Obligationary sanctioning of killing people

Terxpahseyton

Terxpahseyton

Nobody
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
10,759
If conventional legal recourse is doing an unsatisfactory job to motivate police not to kill people, should there be perhaps - in addition to conventional legal recourse - always be a standard sanction for a police which causes a death in line of duty, regardless of circumstances? Like temporary reduced pay or longer working hours.
 
Terxpahseyton said:
If conventional legal recourse is doing an unsatisfactory job to motivate police not to kill people, should there be perhaps - in addition to conventional legal recourse - always be a standard sanction for a police which causes a death in line of duty, regardless of circumstances? Like temporary reduced pay or longer working hours.
Click to expand...

I'd be in favor. There is a huge area called 'justified shooting' that could also be described as 'normal job function went totally astray and led to a confrontation that got so bad the shooting was inevitable'. If cops don't know how to approach suspects without having it turn into 'kill or be killed' they need to be learning.
 
Well, what would you do? Would you automatically sanction their pay? Or make them work overtime?
 
Perhaps there should be something along the lines of a one-week suspension without pay, with the option to have the pay reinstated in the event a hearing finds the killing was unavoidable. It should probably be named something more neutral than "suspension" and could be understood to be a time off where the cop is given free psychological counseling and the like.

I'm not sure how much of a motivating factor this would be, but perhaps it might affect the probability of pulling the trigger somewhat.
 
Borachio said:
Well, what would you do? Would you automatically sanction their pay? Or make them work overtime?
Click to expand...

Sanction whoever was in charge of the situation that had it deteriorate to where they gave that order.
 
Bootstoots said:
Perhaps there should be something along the lines of a one-week suspension without pay, with the option to have the pay reinstated in the event a hearing finds the killing was unavoidable. It should probably be named something more neutral than "suspension" and could be understood to be a time off where the cop is given free psychological counseling and the like.

I'm not sure how much of a motivating factor this would be, but perhaps it might affect the probability of pulling the trigger somewhat.
Click to expand...

As opposed to the current "administrative leave pending", which is routinely referred to in cop conversation as "paid vacation." [party]
 
Thing is, who would be responsible for determining whether or not the shooting/killing was justifiable or inevitable? Cops investigating cops rarely ends in the cop actually being found guilty and receiving a suitable punishment, even when it's obvious to everyone that he/she was in the wrong.
 
The OP means that any killing, whatever the circumstances, should result in a sanction, I think.
 
Bootstoots said:
Perhaps there should be something along the lines of a one-week suspension without pay, with the option to have the pay reinstated in the event a hearing finds the killing was unavoidable. It should probably be named something more neutral than "suspension" and could be understood to be a time off where the cop is given free psychological counseling and the like.

I'm not sure how much of a motivating factor this would be, but perhaps it might affect the probability of pulling the trigger somewhat.
Click to expand...

From a psychological point that may do some people more harm than good - free counselling I agree with (and it's routinely offered in UK forces after particularly traumatic incidents, including the very rare actual shootings) and there's even an argument for making it mandatory. However, for many people work is the best therapy, and being taken away from that can be quite damaging even under normal circumstances.
 
This sounds like a great idea until the first time it causes a cop to hesitate, getting himself or others killed.
 
Timsup2nothin said:
Better a hundred dead citizens than a single dead cop...amIrite?
Click to expand...

And what happens when it's the cop's hesitation that directly results in the death of innocent bystanders? Who's responsible for that? Do we put cops in a "damned if you, damned if you don't" situation where they are punished for shooting violent suspects but also punished if they fail to stop those violent suspects from hurting other people?
 
Wolfbeckett said:
And what happens when it's the cop's hesitation that directly results in the death of innocent bystanders? Who's responsible for that? Do we put cops in a "damned if you, damned if you don't" situation where they are punished for shooting violent suspects but also punished if they fail to stop those violent suspects from hurting other people?
Click to expand...

Would you care to provide any sort of statistical analysis of just how often suspects who are shot present a genuine danger to innocent bystanders? Since there is no repository of statistics on police shootings it would be really hard to come by, but just from scanning headlines it appears that almost all police shootings are justified under 'officer safety', not 'defense of the public'.
 
Lately I've been thinking that officers that kill people should be removed from the force automatically and permanently, but not necessarily in a way that will affect future employment. Justified shootings get honorable discharges.

