is, this is not the case at all, and that "want" is reflected in poor decision making by LEOs followed up by poor prosecution by administration because "at least he went home safe."
KiloFiX wrote: Maybe I'm draconian but I feel like if someone is resisting arrest with force (i.e. fighting with cops), then cops shouldn't really have to go out of their way to try to keep that person alive at the risk of their own safety.
Cops want to get back to their families alive too.
Going to have to disagree with you here...LEOs signed up to "protect and serve." It is the job of Law Enforcement to PROTECT and SERVE the public, not to get home safe as a primary consideration, and definitely not to kill them.
There are plenty of people out there who are willing to extort money from you for personal benefit, and who weigh self-preservation very strongly. These people are also known as criminals. If LE expects to be viewed differently from criminals who do basically the same thing but without state-sponsorship and legal legitimacy, they need to accept the fact that they serve the community; the community does not exist for their benefit. If they want to walk around all jocked up on gear and testosterone claiming they have a dangerous job, then let them actually do the dangerous job of protecting the community. As it is, these cases highlight the fact that many are scared children who shoot first and think later, knowing that they'll be protected by the system.
By that logic when someone raises their hand to join the military/police force, they totally disregard their own lives right? Most people I knew who went to Iraq wanted to come home.
You wrote "Law Enforcement to PROTECT and SERVE the public, not to get home safe as a primary consideration, and definitely not to kill them. "
He wrote "Want." Most the cops and soldiers I know want to get home safely. Yes they swore to do their job and they would give their lives to do so. But, at the same time do you think they're fatalistic and don't want to go home at night to their family? That they'd prefer to die doing their job?
Yes and no. At least in the military, you swear an oath to defend your country with your life. I don't know much about what LEOs swear to. The point is that the primary consideration is NOT "getting home safe." I'd much rather see a cop hesitate and take a bullet than shoot an innocent person - THAT would be fulfilling his job. That would legitimate the bragging rights. Right now, the heuristic seems to be, "If the cops shot him, he must have been a bad guy. Let's start digging for dirt."
Yes and...? Your point? The keyword in question is "want."
Yes soldiers/Marines do swear their lives on the line. I familiar with the process. However the context of that quote is discussing the want/desire to return home to the family. The way the quote was written made it sound as if the job was put first which, it is honestly but, there is still the gnawing feeling of wanting to return home. Something that was not addressed in the quote I replied to.
The way the block of text had been written was that the urge to return home wasn't their or implied to be non-existent. As if when you swear to become a soldier/cop that suddenly your home and family don't matter.
It should be non-existent in the extent to which it (a) drives decision making for individuals, and (b) drives decision making for administration. The extent to which it infringes upon those processes should be viewed as error or bad form. As it is, this is not the case at all, and that "want" is reflected in poor decision making by LEOs followed up by poor prosecution by administration because "at least he went home safe."
No, I agree with you on that. But, it is human nature to survive normally.
Not to be puny, or waning poetic... but, the term "walking the thin blue line," comes to mind? These discussions are fascinating to me as I might be swapping my degree so I can become a State trooper.
KiloFiX wrote: My wife operates under the same principle.
Someone tries to get physical with her - run first and run fast. But if she can't run, shoot. Sounds more than fair to me.
I agree that the anti-gun crowd won't like that. And I agree that the anti-gun crowd will try to build a case against exactly that mindset. But that's exactly why they are wrong.
Only someone who's actually been attacked will understand.
That said @nuggz - I can understand and perhaps accept that cops should be held to a higher standard.
See there's your problem. You need to arm your wife like mine, with a van and advanced tactical training that curbs are merely guidelines, to be ignored if inconvenient, like buildings and cars.
Its bad when you have the body shop on speed dial.
