DALLAS (AP) — Multiple gunmen toting automatic weapons opened fire on officers outside Dallas Police headquarters early Saturday morning, before one man fled the scene being chased by police in what witnesses described as an armored van, according to Dallas Police Chief David Brown.
Police said conflicting witness accounts made it difficult to immediately determine how many shooters were involved and authorities were trying to determine a motive. No injuries were reported.
Brown said during a news conference that the shootout began about 12:30 a.m. Saturday, when the suspects parked in front of the building located south of downtown and began firing. He said at least one of the suspects fled the scene in a van that rammed a police cruiser before leading police on a chase that ended in an ongoing standoff at parking lot in the nearby suburb of Hutchins, where additional gunfire was exchanged.
Brown said the suspect driving the van has told officers that he blames police for losing custody of his son and "accusing him of being a terrorist." The gunman also said he had explosives in the van, which appeared to be outfitted with gun ports in the sides.
Brown said negotiations with that suspect and the SWAT unit are ongoing.
Brown said, based on witness accounts, as many as four suspects may have been involved in the original shooting, including some who may have been strategically positioned at elevated positions. Police could not immediately confirm how many shooters were involved and where any additional suspects may be located.
Meanwhile, police said they also found two explosive devices near police headquarters, but all suspected packages have been cleared. Nearby residents were evacuated as a precaution.
Ladarrick Alexander and his fiancée, Laquita Davis, were driving back toward the police station to their nearby apartment when they heard 15 to 20 gunshots in quick succession.
Seconds later, police could be seen swarming an unmarked van that appeared to have crashed into a police car, they said.
They turned around and were parked outside the police perimeter about two blocks away, where they heard the sound of one detonation at about 4:30 am and smoke coming up in the air.
Police headquarters is in a former warehouse district where a boutique hotel and several new apartment buildings have been opened.
"We don't see too much going around here at all," Alexander said.
Mr Oboma and the late attorney general have passed off the notion its ok to do that now. lets see what people think when their police force stops answering calls
Relapse wrote: The situation seems strange indeed. Look for a movie based on it within 6 months.
6 months? We've had that film for about 40 years. It's called assault on precinct 13
Automatically Appended Next Post: Anyway, never a dull moment in Texas.
True. But when did that ever stop a reboot or three?
Have you ever seen Swarm? A film about killer bees attacking Houston
Michael Caine's in it, and for my money, it's probably the best film I've seen featuring Texas
There was a comedian commenting on how Michael Caine is in everything. He said he was looking at his wedding and vacation videos and spotted Michael Caine in them!
Josey4u wrote: Mr Oboma and the late attorney general have passed off the notion its ok to do that now. lets see what people think when their police force stops answering calls
TBH he was courageous and brave. Those two adjectives are not mutually exclusive to "deluded", "crazy", "stupid", or "wrong". Just to Godwin the thread, loads of SS soldiers did really courageous things during WWII, that doesn't change the fact that they were among the most atrocious people of all time.
Brown said the suspect driving the van has told officers that he blames police for losing custody of his son and "accusing him of being a terrorist." The gunman also said he had explosives in the van, which appeared to be outfitted with gun ports in the sides.
Well, if he wasn't a terrorist before, he sure as feth is now.
Josey4u wrote: Mr Oboma and the late attorney general have passed off the notion its ok to do that now. lets see what people think when their police force stops answering calls
Look, just no. I know it's easy and fun to find ways to make the politicians you don't like responsible for everything, but it's also really fething stupid.
Relapse wrote: Courageous and brave, eh? CNN again demonstrates why Fox News wipes the floor with them.
In the same way that Transformers II wipes the floor with Battleship.
Just out of curiosity, this guy Shot at a police station, rammed a police car, threatened cops with automatic weapons and bombs and is currently holed up alone in a van in a parking lot, without any chance of civilian casualties. Is their a reason we can't hold a Texas trial ...by fire. and just blow the van up? I mean we can at least give him the option of getting out first but honestly I couldn't care less if this guy dies, call me a heartless, but eh don't really care.
Clearly this man is having some mental issues, but eh, just shoot him. Most places are cutting mental healthcare funding anyways. Helping people is for the weak!
Perfectly sane people have done all manner of terrible things. And even then, just because someone is insane doesn't mean they shouldn't be countered with lethal force.
Ghazkuul wrote: Just out of curiosity, this guy Shot at a police station, rammed a police car, threatened cops with automatic weapons and bombs and is currently holed up alone in a van in a parking lot, without any chance of civilian casualties. Is their a reason we can't hold a Texas trial ...by fire. and just blow the van up? I mean we can at least give him the option of getting out first but honestly I couldn't care less if this guy dies, call me a heartless, but eh don't really care.
I don’t much care if this guy dies, but I do care if we accept a police force that decides to kill people out of macho stupidity.
Ghazkuul wrote: Just out of curiosity, this guy Shot at a police station, rammed a police car, threatened cops with automatic weapons and bombs and is currently holed up alone in a van in a parking lot, without any chance of civilian casualties. Is their a reason we can't hold a Texas trial ...by fire. and just blow the van up? I mean we can at least give him the option of getting out first but honestly I couldn't care less if this guy dies, call me a heartless, but eh don't really care.
semi auto fire. Listen to the tape. Its semi.
Well looks like a sniper popped him. Alls well that ends well.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: It might be good practice for the police to try some nonlethal methods first?
What non-lethal methods would you recommend for someone who is actively shooting at you?
Thats right, there are none. So unless the suspect suddenly decides to surrender you have no options other than returning fire. It keeps the most people safe.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: It might be good practice for the police to try some nonlethal methods first?
What non-lethal methods would you recommend for someone who is actively shooting at you?
Thats right, there are none. So unless the suspect suddenly decides to surrender you have no options other than returning fire. It keeps the most people safe.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: It might be good practice for the police to try some nonlethal methods first?
What non-lethal methods would you recommend for someone who is actively shooting at you?
Thats right, there are none. So unless the suspect suddenly decides to surrender you have no options other than returning fire. It keeps the most people safe.
exalted for being one of the few people who realize that it is not the job of the police to save the lives of the people actively attempting to Kill them.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: It might be good practice for the police to try some nonlethal methods first?
What non-lethal methods would you recommend for someone who is actively shooting at you?
Thats right, there are none. So unless the suspect suddenly decides to surrender you have no options other than returning fire. It keeps the most people safe.
exalted for being one of the few people who realize that it is not the job of the police to save the lives of the people actively attempting to Kill them.
There's a difference between an active shooter situation(the initial confrontation) and what amounts to a negotiation with a mentally unstable suspect(when he was holed up in his van in an isolated parking lot).
But really, I think your post on the matter says it all when it comes to your POV:
Just out of curiosity, this guy Shot at a police station, rammed a police car, threatened cops with automatic weapons and bombs and is currently holed up alone in a van in a parking lot, without any chance of civilian casualties. Is their a reason we can't hold a Texas trial ...by fire. and just blow the van up? I mean we can at least give him the option of getting out first but honestly I couldn't care less if this guy dies, call me a heartless, but eh don't really care.
When the suspect was "holed up alone in a van in a parking lot without any chance of civilian casualties" would have been the time for police to start launching tear gas at the vehicle after taking out the glass on the vehicle.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: It might be good practice for the police to try some nonlethal methods first?
What non-lethal methods would you recommend for someone who is actively shooting at you?
Thats right, there are none. So unless the suspect suddenly decides to surrender you have no options other than returning fire. It keeps the most people safe.
I must have misread. I thought they had him holed up somewhere where he was effectively boxed in and unable to shoot anyone. If that was the case, I would expect them to wait him out or shoot some sort of tear gas or something at him until he caved. If he was an active danger, then, yes he should be put down as quickly as possible.
Most of the stories I've read lately with the word "Police" in the title tended to share a theme, and apparently this one was an outlier.
Tear gas doesn't work when the guy is in a vehicle, unless your willing to shoot the glass out of the van. of course then he could just you know....drive away. Not to mention that he is still armed and possibly had more explosives with him. To many people view the police as therapists. The job of police is to protect citizens. If you are shooting weapons at people and police and laying bombs you have surrendered your rights as a citizen and a civilian and you have become a target, nothing more. If its possible to detain the target without putting an officers life at risk then by all means make the attempt. This was not one of those situations.
Jihadin wrote:When he got sniped did the individual still have hold of his weapon?
That's a big question that I have yet to see answered.
Ghazkuul wrote:Tear gas doesn't work when the guy is in a vehicle, unless your willing to shoot the glass out of the van. of course then he could just you know....drive away. Not to mention that he is still armed and possibly had more explosives with him. To many people view the police as therapists. The job of police is to protect citizens. If you are shooting weapons at people and police and laying bombs you have surrendered your rights as a citizen and a civilian and you have become a target, nothing more. If its possible to detain the target without putting an officers life at risk then by all means make the attempt. This was not one of those situations.
And yet one of the two Boston Marathon bombers were brought in alive...
Jihadin wrote:When he got sniped did the individual still have hold of his weapon?
That's a big question that I have yet to see answered.
Ghazkuul wrote:Tear gas doesn't work when the guy is in a vehicle, unless your willing to shoot the glass out of the van. of course then he could just you know....drive away. Not to mention that he is still armed and possibly had more explosives with him. To many people view the police as therapists. The job of police is to protect citizens. If you are shooting weapons at people and police and laying bombs you have surrendered your rights as a citizen and a civilian and you have become a target, nothing more. If its possible to detain the target without putting an officers life at risk then by all means make the attempt. This was not one of those situations.
And yet one of the two Boston Marathon bombers were brought in alive...
I want to point out Kan. He already used two smaller explosive devices (IED label not in use in the US of A yet). No one knows if the van was in itself a VBIED ,van rig with explosives Timothy style
Jihadin wrote:When he got sniped did the individual still have hold of his weapon?
That's a big question that I have yet to see answered.
Ghazkuul wrote:Tear gas doesn't work when the guy is in a vehicle, unless your willing to shoot the glass out of the van. of course then he could just you know....drive away. Not to mention that he is still armed and possibly had more explosives with him. To many people view the police as therapists. The job of police is to protect citizens. If you are shooting weapons at people and police and laying bombs you have surrendered your rights as a citizen and a civilian and you have become a target, nothing more. If its possible to detain the target without putting an officers life at risk then by all means make the attempt. This was not one of those situations.
And yet one of the two Boston Marathon bombers were brought in alive...
Your right about the Boston Marathon Bomber being caught...of course he had also been shot at that point by Boston Police and was severely injured an cornered in a small boat and completely surrounded and ohh yeah....surrendered.
SO yes in completely different circumstances its possible for police to arrest an armed suspect without killing him. Congrats on cherry picking though
Jihadin wrote:When he got sniped did the individual still have hold of his weapon?
That's a big question that I have yet to see answered.
Ghazkuul wrote:Tear gas doesn't work when the guy is in a vehicle, unless your willing to shoot the glass out of the van. of course then he could just you know....drive away. Not to mention that he is still armed and possibly had more explosives with him. To many people view the police as therapists. The job of police is to protect citizens. If you are shooting weapons at people and police and laying bombs you have surrendered your rights as a citizen and a civilian and you have become a target, nothing more. If its possible to detain the target without putting an officers life at risk then by all means make the attempt. This was not one of those situations.
And yet one of the two Boston Marathon bombers were brought in alive...
Jihadin wrote:When he got sniped did the individual still have hold of his weapon?
That's a big question that I have yet to see answered.
Ghazkuul wrote:Tear gas doesn't work when the guy is in a vehicle, unless your willing to shoot the glass out of the van. of course then he could just you know....drive away. Not to mention that he is still armed and possibly had more explosives with him. To many people view the police as therapists. The job of police is to protect citizens. If you are shooting weapons at people and police and laying bombs you have surrendered your rights as a citizen and a civilian and you have become a target, nothing more. If its possible to detain the target without putting an officers life at risk then by all means make the attempt. This was not one of those situations.
And yet one of the two Boston Marathon bombers were brought in alive...
Because he surrendered.
After he had been shot, multiple times.
Kanluwen, keep your facepalms. This man had one goal. Kill police officers. He wasn't going to surrender peacefully.
I want to point out Kan. He already used two smaller explosive devices (IED label not in use in the US of A yet). No one knows if the van was in itself a VBIED ,van rig with explosives Timothy style
They shot him while he was in the van; are you really trying to say they haven't inspected the van yet?