If I had a dog that bit, I would put it down, even if it was generally a nice dog and it bit a stranger rather than a family member. All the police with whom I am personally acquainted are nice people, but once an officer kills, he or she should not be put in a position to do that again. A new job is just the ticket, I think.

I'm sure that there are complications (such as, who should be fired, the sharpshooter or the one who gives the order - I think the order-giver), but kill = no longer employed as the default rather than kill = business as usual, except for angry citizens, seems like a good plan.
 
Wolfbeckett said:
This sounds like a great idea until the first time it causes a cop to hesitate, getting himself or others killed.
Click to expand...
Timsup2nothin said:
Better a hundred dead citizens than a single dead cop...amIrite?
Click to expand...
Wolfbeckett said:
And what happens when it's the cop's hesitation that directly results in the death of innocent bystanders? Who's responsible for that? Do we put cops in a "damned if you, damned if you don't" situation where they are punished for shooting violent suspects but also punished if they fail to stop those violent suspects from hurting other people?
Click to expand...
My thought is enforcing the philosophy that the police first responsibility is to safeguard the lives of the public. Not their own lives, not the lives of their fellow officers, but the lives of the 'civilians' (ie non-police) they are supposed to serve and protect, including "suspects."

I include "suspects," because in this country we are all innocent until proven guilty in court. There are numerous reasons somebody might be shooting at, or otherwise threatening police officers that would not result in them being found guilty of attempted murder in court, so the police should not be empowered to decide guilt and innocence on the side of the road, and execute suspects in so-called self-defense.

Apprehend suspects alive at all cost, including your own life. As a police officer you should have no "right to self-defense." Deadly force can be used to protect civilians from death or serious injury, but it can not be used to protect police. If you cannot put the lives of the public (including suspects) ahead of your own life then get a new job. Stay a 'civilian' and you can keep your right to self-defense.
 
Sommerswerd said:
My thought is enforcing the philosophy that the police first responsibility is to safeguard the lives of the public. Not their own lives, not the lives of their fellow officers, but the lives of the 'civilians' (ie non-police) they are supposed to serve and protect, including "suspects."

I include "suspects," because in this country we are all innocent until proven guilty in court. There are numerous reasons somebody might be shooting at, or otherwise threatening police officers that would not result in them being found guilty of attempted murder in court, so the police should not be empowered to decide guilt and innocence on the side of the road, and execute suspects in so-called self-defense.

Apprehend suspects alive at all cost, including your own life. As a police officer you should have no "right to self-defense." Deadly force can be used to protect civilians from death or serious injury, but it can not be used to protect police. If you cannot put the lives of the public (including suspects) ahead of your own life then get a new job. Stay a 'civilian' and you can keep your right to self-defense.
Click to expand...

So your brilliant plan is to only have idiots or suicidal people become police officers? You actually think this is going to work and that we won't have 95% of the police force immediately quit? I hope you're paid up on your local gangs' protection money, cause you're gonna need it.
 
Wolfbeckett said:
So your brilliant plan is to only have idiots or suicidal people become police officers? You actually think this is going to work and that we won't have 95% of the police force immediately quit? I hope you're paid up on your local gangs' protection money, cause you're gonna need it.
Click to expand...
Where did I say I wanted idiots or suicidal people? However, to respond to your absurd hyperbole I will admit that I would rather have simpletons than psychopaths, and I would rather have martyrs than murderers.

That is the point, we need people as police who are more inclined to give their life to save people, than kill people to save themselves. If 95% of the current police force would rather kill to save themselves than die to save someone else, than yes, let them quit, and good riddance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Z
Civlike game idea randomly ejected into cyberspace
Replies
10
Views
758
zuzim
Z
Askthepizzaguy
[RD] The threat to American Democracy
15 16 17
Replies
328
Views
26K
Sommerswerd
Sommerswerd
PDX Firefly
Millennia | Update 3
Replies
1
Views
1K
PDX Firefly
PDX Firefly
I
Overview of Mechanics
3 4 5
Replies
95
Views
20K
sTAPler27
sTAPler27
Hatul_Gadol
[C3C] House of the Dragon: Battle for Westeros
2 3
Replies
44
Views
5K
Hatul_Gadol
Hatul_Gadol
Back
Top Bottom