Ghazkuul wrote:
Your right about the Boston Marathon Bomber being caught...of course he had also been shot at that point by Boston Police and was severely injured an cornered in a small boat and completely surrounded and ohh yeah....surrendered.
SO yes in completely different circumstances its possible for police to arrest an armed suspect without killing him. Congrats on cherry picking though
The Boston Marathon bomber wasn't armed when arrested.
The point you espoused was:
Ghazkuul wrote:Just out of curiosity, this guy Shot at a police station, rammed a police car, threatened cops with automatic weapons and bombs and is currently holed up alone in a van in a parking lot, without any chance of civilian casualties. Is their a reason we can't hold a Texas trial ...by fire. and just blow the van up? I mean we can at least give him the option of getting out first but honestly I couldn't care less if this guy dies, call me a heartless, but eh don't really care.
Keep saying it was cherry-picking, but if you really want to pretend that it was somehow more appropriate for a police marksman to shoot this guy than it was for them to kill a suspect who ran over his own brother while they were fleeing the police, after detonating multiple devices at a public event and killing/maiming a hell of a lot more people than this idiot did?
I think you might need to go back and actually read what I wrote in reply to your posting.
Grey Templar wrote:
Because he surrendered.
He also wasn't armed, was wounded, and had just killed/maimed a hell of a lot more people(bystanders and civilians at that) than this guy who targeted LEOs did.
Yet Boston's Police Department brought the Boston Marathon suspect in alive to stand trial, but somehow the Great State of Texas can't bring in one guy who parked his van?
djones520 wrote:
After he had been shot, multiple times.
Kanluwen, keep your facepalms. This man had one goal. Kill police officers. He wasn't going to surrender peacefully.
Yet it doesn't change my point. Ghazkuul's post that I initially replied to is a perfect example of the nonsense that commonly gets espoused by police departments to justify excessive violence when bringing in suspects that have targeted LEOs.
Grey Templar wrote: What non-lethal methods would you recommend for someone who is actively shooting at you?
Thats right, there are none. So unless the suspect suddenly decides to surrender you have no options other than returning fire. It keeps the most people safe.
Obviously if he’s in the act of shooting at you at that very moment, or running through the streets and likely to fire at people he comes across you shoot, and shoot straighter than he does.
But real life isn’t like GTA, running gun battles don’t go on for very long. People will naturally hole up in some kind of cover, and from there police will almost always move to containment and negotiation.
I want to point out Kan. He already used two smaller explosive devices (IED label not in use in the US of A yet). No one knows if the van was in itself a VBIED ,van rig with explosives Timothy style
They shot him while he was in the van; are you really trying to say they haven't inspected the van yet?
Ghazkuul wrote:
Your right about the Boston Marathon Bomber being caught...of course he had also been shot at that point by Boston Police and was severely injured an cornered in a small boat and completely surrounded and ohh yeah....surrendered.
SO yes in completely different circumstances its possible for police to arrest an armed suspect without killing him. Congrats on cherry picking though
The Boston Marathon bomber wasn't armed when arrested.
The point you espoused was:
Ghazkuul wrote:Just out of curiosity, this guy Shot at a police station, rammed a police car, threatened cops with automatic weapons and bombs and is currently holed up alone in a van in a parking lot, without any chance of civilian casualties. Is their a reason we can't hold a Texas trial ...by fire. and just blow the van up? I mean we can at least give him the option of getting out first but honestly I couldn't care less if this guy dies, call me a heartless, but eh don't really care.
Keep saying it was cherry-picking, but if you really want to pretend that it was somehow more appropriate for a police marksman to shoot this guy than it was for them to kill a suspect who ran over his own brother while they were fleeing the police, after detonating multiple devices at a public event and killing/maiming a hell of a lot more people than this idiot did?
I think you might need to go back and actually read what I wrote in reply to your posting.
Grey Templar wrote:
Because he surrendered.
He also wasn't armed, was wounded, and had just killed/maimed a hell of a lot more people(bystanders and civilians at that) than this guy who targeted LEOs did.
Yet Boston's Police Department brought the Boston Marathon suspect in alive to stand trial, but somehow the Great State of Texas can't bring in one guy who parked his van?
djones520 wrote:
After he had been shot, multiple times.
Kanluwen, keep your facepalms. This man had one goal. Kill police officers. He wasn't going to surrender peacefully.
Yet it doesn't change my point. Ghazkuul's post that I initially replied to is a perfect example of the nonsense that commonly gets espoused by police departments to justify excessive violence when bringing in suspects that have targeted LEOs.
Im sorry what is your point? because from what I read of your posts you think that its the police officers jobs to die trying to get an armed suspect to give himself up. You tried to compare this situation to the Boston Marathon Bombing suspect getting arrested. You clearly didn't know the circumstances behind his detainment prior to posting that because you started back tracking pretty hard. There is no loss of prestige by admitting you are wrong.
Ghazkuul wrote: exalted for being one of the few people who realize that it is not the job of the police to save the lives of the people actively attempting to Kill them.
The police, very fething obviously, have every right to use lethal force to keep their own lives safe, as well as the lives of civilians. No-one has said otherwise.
Don't really have a huge problem with the way this particular incident was handled, but Kan, don't sweat it, the cops do such a fabulous job of screwing things up on a regular basis that there's no shortage of ammunition available for you to make your point.
Ghazkuul wrote: exalted for being one of the few people who realize that it is not the job of the police to save the lives of the people actively attempting to Kill them.
The police, very fething obviously, have every right to use lethal force to keep their own lives safe, as well as the lives of civilians.
But you appear to be working on the assumption that the idea that once a person has attempted lethal force then they will forever and always be a lethal threat until shot and killed, and that is a very long way from reality. A guy who is lethally dangerous when he comes out of nowhere to fire on a police station is, more often than not, going to end up holed up somewhere. In that situation it is not only the moral thing to attempt to negotiate the guy out, it is often also the safest thing for the officers involved.
It isn’t always going to play out that way, but the claim you’re making here that it is just a case of shoot the guy no circumstances considered is miles away from the reality.
If you read the after action, the target was still being actively aggressive and the decision was made to remove the threat from the public before he tried something else.
As far as my earlier post in regards to your post, yes you can make the attempt to negotiate and bring them in peacefully after the hostile act, but when they "hole up" and are still being aggressive FETH HIM UP!
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Don't really have a huge problem with the way this particular incident was handled, but Kan, don't sweat it, the cops do such a fabulous job of screwing things up on a regular basis that there's no shortage of ammunition available for you to make your point.
And that's one of the biggest reasons why I opted out of going into law enforcement at this point in time, sadly.
Ghazkuul wrote: If you read the after action, the target was still being actively aggressive and the decision was made to remove the threat from the public before he tried something else.
As far as my earlier post in regards to your post, yes you can make the attempt to negotiate and bring them in peacefully after the hostile act, but when they "hole up" and are still being aggressive FETH HIM UP!
Yeah, I edited my post after I read a later comment of yours, and it became clear you were talking only about this case, and recognised in other situations police have other methods. I was too slow on the edit, my bad.
Ghazkuul wrote: If you read the after action, the target was still being actively aggressive and the decision was made to remove the threat from the public before he tried something else.
As far as my earlier post in regards to your post, yes you can make the attempt to negotiate and bring them in peacefully after the hostile act, but when they "hole up" and are still being aggressive FETH HIM UP!
Yeah, I edited my post after I read a later comment of yours, and it became clear you were talking only about this case, and recognised in other situations police have other methods. I was too slow on the edit, my bad.
Not a problem Thank you btw for being mature with your posts its kind of a breath of fresh air in these forums
Ohh, I forgot about that to in regards to the police not fully inspecting the van yet. Trust 2 OEF/OIF veterans when we say you don't rush to inspect vehicle that may be full of HME with random triggers. you let the experts handle that BS
BobtheInquisitor wrote: It might be good practice for the police to try some nonlethal methods first?
What non-lethal methods would you recommend for someone who is actively shooting at you?
Thats right, there are none. So unless the suspect suddenly decides to surrender you have no options other than returning fire. It keeps the most people safe.
exalted for being one of the few people who realize that it is not the job of the police to save the lives of the people actively attempting to Kill them.
It is, though, so I'm not sure why you'd claim otherwise. Sure, if there's no option then take him out, but when all you have is a hammer... Considering the discrepancy between the US number of people shot by cops per capita and the rest of the "West", calling the US police trigger-happy is generous at best.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: It might be good practice for the police to try some nonlethal methods first?
What non-lethal methods would you recommend for someone who is actively shooting at you?
Thats right, there are none. So unless the suspect suddenly decides to surrender you have no options other than returning fire. It keeps the most people safe.
exalted for being one of the few people who realize that it is not the job of the police to save the lives of the people actively attempting to Kill them.
It is, though, so I'm not sure why you'd claim otherwise. Sure, if there's no option then take him out, but when all you have is a hammer... Considering the discrepancy between the US number of people shot by cops per capita and the rest of the "West", calling the US police trigger-happy is generous at best.
It is not the job of the police to try and save a gunmans life when he is actively shooting at a cop or civilian, it is his job to protect civilians. As for the death count, I agree it is to high, but we as a country also face a very unique problem that few other countries have. We are an amalgamation of races, ethnic groups and religions, tension can be high at times and add to that our wonderful border with Mexico which sees running gun battles from time to time and the picture becomes a bit clearer.
If your going off the recent media trend to show every single black person killed by police then I would ask you to read the actual reports of those incidents, so far I think two or three of the 10-15 published nationally so far has shown the police being found guilty of foul play. (which btw I think is 2-3 to many)
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Don't really have a huge problem with the way this particular incident was handled, but Kan, don't sweat it, the cops do such a fabulous job of screwing things up on a regular basis that there's no shortage of ammunition available for you to make your point.
And that's one of the biggest reasons why I opted out of going into law enforcement at this point in time, sadly.
Honestly it's for the best...it's a career for guys who got Cs in high school and played it straight enough to pass the background check. You seem better than that.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Don't really have a huge problem with the way this particular incident was handled, but Kan, don't sweat it, the cops do such a fabulous job of screwing things up on a regular basis that there's no shortage of ammunition available for you to make your point.
And that's one of the biggest reasons why I opted out of going into law enforcement at this point in time, sadly.
Honestly it's for the best...it's a career for guys who got Cs in high school and played it straight enough to pass the background check. You seem better than that.
So because a person chooses to go into law enforcement they must immediately be either average or below average intelligence......that is a great mindset to have. I guess everyone who joins the military just does it because they couldn't get into college or because that was the only job open to them to huh?
BobtheInquisitor wrote: It might be good practice for the police to try some nonlethal methods first?
What non-lethal methods would you recommend for someone who is actively shooting at you?
Thats right, there are none. So unless the suspect suddenly decides to surrender you have no options other than returning fire. It keeps the most people safe.
exalted for being one of the few people who realize that it is not the job of the police to save the lives of the people actively attempting to Kill them.
It is, though, so I'm not sure why you'd claim otherwise. Sure, if there's no option then take him out, but when all you have is a hammer... Considering the discrepancy between the US number of people shot by cops per capita and the rest of the "West", calling the US police trigger-happy is generous at best.
It is not the job of the police to try and save a gunmans life when he is actively shooting at a cop or civilian, it is his job to protect civilians. As for the death count, I agree it is to high, but we as a country also face a very unique problem that few other countries have. We are an amalgamation of races, ethnic groups and religions, tension can be high at times and add to that our wonderful border with Mexico which sees running gun battles from time to time and the picture becomes a bit clearer.
If your going off the recent media trend to show every single black person killed by police then I would ask you to read the actual reports of those incidents, so far I think two or three of the 10-15 published nationally so far has shown the police being found guilty of foul play. (which btw I think is 2-3 to many)
I was actually going to put in a snide remark about how the likely response was going to be "but America's special!", but decided I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. I see now that doing so was an error.
The gunman is part of the public (I'll not go into why categorizing the public as "civilians" is part of the problem, that'd take way too long) that the police is supposed to protect. It becomes a situation where the protection of the greater public outweighs the responsibility to protect the individual, but at no point in this example does the responsibility of the police to protect end.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: It might be good practice for the police to try some nonlethal methods first?
What non-lethal methods would you recommend for someone who is actively shooting at you?
Thats right, there are none. So unless the suspect suddenly decides to surrender you have no options other than returning fire. It keeps the most people safe.
exalted for being one of the few people who realize that it is not the job of the police to save the lives of the people actively attempting to Kill them.
It is, though, so I'm not sure why you'd claim otherwise. Sure, if there's no option then take him out, but when all you have is a hammer... Considering the discrepancy between the US number of people shot by cops per capita and the rest of the "West", calling the US police trigger-happy is generous at best.
It is not the job of the police to try and save a gunmans life when he is actively shooting at a cop or civilian, it is his job to protect civilians. As for the death count, I agree it is to high, but we as a country also face a very unique problem that few other countries have. We are an amalgamation of races, ethnic groups and religions, tension can be high at times and add to that our wonderful border with Mexico which sees running gun battles from time to time and the picture becomes a bit clearer.
If your going off the recent media trend to show every single black person killed by police then I would ask you to read the actual reports of those incidents, so far I think two or three of the 10-15 published nationally so far has shown the police being found guilty of foul play. (which btw I think is 2-3 to many)
I was actually going to put in a snide remark about how the likely response was going to be "but America's special!", but decided I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. I see now that doing so was an error.
The gunman is part of the public (I'll not go into why categorizing the public as "civilians" is part of the problem, that'd take way too long) that the police is supposed to protect. It becomes a situation where the protection of the greater public outweighs the responsibility to protect the individual, but at no point in this example does the responsibility of the police to protect end.
The police should make every effort to save the persons life but not at the risk of their own. You don't join the police force with the intent to die trying to save a gunmans life
As far as your "Snide" remark about America being special. Sweden has a population of around 9million, of which 87% is the same religion and I would venture that somewhere around 95% of the country (if not more) is white. Your racial diversity is you have some finns living their as well. Sweden as a country literally knows nothing about racial, ethnic or religious tensions.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Don't really have a huge problem with the way this particular incident was handled, but Kan, don't sweat it, the cops do such a fabulous job of screwing things up on a regular basis that there's no shortage of ammunition available for you to make your point.
And that's one of the biggest reasons why I opted out of going into law enforcement at this point in time, sadly.
Honestly it's for the best...it's a career for guys who got Cs in high school and played it straight enough to pass the background check. You seem better than that.
So because a person chooses to go into law enforcement they must immediately be either average or below average intelligence......that is a great mindset to have. I guess everyone who joins the military just does it because they couldn't get into college or because that was the only job open to them to huh?
Military service is completely different. Harassing your nation's citizens and generating revenue for politicians to waste while getting jocked up and strutting around pretending like your job is dangerous is far different than protecting your nation's citizens and interests as a silent professional. I think you've got me pegged wrong here...I'm a combat veteran and current DoD research scientist. The military community is essentially my life and my drive to get up in the morning and go to work.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: It might be good practice for the police to try some nonlethal methods first?
What non-lethal methods would you recommend for someone who is actively shooting at you?
Thats right, there are none. So unless the suspect suddenly decides to surrender you have no options other than returning fire. It keeps the most people safe.
exalted for being one of the few people who realize that it is not the job of the police to save the lives of the people actively attempting to Kill them.
It is, though, so I'm not sure why you'd claim otherwise. Sure, if there's no option then take him out, but when all you have is a hammer... Considering the discrepancy between the US number of people shot by cops per capita and the rest of the "West", calling the US police trigger-happy is generous at best.
It is not the job of the police to try and save a gunmans life when he is actively shooting at a cop or civilian, it is his job to protect civilians. As for the death count, I agree it is to high, but we as a country also face a very unique problem that few other countries have. We are an amalgamation of races, ethnic groups and religions, tension can be high at times and add to that our wonderful border with Mexico which sees running gun battles from time to time and the picture becomes a bit clearer.
If your going off the recent media trend to show every single black person killed by police then I would ask you to read the actual reports of those incidents, so far I think two or three of the 10-15 published nationally so far has shown the police being found guilty of foul play. (which btw I think is 2-3 to many)
Hello! I work with the mentall ill(people are probably tired of hearing about that) and did you know, if one of them attacks me with a deadly weapon, if I inflict more harm on them than is required for me to get away safely, I can still be charged and end up in prison? Why are cops special but I am not?
Hello! I work with the mentall ill(people are probably tired of hearing about that) and did you know, if one of them attacks me with a deadly weapon, if I inflict more harm on them than is required for me to get away safely, I can still be charged and end up in prison? Why are cops special but I am not?
We should all get to beat the gak out of the mentally ill! Or let them fight each other on TV!
BobtheInquisitor wrote: It might be good practice for the police to try some nonlethal methods first?
What non-lethal methods would you recommend for someone who is actively shooting at you?
Thats right, there are none. So unless the suspect suddenly decides to surrender you have no options other than returning fire. It keeps the most people safe.
exalted for being one of the few people who realize that it is not the job of the police to save the lives of the people actively attempting to Kill them.
It is, though, so I'm not sure why you'd claim otherwise. Sure, if there's no option then take him out, but when all you have is a hammer... Considering the discrepancy between the US number of people shot by cops per capita and the rest of the "West", calling the US police trigger-happy is generous at best.
It is not the job of the police to try and save a gunmans life when he is actively shooting at a cop or civilian, it is his job to protect civilians. As for the death count, I agree it is to high, but we as a country also face a very unique problem that few other countries have. We are an amalgamation of races, ethnic groups and religions, tension can be high at times and add to that our wonderful border with Mexico which sees running gun battles from time to time and the picture becomes a bit clearer.
If your going off the recent media trend to show every single black person killed by police then I would ask you to read the actual reports of those incidents, so far I think two or three of the 10-15 published nationally so far has shown the police being found guilty of foul play. (which btw I think is 2-3 to many)
I was actually going to put in a snide remark about how the likely response was going to be "but America's special!", but decided I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. I see now that doing so was an error.
The gunman is part of the public (I'll not go into why categorizing the public as "civilians" is part of the problem, that'd take way too long) that the police is supposed to protect. It becomes a situation where the protection of the greater public outweighs the responsibility to protect the individual, but at no point in this example does the responsibility of the police to protect end.
The police should make every effort to save the persons life but not at the risk of their own. You don't join the police force with the intent to die trying to save a gunmans life
As far as your "Snide" remark about America being special. Sweden has a population of around 9million, of which 87% is the same religion and I would venture that somewhere around 95% of the country (if not more) is white. Your racial diversity is you have some finns living their as well. Sweden as a country literally knows nothing about racial, ethnic or religious tensions.
What of Germany? The UK? France?
Then again, considering you clearly know feth-all about Sweden, I doubt this is going anywhere anytime soon.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: It might be good practice for the police to try some nonlethal methods first?
What non-lethal methods would you recommend for someone who is actively shooting at you?
Thats right, there are none. So unless the suspect suddenly decides to surrender you have no options other than returning fire. It keeps the most people safe.
exalted for being one of the few people who realize that it is not the job of the police to save the lives of the people actively attempting to Kill them.
It is, though, so I'm not sure why you'd claim otherwise. Sure, if there's no option then take him out, but when all you have is a hammer... Considering the discrepancy between the US number of people shot by cops per capita and the rest of the "West", calling the US police trigger-happy is generous at best.
It is not the job of the police to try and save a gunmans life when he is actively shooting at a cop or civilian, it is his job to protect civilians. As for the death count, I agree it is to high, but we as a country also face a very unique problem that few other countries have. We are an amalgamation of races, ethnic groups and religions, tension can be high at times and add to that our wonderful border with Mexico which sees running gun battles from time to time and the picture becomes a bit clearer.
If your going off the recent media trend to show every single black person killed by police then I would ask you to read the actual reports of those incidents, so far I think two or three of the 10-15 published nationally so far has shown the police being found guilty of foul play. (which btw I think is 2-3 to many)
I was actually going to put in a snide remark about how the likely response was going to be "but America's special!", but decided I'd give you the benefit of the doubt. I see now that doing so was an error.
The gunman is part of the public (I'll not go into why categorizing the public as "civilians" is part of the problem, that'd take way too long) that the police is supposed to protect. It becomes a situation where the protection of the greater public outweighs the responsibility to protect the individual, but at no point in this example does the responsibility of the police to protect end.
The police should make every effort to save the persons life but not at the risk of their own. You don't join the police force with the intent to die trying to save a gunmans life
As far as your "Snide" remark about America being special. Sweden has a population of around 9million, of which 87% is the same religion and I would venture that somewhere around 95% of the country (if not more) is white. Your racial diversity is you have some finns living their as well. Sweden as a country literally knows nothing about racial, ethnic or religious tensions.
What of Germany? The UK? France?
Then again, considering you clearly know feth-all about Sweden, I doubt this is going anywhere anytime soon.
I was going to write something about tensions in the UK and how that doesn't result in quite as many people dying, but you beat me to it.
Hello! I work with the mentall ill(people are probably tired of hearing about that) and did you know, if one of them attacks me with a deadly weapon, if I inflict more harm on them than is required for me to get away safely, I can still be charged and end up in prison? Why are cops special but I am not?
We should all get to beat the gak out of the mentally ill! Or let them fight each other on TV!
Oh, we already have the MMA. Nevermind...
They tried that once. Hobo Fights or something like that?
BobtheInquisitor wrote: It might be good practice for the police to try some nonlethal methods first?
What non-lethal methods would you recommend for someone who is actively shooting at you?
Thats right, there are none. So unless the suspect suddenly decides to surrender you have no options other than returning fire. It keeps the most people safe.
exalted for being one of the few people who realize that it is not the job of the police to save the lives of the people actively attempting to Kill them.
It is, though, so I'm not sure why you'd claim otherwise. Sure, if there's no option then take him out, but when all you have is a hammer... Considering the discrepancy between the US number of people shot by cops per capita and the rest of the "West", calling the US police trigger-happy is generous at best.
It is not the job of the police to try and save a gunmans life when he is actively shooting at a cop or civilian, it is his job to protect civilians. As for the death count, I agree it is to high, but we as a country also face a very unique problem that few other countries have. We are an amalgamation of races, ethnic groups and religions, tension can be high at times and add to that our wonderful border with Mexico which sees running gun battles from time to time and the picture becomes a bit clearer.
If your going off the recent media trend to show every single black person killed by police then I would ask you to read the actual reports of those incidents, so far I think two or three of the 10-15 published nationally so far has shown the police being found guilty of foul play. (which btw I think is 2-3 to many)
Hello! I work with the mentall ill(people are probably tired of hearing about that) and did you know, if one of them attacks me with a deadly weapon, if I inflict more harm on them than is required for me to get away safely, I can still be charged and end up in prison? Why are cops special but I am not?
I don't know why. Mentally ill people shouldn't receive any special protection if they're trying to hurt you.
If you are attacked, you should always be allowed to do whatever is necessary to protect yourself, including lethal force. Doesn't matter if your attacker is hopped up on drugs, crazy, or just evil.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: It might be good practice for the police to try some nonlethal methods first?
What non-lethal methods would you recommend for someone who is actively shooting at you?
Thats right, there are none. So unless the suspect suddenly decides to surrender you have no options other than returning fire. It keeps the most people safe.
exalted for being one of the few people who realize that it is not the job of the police to save the lives of the people actively attempting to Kill them.
It is, though, so I'm not sure why you'd claim otherwise. Sure, if there's no option then take him out, but when all you have is a hammer... Considering the discrepancy between the US number of people shot by cops per capita and the rest of the "West", calling the US police trigger-happy is generous at best.
It is not the job of the police to try and save a gunmans life when he is actively shooting at a cop or civilian, it is his job to protect civilians. As for the death count, I agree it is to high, but we as a country also face a very unique problem that few other countries have. We are an amalgamation of races, ethnic groups and religions, tension can be high at times and add to that our wonderful border with Mexico which sees running gun battles from time to time and the picture becomes a bit clearer.
If your going off the recent media trend to show every single black person killed by police then I would ask you to read the actual reports of those incidents, so far I think two or three of the 10-15 published nationally so far has shown the police being found guilty of foul play. (which btw I think is 2-3 to many)
Hello! I work with the mentall ill(people are probably tired of hearing about that) and did you know, if one of them attacks me with a deadly weapon, if I inflict more harm on them than is required for me to get away safely, I can still be charged and end up in prison? Why are cops special but I am not?
I don't know why. Mentally ill people shouldn't receive any special protection if they're trying to hurt you.
If you are attacked, you should always be allowed to do whatever is necessary to protect yourself, including lethal force. Doesn't matter if your attacker is hopped up on drugs, crazy, or just evil.
Why should the mentally ill not receive special protection? These are sick people. They have issues and sometimes they cannot control themselves. It is not their fault they were born this way.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Don't really have a huge problem with the way this particular incident was handled, but Kan, don't sweat it, the cops do such a fabulous job of screwing things up on a regular basis that there's no shortage of ammunition available for you to make your point.
And that's one of the biggest reasons why I opted out of going into law enforcement at this point in time, sadly.
Honestly it's for the best...it's a career for guys who got Cs in high school and played it straight enough to pass the background check. You seem better than that.
Asinine remark if I've ever heard one. I'm not going to argue with you because you obviously are slanted and butt hurt in some way or another about police in any nation. Half of my force is OIF, OEF vets who do it because its an honorable job, and get to people when they most need help.
This would be the part where you say I'm slanted in my views because I'm obviously a Jack booted thug / Gestapo, probably pull some poll or statistic out of somehwhere trying to point something out, and maybe say something to the point I wouldn't understand it with my supposed C grades.
Look at it this way. If a dog keeps attacking people, itgets put down. Even if its been a abused to where it doesn't know any better.
Just because someone is crazy doesn't mean its not OK to defend yourself if they attack you. Their state of mind should have no bearing on how you defend yourself. Only once danger has passed and treatment is an option should it be considered. A person with a knife is equally dangerous, and I wouldn't hesitate to kill them if necessary. It wouldn't, and shouldn't, matter if he had Down Syndrome or something.
When your life goes on the line and the individual has the capability of opting you out. You either step up to the plate and remove the threat (if you cannot get away) or prepare to go forward into the next.
As for the the active shooter in the PD Pray and Spray there were to many unknowns involving the van being no one knew what was in the van. All they can see is the modification done to the van but that outside only.
Well, first off Down Syndrome is not a mental illness, it is a mental disability.
Second, if you guys truly believe that, could you get in touch with your senators and congressmen and push for more rights for healthcare workers to defend themselves? Otherwise, everything you said about what we can do to protect ourselves is wrong. In no situation can we kill a client/patient that is trying to kill us.
Dreadwinter wrote: Well, first off Down Syndrome is not a mental illness, it is a mental disability.
Second, if you guys truly believe that, could you get in touch with your senators and congressmen and push for more rights for healthcare workers to defend themselves? Otherwise, everything you said about what we can do to protect ourselves is wrong. In no situation can we kill a client/patient that is trying to kill us.
Shouldn't you be in a position where its not possible for your patients to be able to kill you besides bear hands.?
Dreadwinter wrote: Well, first off Down Syndrome is not a mental illness, it is a mental disability.
Second, if you guys truly believe that, could you get in touch with your senators and congressmen and push for more rights for healthcare workers to defend themselves? Otherwise, everything you said about what we can do to protect ourselves is wrong. In no situation can we kill a client/patient that is trying to kill us.
Shouldn't you be in a position where its not possible for your patients to be able to kill you besides bear hands.?
No? I work in a home that rehabilitates the mentally ill back in to the community. We teach life skills like cooking. Ever tried to cook without a knife?
Dreadwinter wrote: Well, first off Down Syndrome is not a mental illness, it is a mental disability.
Second, if you guys truly believe that, could you get in touch with your senators and congressmen and push for more rights for healthcare workers to defend themselves? Otherwise, everything you said about what we can do to protect ourselves is wrong. In no situation can we kill a client/patient that is trying to kill us.
Shouldn't you be in a position where its not possible for your patients to be able to kill you besides bear hands.?
No? I work in a home that rehabilitates the mentally ill back in to the community. We teach life skills like cooking. Ever tried to cook without a knife?
Well if that be what you are doing then good luck.
Dreadwinter wrote: Thanks! That is the highest level of support I have received on the subject. Most people just laugh and tell me I am stupid for even trying to help.
To be fair a friend of mine works with mental youth and they are trained to deal with it a bit. he still comes out with scratches and bite marks.
Dreadwinter wrote: Well, first off Down Syndrome is not a mental illness, it is a mental disability.
Second, if you guys truly believe that, could you get in touch with your senators and congressmen and push for more rights for healthcare workers to defend themselves? Otherwise, everything you said about what we can do to protect ourselves is wrong. In no situation can we kill a client/patient that is trying to kill us.
Shouldn't you be in a position where its not possible for your patients to be able to kill you besides bear hands.?
Why should the mentally ill not receive special protection? These are sick people. They have issues and sometimes they cannot control themselves. It is not their fault they were born this way.
That only matters if you ahve volunteered to work with them. Otherwise to me and my family they are as much a threat as anyone else.
Dreadwinter wrote: Thanks! That is the highest level of support I have received on the subject. Most people just laugh and tell me I am stupid for even trying to help.
To be fair a friend of mine works with mental youth and they are trained to deal with it a bit. he still comes out with scratches and bite marks.
That is not shocking at all. I work with older people, 18+, and many of them are still going to court for violent offenses. It is always nice taking a person to court for assault and battery and their explanation of why they did it was "they looked at me funny"
Dreadwinter wrote: Well, first off Down Syndrome is not a mental illness, it is a mental disability.
Second, if you guys truly believe that, could you get in touch with your senators and congressmen and push for more rights for healthcare workers to defend themselves? Otherwise, everything you said about what we can do to protect ourselves is wrong. In no situation can we kill a client/patient that is trying to kill us.
Shouldn't you be in a position where its not possible for your patients to be able to kill you besides bear hands.?
No? I work in a home that rehabilitates the mentally ill back in to the community. We teach life skills like cooking. Ever tried to cook without a knife?
Then quit. You volunteered to work with them. Thats on you.
Dreadwinter wrote: Well, first off Down Syndrome is not a mental illness, it is a mental disability.
Second, if you guys truly believe that, could you get in touch with your senators and congressmen and push for more rights for healthcare workers to defend themselves? Otherwise, everything you said about what we can do to protect ourselves is wrong. In no situation can we kill a client/patient that is trying to kill us.
Shouldn't you be in a position where its not possible for your patients to be able to kill you besides bear hands.?
No? I work in a home that rehabilitates the mentally ill back in to the community. We teach life skills like cooking. Ever tried to cook without a knife?
I was involved in a situation very similar to yours, individual had severe Autism and had been released to his family unit again, while there he tried to gouge out the eyes of a Mental health worker, and then bit his mother.
By the time I got there he barricaded himself in his room, me and a partner kicked the door down and had to pretty much wrestle this man (Who was displaying that special kind of strength, you know what I'm talking about ) using arm bars/twists, and application of knee strikes for distraction until I was able to get him into restraints.
I then transported him to a hospital for another mental evaluation, where he was then admitted to another hospital where he will once again get released to the public in about 6-8 weeks, and I'll probably end up dealing with him 3-4 weeks after that again.
I did not arrest his mother, or the social worker for defending themselves.
The state of the mental health system is very poor, which is in no way a reflection of the work you do, but more of a way the government and society look at it. Personally I am of the belief that some individuals can not be repaired. But without the re institution of mental hospitals, its becoming more and more a "Lets call the Police to fix this" which is not a police issue. Police are not psychiatrist, they make poor social workers, due highly in the fact Police do not have the time to stay and focus on an individual problem for long periods of time. There are shootings, stabbings, larcenies, car thefts, break ins, missing children/people calls that require police attention, and each of those is just as important as the next. (minus the "Someone stole a candy bar, get it back, but I don't want to go to court for it" larcenies)
Dreadwinter wrote: Well, first off Down Syndrome is not a mental illness, it is a mental disability.
Second, if you guys truly believe that, could you get in touch with your senators and congressmen and push for more rights for healthcare workers to defend themselves? Otherwise, everything you said about what we can do to protect ourselves is wrong. In no situation can we kill a client/patient that is trying to kill us.
Shouldn't you be in a position where its not possible for your patients to be able to kill you besides bear hands.?
No? I work in a home that rehabilitates the mentally ill back in to the community. We teach life skills like cooking. Ever tried to cook without a knife?
I was involved in a situation very similar to yours, individual had severe Autism and had been released to his family unit again, while there he tried to gouge out the eyes of a Mental health worker, and then bit his mother.
By the time I got there he barricaded himself in his room, me and a partner kicked the door down and had to pretty much wrestle this man (Who was displaying that special kind of strength, you know what I'm talking about ) using arm bars/twists, and application of knee strikes for distraction until I was able to get him into restraints.
I then transported him to a hospital for another mental evaluation, where he was then admitted to another hospital where he will once again get released to the public in about 6-8 weeks, and I'll probably end up dealing with him 3-4 weeks after that again.
I did not arrest his mother, or the social worker for defending themselves.
That is not your call. It will go to OIG now since the incident will have to be reported by the healthcare worker.
Dreadwinter wrote: Well, first off Down Syndrome is not a mental illness, it is a mental disability.
Second, if you guys truly believe that, could you get in touch with your senators and congressmen and push for more rights for healthcare workers to defend themselves? Otherwise, everything you said about what we can do to protect ourselves is wrong. In no situation can we kill a client/patient that is trying to kill us.
Shouldn't you be in a position where its not possible for your patients to be able to kill you besides bear hands.?
No? I work in a home that rehabilitates the mentally ill back in to the community. We teach life skills like cooking. Ever tried to cook without a knife?
Then quit. You volunteered to work with them. Thats on you.
Who will do it then? Somebody needs to help them, otherwise they will just end up in prison for something that can be helped or fixed.
What you are saying is that its my fault for getting hit and having nothing in place legally to protect me?
That is not your call. It will go to OIG now since the incident will have to be reported by the healthcare worker.
Sounds like a hostile work environment. Are you suggesting the police work in the same kind of enviroment. That would lead to:
"I'm sorry social worker, I would love to help, but I can't use force on the subject, otherwise I go to jail. Good luck getting him under control."
No, I am suggesting that laws need to be changed to bring everything to the same area. Why can a police officer defend himself but I cannot?
Example: If a person is on top of me choking me and I punch them in the face and they fall off, I cannot strike them again. I cannot even try to restrain them. I have to attempt to get away from them. They can just get up and try again and I can only defend myself to the point where I can get away from them. If it is a police officer in the situation, they are allowed to use lethal force.
Who will do it then? Somebody needs to help them, otherwise they will just end up in prison for something that can be helped or fixed.
What you are saying is that its my fault for getting hit and having nothing in place legally to protect me?
Where I patrol, we don't take mental individuals to jail, unless they do something like stealing (which isn't up to me, its up to the victim if they want to pursue charges) or incidents of serious bodily harm (breaks someones arms, stabs someone, etc)
Most times involving mental patients result in me deciding whether or not he's a danger to himself, or others, and if its due to his disability. If so, such individuals are detained and taken to a hospital for an evaluation by a psychiatrists, who then decides whether or not to hold him for a longer period of time.
That is not your call. It will go to OIG now since the incident will have to be reported by the healthcare worker.
Sounds like a hostile work environment. Are you suggesting the police work in the same kind of enviroment. That would lead to:
"I'm sorry social worker, I would love to help, but I can't use force on the subject, otherwise I go to jail. Good luck getting him under control."
No, I am suggesting that laws need to be changed to bring everything to the same area. Why can a police officer defend himself but I cannot?
Example: If a person is on top of me choking me and I punch them in the face and they fall off, I cannot strike them again. I cannot even try to restrain them. I have to attempt to get away from them. They can just get up and try again and I can only defend myself to the point where I can get away from them. If it is a police officer in the situation, they are allowed to use lethal force.
Me and you are in agreement on this. There is no reason why you should be left defenseless in the face of a dangerous subject. That's just one more reason to believe the mental health system is broken in the US.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: Don't really have a huge problem with the way this particular incident was handled, but Kan, don't sweat it, the cops do such a fabulous job of screwing things up on a regular basis that there's no shortage of ammunition available for you to make your point.
And that's one of the biggest reasons why I opted out of going into law enforcement at this point in time, sadly.
Honestly it's for the best...it's a career for guys who got Cs in high school and played it straight enough to pass the background check. You seem better than that.
So because a person chooses to go into law enforcement they must immediately be either average or below average intelligence......that is a great mindset to have. I guess everyone who joins the military just does it because they couldn't get into college or because that was the only job open to them to huh?
In the United States, Local Law Enforcement Agencies have an unofficial policy that discriminates against more intelligent applicants.
There was a Supreme Court Case over this issue, where an applicant to a Police Dept. was denied a job because (and this is what the Police Dept. SAID): "He was too smart/intelligent."
The Supreme Court ruled that Police Dept.s CAN DISCRIMINATE based upon Intelligence (specifically, HIGH intelligence).
This seems to be roughly opposite of the Federal Law Enforcement Hiring Practices, where they prefer to have hires be as intelligent as possible.
Why can a police officer defend himself but I cannot?
LEOs in America have done a fantastic job propagating the lie that they have the most dangerous job in the US. You tend to see people parroting phrases like, "If you haven't done that job, you don't understand." This kind of attitude abrogates the possibility of meaningful discourse. In reality, pizza delivery boys deserve more respect for doing a more dangerous job according to violent crime statistics, and law enforcement doesn't even rate in the top 10 for most dangerous in terms of death and injury.
In the United States, Local Law Enforcement Agencies have an unofficial policy that discriminates against more intelligent applicants.
There was a Supreme Court Case over this issue, where an applicant to a Police Dept. was denied a job because (and this is what the Police Dept. SAID): "He was too smart/intelligent."
The Supreme Court ruled that Police Dept.s CAN DISCRIMINATE based upon Intelligence (specifically, HIGH intelligence).
This seems to be roughly opposite of the Federal Law Enforcement Hiring Practices, where they prefer to have hires be as intelligent as possible.
MB
I do not know why they wouldn't hire for high Intelligence, but I will not refute that this did happen.
I will refute the part about ALL local law enforcement agencies have this policy. That's a very broad assertation.
Why can a police officer defend himself but I cannot?
LEOs in America have done a fantastic job propagating the lie that they have the most dangerous job in the US. You tend to see people parroting phrases like, "If you haven't done that job, you don't understand." This kind of attitude abrogates the possibility of meaningful discourse. In reality, pizza delivery boys deserve more respect for doing a more dangerous job according to violent crime statistics, and law enforcement doesn't even rate in the top 10 for most dangerous in terms of death and injury.
I wouldn't say that policing is the most dangerous job in the world, but it is still dangerous with the amount of violent calls that we respond to.
The saving grace is that most criminals realize that the police officer, unlike the poor pizza delivery driver, has a fire arm and is willing to defend himself, making him a poor victim, while the pizza driver is a more likely victim due to his vulnerability.
Saying my job isn't dangerous is almost the equivalent of saying that a fireman's job isn't dangerous, even though he runs into burning buildings.
Also, just to inform people (who might not live in the USA, or be aware of this fact):
Another Supreme Court Ruling removed the responsibility of the Police to Protect the population, and ruled that their responsibility is ONLY to enforce the laws, and they only have a duty to protect themselves in that process.
This was yet another brilliant ruling of the Supreme Court (I cannot recall, but it does sound like a Roberts' Court decision).
It is likely, given current trends, that it, and the ability to discriminate based upon intelligence will be overturned in the next administration, when it is expected that the Supreme Court's Balanese will shift back to the left with the retirement of two to four Justices (half of which are notorious Conservatives who have made rather outlandish statements regarding their beliefs, and were similarly responsible for the more outlandish rulings).
In the case of the guy in Dallas, it would have been extraordinarily difficult to take him alive. His mental state was such that he was not going to surrender, which would have been the largest chance of taking him alive. And given his preparations, it was not likely that he was going to be wounded sufficiently to be taken into captivity.
Personally, the world is better off without him in it, given everything we are discovering about him, and time and money will be saved on a pointless trial, and then imprisonment of a man who was beyond help.
BeAfraid wrote: Also, just to inform people (who might not live in the USA, or be aware of this fact):
Another Supreme Court Ruling removed the responsibility of the Police to Protect the population, and ruled that their responsibility is ONLY to enforce the laws, and they only have a duty to protect themselves in that process.
MB
You know there is a reason why that ruling happened. There are times police can not respond within seconds, and a person does die, or hurt badly. They ruled it that way so the departments wouldn't get sued every time someone got hurt or killed.
It came about I believe over a neighbor calling about her hearing someone scuffeling in the apartment above her, police responded but heard nothing, they went through the surrounding alleys and didn't find anything out of the ordinary, and everything was quiet at the apartment when they arrived. So they left.
The next day or so the neighbor was found dead after she had been raped repeatedly
Sure they could have kicked the door down, but they would have been in trouble for that, possibly sued, or lost thier job if there was nothing going on in the apartment.
BeAfraid wrote: Also, just to inform people (who might not live in the USA, or be aware of this fact):
Another Supreme Court Ruling removed the responsibility of the Police to Protect the population, and ruled that their responsibility is ONLY to enforce the laws, and they only have a duty to protect themselves in that process.
MB
You know there is a reason why that ruling happened. There are times police can not respond within seconds, and a person does die, or hurt badly. They ruled it that way so the departments wouldn't get sued every time someone got hurt or killed.
It came about I believe over a neighbor calling about her hearing someone scuffeling in the apartment above her, police responded but heard nothing, they went through the surrounding alleys and didn't find anything out of the ordinary, and everything was quiet at the apartment when they arrived. So they left.
The next day or so the neighbor was found dead after she had been raped repeatedly
Sure they could have kicked the door down, but they would have been in trouble for that, possibly sued, or lost thier job if there was nothing going on in the apartment.
Seriously, what did you want them to do?
It is an overly narrow ruling that went beyond a simple recognition that the Police Cannot be everywhere.
BeAfraid wrote: Also, just to inform people (who might not live in the USA, or be aware of this fact):
Another Supreme Court Ruling removed the responsibility of the Police to Protect the population, and ruled that their responsibility is ONLY to enforce the laws, and they only have a duty to protect themselves in that process.
MB
You know there is a reason why that ruling happened. There are times police can not respond within seconds, and a person does die, or hurt badly. They ruled it that way so the departments wouldn't get sued every time someone got hurt or killed.
It came about I believe over a neighbor calling about her hearing someone scuffeling in the apartment above her, police responded but heard nothing, they went through the surrounding alleys and didn't find anything out of the ordinary, and everything was quiet at the apartment when they arrived. So they left.
The next day or so the neighbor was found dead after she had been raped repeatedly
Sure they could have kicked the door down, but they would have been in trouble for that, possibly sued, or lost thier job if there was nothing going on in the apartment.
Seriously, what did you want them to do?
It is an overly narrow ruling that went beyond a simple recognition that the Police Cannot be everywhere.
MB
You didn't answer the question. What exactly is it you want the police to do?
The ruling exists because some individuals think police have x-ray vision, can see heat waves, know everyone on a block on a first name basis, have an unlimited amount of time to work a call, and can be anywhere at anytime.
They think that because they were hurt before the police arrived the police didn't do everything they could so should be held liable. Thats why that ruling happened.
Police are people too, and they also have a right to come back alive from work. The USA is a very gun-happy country where even the smallest criminal might feel the need to have a cheap gun. Most police officers killed in the line of duty never even managed to pull their gun so the living ones don't take chances (even if the death count is small compared to the number of police). And there's the death penalty in many states - if your crime is already enough to send you to death row there's no reason to hold back.
Things are going to be very different compared to places like, oh, my native Finland where armed criminals are routinely subdued without the police firing a single shot. They know the police want them alive, and even the most heinous crime won't mean they're condemned to death. And to be fair, many killings over here are drinking buddies getting into a fight over the last alcohol - the perpetrator turns himself in the next day when he wakes up.
BeAfraid wrote: Also, just to inform people (who might not live in the USA, or be aware of this fact):
Another Supreme Court Ruling removed the responsibility of the Police to Protect the population, and ruled that their responsibility is ONLY to enforce the laws, and they only have a duty to protect themselves in that process.
MB
You know there is a reason why that ruling happened. There are times police can not respond within seconds, and a person does die, or hurt badly. They ruled it that way so the departments wouldn't get sued every time someone got hurt or killed.
It came about I believe over a neighbor calling about her hearing someone scuffeling in the apartment above her, police responded but heard nothing, they went through the surrounding alleys and didn't find anything out of the ordinary, and everything was quiet at the apartment when they arrived. So they left.
The next day or so the neighbor was found dead after she had been raped repeatedly
Sure they could have kicked the door down, but they would have been in trouble for that, possibly sued, or lost thier job if there was nothing going on in the apartment.
Seriously, what did you want them to do?
It is an overly narrow ruling that went beyond a simple recognition that the Police Cannot be everywhere.
MB
You didn't answer the question. What exactly is it you want the police to do?
The ruling exists because some individuals think police have x-ray vision, can see heat waves, know everyone on a block on a first name basis, have an unlimited amount of time to work a call, and can be anywhere at anytime.
They think that because they were hurt before the police arrived the police didn't do everything they could so should be held liable. Thats why that ruling happened.
That is a too broad and ambiguous of a question to answer without being also unnecessarily broad and ambiguous.
But, simply:
To behave as do the police of the rest of the Civilized World and not take to shooting people at the drop of a hat.
That might be a good start.
And, to continue the trend (since I am not confined to my iPad, today, but have access to an actual computer):
To point out that even cops in the USA acknowledge that there is a problem (and that their answers to this survey fall in line with the arguments about an Arms Race I mentioned in the thread on the company trying to publish instructions for building 3D printed firearms - the "2nd Amendment" thread, and contradict the NRA's attitudes about having an armed population making the nation safer):
Policing in America: What the cops say http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/04/policing-america
These articles might be instructive for what I expect out of the Police.
And, to add a few other points:
• I expect our government to stop making Social Issues Criminal Justice Issues (Homelessness, Drug Use or Abuse - two separate things, one a problem, the other not, Mental Health issues, Poverty, etc.)
• I expect our government to reverse the trend toward privatization. some things SHOULD BE EXPENSIVE to a society. Criminals in our society SHOULD be an economic burden that should NOT be allowed as a source of profit for anyone. Doing so places expectations on the police to be a revenue stream.
• I expect the police to be involved with Protecting and Serving the population in a way that is not using that population to generate revenue, and thus delivering "quotas" to police for writing tickets, or making arrests.
Using the excuse "The Police cannot be everywhere" does not excuse the police from protecting the population when the police ARE present, which is what has been done with the ruling in question. It has excused the police from protecting the population.
In the Rest of the world officers are expected to place their own safety BELOW that of the population surrounding them.
If police are really going to claim that they are working for the public's good, then they need to prioritize the public's safety, and not their own (please do not try to deflect this responsibility with some sort of waffling strawman that unless the police have a modicum of safety they cannot do their job. Doing this is pretending to not know what the word "Prioritize" means).
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spetulhu wrote: Police are people too, and they also have a right to come back alive from work. The USA is a very gun-happy country where even the smallest criminal might feel the need to have a cheap gun. Most police officers killed in the line of duty never even managed to pull their gun so the living ones don't take chances (even if the death count is small compared to the number of police). And there's the death penalty in many states - if your crime is already enough to send you to death row there's no reason to hold back.
Things are going to be very different compared to places like, oh, my native Finland where armed criminals are routinely subdued without the police firing a single shot. They know the police want them alive, and even the most heinous crime won't mean they're condemned to death. And to be fair, many killings over here are drinking buddies getting into a fight over the last alcohol - the perpetrator turns himself in the next day when he wakes up.
This is what I was referring to in another thread as the ongoing Arms Race in the US population.
Various actors/agents in the USA push for "More guns! More Guns!" as their solution to all problems (such as the recent law in Texas allowing Carrying of firearms in Universities, or the proliferation of Open Carry laws in the less civilized states). Yet doing this puts the Police in a situation where their lives are under an exponentially greater threat.
They are more likely to be in a situation where a routine confrontation could go off-the-rails due to an armed citizen in that encounter making a mistake, or simply looking for a fight, which now becomes deadly.
Armed Police are also another problem, as any altercation with the Police automatically becomes a case of the police having to protect their weapon so that it cannot be used against them (which is why most other countries only arm specific officers, and leave routine patrol officers unarmed).
BeAfraid wrote: Armed Police are also another problem, as any altercation with the Police automatically becomes a case of the police having to protect their weapon so that it cannot be used against them.
All our patrol officers are armed, but few ever have to pull their guns. I can't recall a single case of someone taking the officer's weapon to use against him and we're a nation that still has general conscription for males - if you meet a Finnish male it's about 90% sure that he knows how to use a firearm.
Ofc, we also have really few armed criminals. It's only when you get up to the level of bank robber or major drug dealer that you have to think of getting a weapon, which is pretty odd seeing as we also have a lot of hunting guns. I've got a gun safe right next to me with my father's and brother's .308 rifles and 12 gauge shotguns (and my own .22 plinking rifle) but that's not something I'd think about if a burglar broke in at night. I'd just grab a big knife and ask him to leave, and chances are he'd have no weapon of his own besides the crowbar he used to get in.
BeAfraid wrote: Armed Police are also another problem, as any altercation with the Police automatically becomes a case of the police having to protect their weapon so that it cannot be used against them.
All our patrol officers are armed, but few ever have to pull their guns. I can't recall a single case of someone taking the officer's weapon to use against him and we're a nation that still has general conscription for males - if you meet a Finnish male it's about 90% sure that he knows how to use a firearm.
Ofc, we also have really few armed criminals. It's only when you get up to the level of bank robber or major drug dealer that you have to think of getting a weapon, which is pretty odd seeing as we also have a lot of hunting guns. I've got a gun safe right next to me with my father's and brother's .308 rifles and 12 gauge shotguns (and my own .22 plinking rifle) but that's not something I'd think about if a burglar broke in at night. I'd just grab a big knife and ask him to leave, and chances are he'd have no weapon of his own besides the crowbar he used to get in.
But as a society, you have roughly a percentage of the number of guns as the USA, per capita.
And you have no "Gun Culture" that centers around a belief that Gun Ownership is as basic a right as "Speech" or "Religion."
You seriously believe police shoot civilians at the drop of a hat?
I see you showed graphs and statistics, I can only tell you what I see, and do on my own.
- In my city we haven't shot anyone who hasn't pointed a weapon at us, and no we didn't wait for them to actually shoot/stab us first
- We don't arrest the homeless and mentally Ill (unless they have committed an act of violence or other crime within my presence)
- We actively do foot patrols in our most crime ridden neighborhoods time allowing (which isn't alot, we ran 300,000 calls last year and we only have 15-18 patrol officers on duty for a city of 100,000)
- We transport Over dose victims to a hospital. To save them. We'll ask questions on who their supplier is though, sure they've made an idiotic decision, but jailing them is pointless.
- Quotas don't exist where I work.
- We do stop crime if it happens near us, but it usually never happens near us amazingly enough. We definitely wont let anyone get hurt near us if we can help it.
Sorry to break it to you, but if there is only 1 of me, and 6 gangsters shooting at someone, I'm not jumping in front of the bullets, I'll try and get people out of the way, shoot some shots to get them to duck, but I am not going to get myself killed. That's like asking soldiers to mindlessly walk into a firezone over and over again.
We do have points of agreement.
-Privatization is bad, the whole privatizing of the jails does not motivate the jails to rehabilitate, which is a MAJOR problem. But they get paid per head.
-Police as a revenue stream is wrong, most of that is pressure from the politicians working its way down to try and make up for a declining tax base, or one of their pet projects. I highly doubt police officers enjoy doing that work. I know I don't. Infact we get bitched at alot because we don't write any tickets (we point out we are dealing with the above 300,000 calls and dont have time for tickets)
I'm not going to argue with you. Maybe some areas are like this, I doubt most are. I've told you the ruling exists to stop a flow of individuals suing police departments, cities, and police officer themselves in situations that were probably impossible to stop in a legal manner, or in a just common sense manner.
Infact we get bitched at alot because we don't write any tickets (we point out we are dealing with the above 300,000 calls and dont have time for tickets)
You don't have quotas, yet get bitched at for not writing tickets? sounds like you don't know that there is a quota, and you're not meeting it.
Hello! I work with the mentall ill(people are probably tired of hearing about that) and did you know, if one of them attacks me with a deadly weapon, if I inflict more harm on them than is required for me to get away safely, I can still be charged and end up in prison? Why are cops special but I am not?
And you signed up for your job knowing you would be working with a population 100% FETHING Looney. The cops signed up to enforce laws, not stop the mentally ill or psychotic from getting hurt from their actions.
A cops #1 job is to protect civilians if at all possible. If a citizens arms himself with guns and explosives he has stopped being a civilian and has become an active combatant.
If you have a mentally ill person walk into your clinic with a gun and a bomb I think the amount of harm you need to inflict would be death. but hey if you can distract him with a laser pointer then more power to you.
Hello! I work with the mentall ill(people are probably tired of hearing about that) and did you know, if one of them attacks me with a deadly weapon, if I inflict more harm on them than is required for me to get away safely, I can still be charged and end up in prison? Why are cops special but I am not?
And you signed up for your job knowing you would be working with a population 100% FETHING Looney. The cops signed up to enforce laws, not stop the mentally ill or psychotic from getting hurt from their actions.
A cops #1 job is to protect civilians if at all possible. If a citizens arms himself with guns and explosives he has stopped being a civilian and has become an active combatant.
If you have a mentally ill person walk into your clinic with a gun and a bomb I think the amount of harm you need to inflict would be death. but hey if you can distract him with a laser pointer then more power to you.
So, blame the victim? It is my fault that my job does not give me the proper rights to defend myself?
I guess all of the mental health workers should quit and find better jobs. We can leave the people who do not understand how to work in society to the police. They have a nice cleanup policy for that.
Thanks for not being politically correct and incredibly offensive towards people who were born less fortunate than you and in most cases cannot control their actions. You are a shining star of America.
BeAfraid wrote: Also, just to inform people (who might not live in the USA, or be aware of this fact):
Another Supreme Court Ruling removed the responsibility of the Police to Protect the population, and ruled that their responsibility is ONLY to enforce the laws, and they only have a duty to protect themselves in that process.
If I recall correctly it's very similar in the UK.
Self-Reliance For Self-Defense -- Police Protection Isn't Enough!
All our lives, especially during our younger years, we hear that the police are there to protect us. From the very first kindergarten- class visit of "Officer Friendly" to the very last time we saw a police car - most of which have "To Protect and Serve" emblazoned on their doors - we're encouraged to give ourselves over to police protection. But it hasn't always been that way.
Before the mid-1800s, American and British citizens - even in large cities - were expected to protect themselves and each other. Indeed, they were legally required to pursue and attempt to apprehend criminals. The notion of a police force in those days was abhorrent in England and America, where liberals viewed it as a form of the dreaded "standing army."
England's first police force, in London, was not instituted until 1827. The first such forces in America followed in New York, Boston, and Philadelphia during the period between 1835 and 1845. They were established only to augment citizen self-protection. It was never intended that they act affirmatively, prior to or during criminal activity or violence against individual citizens. Their duty was to protect society as a whole by deterrence; i.e., by systematically patrolling, detecting and apprehending criminals after the occurrence of crimes. There was no thought of police displacing the citizens' right of self-protection. Nor could they, even if it were intended.
Professor Don B. Kates, Jr., eminent civil rights lawyer and criminologist, states:
Even if all 500,000 American police officers were assigned to patrol, they could not protect 240 million citizens from upwards of 10 million criminals who enjoy the luxury of deciding when and where to strike. But we have nothing like 500,000 patrol officers; to determine how many police are actually available for any one shift, we must divide the 500,000 by four (three shifts per day, plus officers who have days off, are on sick leave, etc.). The resulting number must be cut in half to account for officers assigned to investigations, juvenile, records, laboratory, traffic, etc., rather than patrol. [1]
Such facts are underscored by the practical reality of today's society. Police and Sheriff's departments are feeling the financial exigencies of our times, and that translates directly to a reduction of services, e.g., even less protection. For example, one moderate day recently (September 23, 1991) the San Francisco Police Department "dropped" [2] 157 calls to its 911 facility, and about 1,000 calls to its general telephone number (415-553-0123). An SFPD dispatcher said that 150 dropped 911 calls, and 1,000 dropped general number calls, are about average on any given day. [3]
It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized for what it is: only an auxiliary general deterrent.
Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special cases, explained below). Despite a long history of such failed attempts, however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails. Legal annals abound with such cases.
Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."
The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]
In the Warren case the injured parties sued the District of Columbia under its own laws for failing to protect them. Most often such cases are brought in state (or, in the case of Warren, D.C.) courts for violation of state statutes, because federal law pertaining to these matters is even more onerous. But when someone does sue under federal law, it is nearly always for violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (often inaccurately referred to as "the civil rights act"). Section 1983 claims are brought against government officials for allegedly violating the injured parties' federal statutory or Constitutional rights.
The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. [6] Frequently these cases are based on an alleged "special relationship" between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had "specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger," [7] but failed to remove him from his father's custody.
The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf." [8]
About a year later, the United States Court of Appeals interpreted DeShaney in the California case of Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. [9] Ms. Balistreri, beaten and harassed by her estranged husband, alleged a "special relationship" existed between her and the Pacifica Police Department, to wit, they were duty-bound to protect her because there was a restraining order against her husband. The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that DeShaney limited the circumstances that would give rise to a "special relationship" to instances of custody. Because no such custody existed in Balistreri, the Pacifica Police had no duty to protect her, so when they failed to do so and she was injured they were not liable. A citizen injured because the police failed to protect her can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a "special relationship" can be shown to have existed, which DeShaney and its progeny make it very difficult to do. Moreover, Zinermon v. Burch [10] very likely precludes Section 1983 liability for police agencies in these types of cases if there is a potential remedy via a State tort action.
Many states, however, have specifically precluded such claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals."
It is painfully clear that the police cannot be relied upon to protect us. Thus far we've seen that they have no duty to do so. And we've also seen that even if they did have a duty to protect us, practically- speaking they could not fulfill it with sufficient certainty that we would want to bet our lives on it.
Now it's time to take off the gloves, so to speak, and get down to reality. So the police aren't duty-bound to protect us, and they can't be expected to protect us even if they want to. Does that mean that they won't protect us if they have the opportunity?
One of the leading cases on this point dates way back into the 1950s. [11] A certain Ms. Riss was being harassed by a former boyfriend, in a familiar pattern of increasingly violent threats. She went to the police for help many times, but was always rebuffed. Desperate because she could not get police protection, she applied for a gun permit, but was refused that as well. On the eve of her engagement party she and her mother went to the police one last time pleading for protection against what they were certain was a serious and dangerous threat. And one last time the police refused. As she was leaving the party, her former boyfriend threw acid in her face, blinding and permanently disfiguring her.
Her case against the City of New York for failing to protect her was, not surprisingly, unsuccessful. The lone dissenting justice of New York's high court wrote in his opinion: "What makes the City's position [denying any obligation to protect the woman] particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law [she] did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." [12]
Instances of police refusing to protect someone in grave danger, who is urgently requesting help, are becoming disturbingly more common. In 1988, Lisa Bianco's violently abusive husband was finally in jail for beating and kidnapping her, after having victimized her for years. Ms. Bianco was somewhat comforted by the facts that he was supposedly serving a seven-year sentence, and she had been promised by the authorities that she'd be notified well in advance of his release. Nevertheless, after being in only a short time, he was temporarily released on an eight-hour pass, and she wasn't notified. He went directly to her house and, in front of their 6- and 10- year old daughters, beat Lisa Bianco to death.
In 1989, in a suburb of Los Angeles, Maria Navarro called the L. A. County Sheriff's 911 emergency line asking for help. It was her birthday and there was a party at her house, but her estranged husband, against whom she had had a restraining order, said he was coming over to kill her. She believed him, but got no sympathy from the 911 dispatcher, who said: "What do you want us to do lady, send a car to sit outside your house?" Less than half an hour after Maria hung up in frustration, one of her guests called the same 911 line and informed the dispatcher that the husband was there and had already killed Maria and one other guest. Before the cops arrived, he had killed another.
But certainly no cop would stand by and do nothing while someone was being violently victimized. Or would they? In Freeman v. Ferguson [13] a police chief directed his officers not to enforce a restraining order against a woman's estranged husband because the man was a friend of the chief's. The man subsequently killed the woman and her daughter. Perhaps such a specific case is an anomaly, but more instances of general abuses aren't at all rare.
In one such typical case [14] , a woman and her son were harassed, threatened and assaulted by her estranged husband, all in violation of his probation and a restraining order. Despite numerous requests for police protection, the police did nothing because "the police department used an administrative classification that resulted in police protection being fully provided to persons abused by someone with whom the victim has no domestic relationship, but less protection when the victim is either: 1) a woman abused or assaulted by a spouse or boyfriend, or 2) a child abused by a father or stepfather." [15]
In a much more recent case, [16] a woman claimed she was injured because the police refused to make an arrest following a domestic violence call. She claimed their refusal to arrest was due to a city policy of gender- based discrimination. In that case the U. S. District Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that "no constitutional violation [occurred] when the most that can be said of the police is that they stood by and did nothing..." [17]
Do the police really harbor such indifference to the plight of certain victims? To answer that, let's leave the somewhat aloof and dispassionate world of legal precedent and move into the more easily understood "real world." I can state from considerable personal experience, unequivocally, that these things do happen. As to why they occur, I can offer only my opinion based on that experience and on additional research into the dark and murky areas of criminal sociopathy and police abuse.
One client of my partner's and mine had a restraining order against her violently abusive estranged husband. He had recently beaten her so savagely a metal plate had to be implanted in her jaw. Over and over he violated the court order, sometimes thirty times daily. He repeatedly threatened to kill her and those of use helping her. But the cops refused to arrest him for violating the order, even though they'd witnessed him doing so more than once. They danced around all over the place trying to explain why they wouldn't enforce the order, including inventing numerous absurd excuses about having lost her file (a common tactic in these cases). It finally came to light that there was a departmental order to not arrest anyone in that county for violating a protective order because the county had recently been sued by an irate (and wealthy) domestic violence arrestee.
In another of our cases, when Peggi and I served the man with restraining orders (something we're often required to do because various law enforcement agencies can't or won't do it), he threatened there and then to kill our client. Due to the vigorous nature of the threat, we went immediately to the police department to get it on file in case he attempted to carry it out during the few days before the upcoming court appearance. We spent hours filing the report, but two days later when our client went to the police department for a copy to take to court, she was told there was no record of her, her restraining order, her case, or our report.
She called in a panic. Without that report it would be more difficult securing a permanent restraining order against him. I paid an immediate visit to the chief of that department. We discussed the situation and I suggested various options, including dragging the officer to whom Peggi and I had given the detailed death threat report into court to explain under oath how it had gotten lost. In mere moments, an internal affairs officer was assigned to investigate and, while I waited, they miraculously produced the file and our report. I was even telephoned later and offered an effusive apology by various members of the department.
It is true that in the real world, law enforcement authorities very often do perpetuate the victimization. It is also true that each of us is the only person upon whom we can absolutely rely to avoid victimization. If our client in the last anecdote hadn't taken responsibility for her own fate, she might never have survived the ordeal. But she had sufficient resolve to fend for herself. Realizing the police couldn't or wouldn't help her, she contacted us. Then, when the police tried their bureaucratic shuffle on her, she called me. But for her determination to be a victim no more, and to take responsibility for her own destiny, she might have joined the countless others victimized first by criminals, then by the very system they expect will protect them.
Remember, even if the police were obligated to protect us (which they aren't), or even if they tried to protect us (which they often don't, a fact brought home to millions nationwide as they watched in horror the recent events in Los Angeles), most often there wouldn't be time enough for them to do it. It's about time that we came to grips with that, and resolved never to abdicate responsibility for our personal safety, and that of our loved ones, to anyone else.
Hello! I work with the mentall ill(people are probably tired of hearing about that) and did you know, if one of them attacks me with a deadly weapon, if I inflict more harm on them than is required for me to get away safely, I can still be charged and end up in prison? Why are cops special but I am not?
And you signed up for your job knowing you would be working with a population 100% FETHING Looney. The cops signed up to enforce laws, not stop the mentally ill or psychotic from getting hurt from their actions.
A cops #1 job is to protect civilians if at all possible. If a citizens arms himself with guns and explosives he has stopped being a civilian and has become an active combatant.
If you have a mentally ill person walk into your clinic with a gun and a bomb I think the amount of harm you need to inflict would be death. but hey if you can distract him with a laser pointer then more power to you.
So, blame the victim? It is my fault that my job does not give me the proper rights to defend myself?
I guess all of the mental health workers should quit and find better jobs. We can leave the people who do not understand how to work in society to the police. They have a nice cleanup policy for that.
Thanks for not being politically correct and incredibly offensive towards people who were born less fortunate than you and in most cases cannot control their actions. You are a shining star of America.
Well, if its really that bad you could strike till you have adaquate power to defend yourself. Maybe you should demand more employee rights for mental care workers.
Hello! I work with the mentall ill(people are probably tired of hearing about that) and did you know, if one of them attacks me with a deadly weapon, if I inflict more harm on them than is required for me to get away safely, I can still be charged and end up in prison? Why are cops special but I am not?
And you signed up for your job knowing you would be working with a population 100% FETHING Looney. The cops signed up to enforce laws, not stop the mentally ill or psychotic from getting hurt from their actions.
A cops #1 job is to protect civilians if at all possible. If a citizens arms himself with guns and explosives he has stopped being a civilian and has become an active combatant.
If you have a mentally ill person walk into your clinic with a gun and a bomb I think the amount of harm you need to inflict would be death. but hey if you can distract him with a laser pointer then more power to you.
So, blame the victim? It is my fault that my job does not give me the proper rights to defend myself?
I guess all of the mental health workers should quit and find better jobs. We can leave the people who do not understand how to work in society to the police. They have a nice cleanup policy for that.
Thanks for not being politically correct and incredibly offensive towards people who were born less fortunate than you and in most cases cannot control their actions. You are a shining star of America.
Well, if its really that bad you could strike till you have adaquate power to defend yourself. Maybe you should demand more employee rights for mental care workers.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner! That is what I have been pushing this whole time! But, because of how our system works, I need to convince other people that we need more employee rights so they can also do something about it. Because if one person could make this change, we would have done it a long time ago.
Jihadin wrote: Thinking the policy of his organization prohibits use of force. The State will more likely cover him for one of those "Oh Crap" situation
We actually had training on this a month ago. No, they will not.
Step 1: Ensure you can escape with the minimum force necessary.
Step 2: Run and hope they do not chase you.
BeAfraid wrote: Also, just to inform people (who might not live in the USA, or be aware of this fact):
Another Supreme Court Ruling removed the responsibility of the Police to Protect the population, and ruled that their responsibility is ONLY to enforce the laws, and they only have a duty to protect themselves in that process.
If I recall correctly it's very similar in the UK.
Depends upon WHICH police Force you are talking about.
Most cities have two different Police. I know London does. And they have different roles.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Comrade wrote: You seriously believe police shoot civilians at the drop of a hat?
I see you showed graphs and statistics, I can only tell you what I see, and do on my own.
- In my city we haven't shot anyone who hasn't pointed a weapon at us, and no we didn't wait for them to actually shoot/stab us first
- We don't arrest the homeless and mentally Ill (unless they have committed an act of violence or other crime within my presence)
- We actively do foot patrols in our most crime ridden neighborhoods time allowing (which isn't alot, we ran 300,000 calls last year and we only have 15-18 patrol officers on duty for a city of 100,000)
- We transport Over dose victims to a hospital. To save them. We'll ask questions on who their supplier is though, sure they've made an idiotic decision, but jailing them is pointless.
- Quotas don't exist where I work.
- We do stop crime if it happens near us, but it usually never happens near us amazingly enough. We definitely wont let anyone get hurt near us if we can help it.
Sorry to break it to you, but if there is only 1 of me, and 6 gangsters shooting at someone, I'm not jumping in front of the bullets, I'll try and get people out of the way, shoot some shots to get them to duck, but I am not going to get myself killed. That's like asking soldiers to mindlessly walk into a firezone over and over again.
We do have points of agreement.
-Privatization is bad, the whole privatizing of the jails does not motivate the jails to rehabilitate, which is a MAJOR problem. But they get paid per head.
-Police as a revenue stream is wrong, most of that is pressure from the politicians working its way down to try and make up for a declining tax base, or one of their pet projects. I highly doubt police officers enjoy doing that work. I know I don't. Infact we get bitched at alot because we don't write any tickets (we point out we are dealing with the above 300,000 calls and dont have time for tickets)
I'm not going to argue with you. Maybe some areas are like this, I doubt most are. I've told you the ruling exists to stop a flow of individuals suing police departments, cities, and police officer themselves in situations that were probably impossible to stop in a legal manner, or in a just common sense manner.
Awfully convenient anecdote you have there.
Why don't you get a Representative Sample of the Population of Police and Law Enforcement Officers to test out the Statistical Significance and likelihood of that experience to see how well it maps to reality?
Oh!
I think I just posted about SEVEN of them!
Just because you have a different experience than is shown in sampling of the population does not mean that your experience generalizes. It just means you are an outlier.
And an outliers does nothing to alter the statistically most common outcome or experience.
BeAfraid wrote: Also, just to inform people (who might not live in the USA, or be aware of this fact):
Another Supreme Court Ruling removed the responsibility of the Police to Protect the population, and ruled that their responsibility is ONLY to enforce the laws, and they only have a duty to protect themselves in that process.
If I recall correctly it's very similar in the UK.
Depends upon WHICH police Force you are talking about.
Most cities have two different Police. I know London does. And they have different roles.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Comrade wrote: You seriously believe police shoot civilians at the drop of a hat?
I see you showed graphs and statistics, I can only tell you what I see, and do on my own.
- In my city we haven't shot anyone who hasn't pointed a weapon at us, and no we didn't wait for them to actually shoot/stab us first
- We don't arrest the homeless and mentally Ill (unless they have committed an act of violence or other crime within my presence)
- We actively do foot patrols in our most crime ridden neighborhoods time allowing (which isn't alot, we ran 300,000 calls last year and we only have 15-18 patrol officers on duty for a city of 100,000)
- We transport Over dose victims to a hospital. To save them. We'll ask questions on who their supplier is though, sure they've made an idiotic decision, but jailing them is pointless.
- Quotas don't exist where I work.
- We do stop crime if it happens near us, but it usually never happens near us amazingly enough. We definitely wont let anyone get hurt near us if we can help it.
Sorry to break it to you, but if there is only 1 of me, and 6 gangsters shooting at someone, I'm not jumping in front of the bullets, I'll try and get people out of the way, shoot some shots to get them to duck, but I am not going to get myself killed. That's like asking soldiers to mindlessly walk into a firezone over and over again.
We do have points of agreement.
-Privatization is bad, the whole privatizing of the jails does not motivate the jails to rehabilitate, which is a MAJOR problem. But they get paid per head.
-Police as a revenue stream is wrong, most of that is pressure from the politicians working its way down to try and make up for a declining tax base, or one of their pet projects. I highly doubt police officers enjoy doing that work. I know I don't. Infact we get bitched at alot because we don't write any tickets (we point out we are dealing with the above 300,000 calls and dont have time for tickets)
I'm not going to argue with you. Maybe some areas are like this, I doubt most are. I've told you the ruling exists to stop a flow of individuals suing police departments, cities, and police officer themselves in situations that were probably impossible to stop in a legal manner, or in a just common sense manner.
Awfully convenient anecdote you have there.
Why don't you get a Representative Sample of the Population of Police and Law Enforcement Officers to test out the Statistical Significance and likelihood of that experience to see how well it maps to reality?
Oh!
I think I just posted about SEVEN of them!
Just because you have a different experience than is shown in sampling of the population does not mean that your experience generalizes. It just means you are an outlier.
And an outliers does nothing to alter the statistically most common outcome or experience.
MB
I'm also sure that we can trust LEOs to be completely free of confirmation bias when defending the morality and importance of their careers.
BeAfraid wrote: Also, just to inform people (who might not live in the USA, or be aware of this fact):
Another Supreme Court Ruling removed the responsibility of the Police to Protect the population, and ruled that their responsibility is ONLY to enforce the laws, and they only have a duty to protect themselves in that process.
If I recall correctly it's very similar in the UK.
Depends upon WHICH police Force you are talking about.
Most cities have two different Police. I know London does. And they have different roles.
MB
Just out of curiosity what are the different police forces in London? What are their different roles?
Brown said the suspect driving the van has told officers that he blames police for losing custody of his son and "accusing him of being a terrorist." The gunman also said he had explosives in the van, which appeared to be outfitted with gun ports in the sides.
I just want to know how he installed gun ports in his explosives - that's the real question here.
To point out that even cops in the USA acknowledge that there is a problem (and that their answers to this survey fall in line with the arguments about an Arms Race I mentioned in the thread on the company trying to publish instructions for building 3D printed firearms - the "2nd Amendment" thread, and contradict the NRA's attitudes about having an armed population making the nation safer):
Funny thing is, if you actually graph each nation's violent crime rate versus their gun ownership rate, there actually is a negative relationship (more guns tends to have less crime). The correlation is pretty weak, so it's not like the cause of the decrease in crime is the increased gun ownership, but your statements imply a belief that contradicts what's actually observable. Really, if you dig through the numbers, about the only possible conclusion that you can come to is that gun ownership rates have absolutely nothing to do with violent crime rates, and that other things drive homicides and the like (namely, things like the prominence of gang sub-cultures and poverty rates).
Brown said the suspect driving the van has told officers that he blames police for losing custody of his son and "accusing him of being a terrorist." The gunman also said he had explosives in the van, which appeared to be outfitted with gun ports in the sides.
I just want to know how he installed gun ports in his explosives - that's the real question here.
I suspect they would have been disguised as Donuts to lure the unsuspecting officers in.
To point out that even cops in the USA acknowledge that there is a problem (and that their answers to this survey fall in line with the arguments about an Arms Race I mentioned in the thread on the company trying to publish instructions for building 3D printed firearms - the "2nd Amendment" thread, and contradict the NRA's attitudes about having an armed population making the nation safer):
Funny thing is, if you actually graph each nation's violent crime rate versus their gun ownership rate, there actually is a negative relationship (more guns tends to have less crime). The correlation is pretty weak, so it's not like the cause of the decrease in crime is the increased gun ownership, but your statements imply a belief that contradicts what's actually observable. Really, if you dig through the numbers, about the only possible conclusion that you can come to is that gun ownership rates have absolutely nothing to do with violent crime rates, and that other things drive homicides and the like (namely, things like the prominence of gang sub-cultures and poverty rates).
Not to be pedantic, and I agree with the sentiment, but even if the correlation coefficient were 1 or -1, it would still be incorrect to imply causation.
Brown said the suspect driving the van has told officers that he blames police for losing custody of his son and "accusing him of being a terrorist." The gunman also said he had explosives in the van, which appeared to be outfitted with gun ports in the sides.
I just want to know how he installed gun ports in his explosives - that's the real question here.
I now have a mental image of a stick of dynamite with an underslung rifle.
Brown said the suspect driving the van has told officers that he blames police for losing custody of his son and "accusing him of being a terrorist." The gunman also said he had explosives in the van, which appeared to be outfitted with gun ports in the sides.
I just want to know how he installed gun ports in his explosives - that's the real question here.
I now have a mental image of a stick of dynamite with an underslung rifle.
Does the device have a stamp identifying it as ACME and is being wielded by a coyote?
BeAfraid wrote: Also, just to inform people (who might not live in the USA, or be aware of this fact):
Another Supreme Court Ruling removed the responsibility of the Police to Protect the population, and ruled that their responsibility is ONLY to enforce the laws, and they only have a duty to protect themselves in that process.
MB
You know there is a reason why that ruling happened. There are times police can not respond within seconds, and a person does die, or hurt badly. They ruled it that way so the departments wouldn't get sued every time someone got hurt or killed.
It came about I believe over a neighbor calling about her hearing someone scuffeling in the apartment above her, police responded but heard nothing, they went through the surrounding alleys and didn't find anything out of the ordinary, and everything was quiet at the apartment when they arrived. So they left.
The next day or so the neighbor was found dead after she had been raped repeatedly
Sure they could have kicked the door down, but they would have been in trouble for that, possibly sued, or lost thier job if there was nothing going on in the apartment.
Seriously, what did you want them to do?
It is an overly narrow ruling that went beyond a simple recognition that the Police Cannot be everywhere.
MB
You didn't answer the question. What exactly is it you want the police to do?
The ruling exists because some individuals think police have x-ray vision, can see heat waves, know everyone on a block on a first name basis, have an unlimited amount of time to work a call, and can be anywhere at anytime.
They think that because they were hurt before the police arrived the police didn't do everything they could so should be held liable. Thats why that ruling happened.
That is a too broad and ambiguous of a question to answer without being also unnecessarily broad and ambiguous.
But, simply:
To behave as do the police of the rest of the Civilized World and not take to shooting people at the drop of a hat.
That might be a good start.
And, to continue the trend (since I am not confined to my iPad, today, but have access to an actual computer):
To point out that even cops in the USA acknowledge that there is a problem (and that their answers to this survey fall in line with the arguments about an Arms Race I mentioned in the thread on the company trying to publish instructions for building 3D printed firearms - the "2nd Amendment" thread, and contradict the NRA's attitudes about having an armed population making the nation safer):
Policing in America: What the cops say http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/04/policing-america
These articles might be instructive for what I expect out of the Police.
And, to add a few other points:
• I expect our government to stop making Social Issues Criminal Justice Issues (Homelessness, Drug Use or Abuse - two separate things, one a problem, the other not, Mental Health issues, Poverty, etc.)
• I expect our government to reverse the trend toward privatization. some things SHOULD BE EXPENSIVE to a society. Criminals in our society SHOULD be an economic burden that should NOT be allowed as a source of profit for anyone. Doing so places expectations on the police to be a revenue stream.
• I expect the police to be involved with Protecting and Serving the population in a way that is not using that population to generate revenue, and thus delivering "quotas" to police for writing tickets, or making arrests.
Using the excuse "The Police cannot be everywhere" does not excuse the police from protecting the population when the police ARE present, which is what has been done with the ruling in question. It has excused the police from protecting the population.
In the Rest of the world officers are expected to place their own safety BELOW that of the population surrounding them.
If police are really going to claim that they are working for the public's good, then they need to prioritize the public's safety, and not their own (please do not try to deflect this responsibility with some sort of waffling strawman that unless the police have a modicum of safety they cannot do their job. Doing this is pretending to not know what the word "Prioritize" means).
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spetulhu wrote: Police are people too, and they also have a right to come back alive from work. The USA is a very gun-happy country where even the smallest criminal might feel the need to have a cheap gun. Most police officers killed in the line of duty never even managed to pull their gun so the living ones don't take chances (even if the death count is small compared to the number of police). And there's the death penalty in many states - if your crime is already enough to send you to death row there's no reason to hold back.
Things are going to be very different compared to places like, oh, my native Finland where armed criminals are routinely subdued without the police firing a single shot. They know the police want them alive, and even the most heinous crime won't mean they're condemned to death. And to be fair, many killings over here are drinking buddies getting into a fight over the last alcohol - the perpetrator turns himself in the next day when he wakes up.
This is what I was referring to in another thread as the ongoing Arms Race in the US population.
Various actors/agents in the USA push for "More guns! More Guns!" as their solution to all problems (such as the recent law in Texas allowing Carrying of firearms in Universities, or the proliferation of Open Carry laws in the less civilized states). Yet doing this puts the Police in a situation where their lives are under an exponentially greater threat.
They are more likely to be in a situation where a routine confrontation could go off-the-rails due to an armed citizen in that encounter making a mistake, or simply looking for a fight, which now becomes deadly.
Armed Police are also another problem, as any altercation with the Police automatically becomes a case of the police having to protect their weapon so that it cannot be used against them (which is why most other countries only arm specific officers, and leave routine patrol officers unarmed).
MB
Interesting comments, coming from someone who, in another thread, brags about shooting people, two at a time.
BeAfraid wrote: Also, just to inform people (who might not live in the USA, or be aware of this fact):
Another Supreme Court Ruling removed the responsibility of the Police to Protect the population, and ruled that their responsibility is ONLY to enforce the laws, and they only have a duty to protect themselves in that process.
MB
You know there is a reason why that ruling happened. There are times police can not respond within seconds, and a person does die, or hurt badly. They ruled it that way so the departments wouldn't get sued every time someone got hurt or killed.
It came about I believe over a neighbor calling about her hearing someone scuffeling in the apartment above her, police responded but heard nothing, they went through the surrounding alleys and didn't find anything out of the ordinary, and everything was quiet at the apartment when they arrived. So they left.
The next day or so the neighbor was found dead after she had been raped repeatedly
Sure they could have kicked the door down, but they would have been in trouble for that, possibly sued, or lost thier job if there was nothing going on in the apartment.
Seriously, what did you want them to do?
It is an overly narrow ruling that went beyond a simple recognition that the Police Cannot be everywhere.
MB
You didn't answer the question. What exactly is it you want the police to do?
The ruling exists because some individuals think police have x-ray vision, can see heat waves, know everyone on a block on a first name basis, have an unlimited amount of time to work a call, and can be anywhere at anytime.
They think that because they were hurt before the police arrived the police didn't do everything they could so should be held liable. Thats why that ruling happened.
That is a too broad and ambiguous of a question to answer without being also unnecessarily broad and ambiguous.
But, simply:
To behave as do the police of the rest of the Civilized World and not take to shooting people at the drop of a hat.
That might be a good start.
And, to continue the trend (since I am not confined to my iPad, today, but have access to an actual computer):
To point out that even cops in the USA acknowledge that there is a problem (and that their answers to this survey fall in line with the arguments about an Arms Race I mentioned in the thread on the company trying to publish instructions for building 3D printed firearms - the "2nd Amendment" thread, and contradict the NRA's attitudes about having an armed population making the nation safer):
Policing in America: What the cops say http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/04/policing-america
These articles might be instructive for what I expect out of the Police.
And, to add a few other points:
• I expect our government to stop making Social Issues Criminal Justice Issues (Homelessness, Drug Use or Abuse - two separate things, one a problem, the other not, Mental Health issues, Poverty, etc.)
• I expect our government to reverse the trend toward privatization. some things SHOULD BE EXPENSIVE to a society. Criminals in our society SHOULD be an economic burden that should NOT be allowed as a source of profit for anyone. Doing so places expectations on the police to be a revenue stream.
• I expect the police to be involved with Protecting and Serving the population in a way that is not using that population to generate revenue, and thus delivering "quotas" to police for writing tickets, or making arrests.
Using the excuse "The Police cannot be everywhere" does not excuse the police from protecting the population when the police ARE present, which is what has been done with the ruling in question. It has excused the police from protecting the population.
In the Rest of the world officers are expected to place their own safety BELOW that of the population surrounding them.
If police are really going to claim that they are working for the public's good, then they need to prioritize the public's safety, and not their own (please do not try to deflect this responsibility with some sort of waffling strawman that unless the police have a modicum of safety they cannot do their job. Doing this is pretending to not know what the word "Prioritize" means).
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spetulhu wrote: Police are people too, and they also have a right to come back alive from work. The USA is a very gun-happy country where even the smallest criminal might feel the need to have a cheap gun. Most police officers killed in the line of duty never even managed to pull their gun so the living ones don't take chances (even if the death count is small compared to the number of police). And there's the death penalty in many states - if your crime is already enough to send you to death row there's no reason to hold back.
Things are going to be very different compared to places like, oh, my native Finland where armed criminals are routinely subdued without the police firing a single shot. They know the police want them alive, and even the most heinous crime won't mean they're condemned to death. And to be fair, many killings over here are drinking buddies getting into a fight over the last alcohol - the perpetrator turns himself in the next day when he wakes up.
This is what I was referring to in another thread as the ongoing Arms Race in the US population.
Various actors/agents in the USA push for "More guns! More Guns!" as their solution to all problems (such as the recent law in Texas allowing Carrying of firearms in Universities, or the proliferation of Open Carry laws in the less civilized states). Yet doing this puts the Police in a situation where their lives are under an exponentially greater threat.
They are more likely to be in a situation where a routine confrontation could go off-the-rails due to an armed citizen in that encounter making a mistake, or simply looking for a fight, which now becomes deadly.
Armed Police are also another problem, as any altercation with the Police automatically becomes a case of the police having to protect their weapon so that it cannot be used against them (which is why most other countries only arm specific officers, and leave routine patrol officers unarmed).
MB
Interesting comments, coming from someone who, in another thread, brags about shooting people, two at a time.
