YOU'RE FIRED!

[Karpius]

The rules of engagement for the military in foreign countries are actually far tighter than

I was not speaking of Rules of Engagement, but the training necessary to ensure that a cop can handle any and all threats without deadly force in such a way that the public will find acceptable and tolerable. We are asking our cops to do things in very specific ways, which requires far more training than even the best cops currently get.

 

[Lexicus]

I was not speaking of Rules of Engagement, but the training necessary to ensure that a cop can handle any and all threats without deadly force in such a way that the public will find acceptable and tolerable. We are asking our cops to do things in very specific ways, which requires far more training than even the best cops currently get.

There is no training that will "ensure" anything. Training can't "ensure" outcomes, it can make some outcomes much less (or more) likely. And indeed, to claim that "the public" wants zero use of deadly force is simply false. My anti-police position is pretty "out there" for this board, and not even I think that zero use of deadly force is a reasonable goal.

Now, that out of the way...your final sentence there is probably correct, but the significance isn't what you evidently think it is. Police training in the United States is incredibly deficient. I've heard that the only training many officers get on whether to use deadly force is a montage of cops who were killed by suspects because they opted not to shoot first and ask questions later.

If that's true it is, obviously, not adequate. As best as I can tell, you are trying to argue that people hold the police to unrealistic standards, and that the amount of training required for police to respond in the way that "the public" (an annoyingly vague phrase particularly in this context; probably over half the public is fine with the status quo or want to see more police shootings) wants. I just don't think either of these arguments are remotely accurate. Police training in the US is clearly totally deficient in this area of de-escalation. Cops shoot first and ask questions later and get away with it because the law is set up such that their subjective perception of danger is the final word in a case. That is not acceptable to me and should not be acceptable to anyone who isn't a fascist.

We condemn the officers because they have all of the power, and all of the training. They are far, far better equipped to make a correct split-second decision than a civilian is. With great power comes great responsibility; I'm not about to run around blaming the powerless party in an encounter where the powerless party ends up dead when there is no legitimate justification for it. It shouldn't be controversial that "I feared for my safety" isn't enough of a justification for an agent of the state to take a civilian's life.

It's not even that "feared for my safety" should be totally thrown out, but that can't be the end of the story. There needs to be some sort of external standard applied to determine whether that fear was "reasonable" or not.

 

[Karpius]

It's interesting you bring up soldiers, because they are actually trained to go through several levels of threat assessment before firing their weapon at someone.

Thats my point exactly! Most cops, if any, do not have that level of training. And that is just in the assessment of a threat. Now lets assume the threat is 'real' (whatever that means), what sort of training do they have to deal with it without using deadly force? Most cops do have some such training, but suppose the situation goes beyond their physical ability to control?

So I say remove cops from the situation and the problem goes away.

I'm not about to run around blaming the powerless party in an encounter where the powerless party ends up dead when there is no legitimate justification for it.

What constitutes legitimate justification? That is certainly a valid, legal point. Where does that *point* of justification begin? When the cop is injured? When a bystander is injured? These are difficult questions which supports my claim that it is too much for the average person. Even the average trained cop. We see these dilemmas with even the most highly trained individuals.

My very basic point is, if we are concerned about suspects being injured or killed, then we should not put cops in their way and give the cop the mission of stopping the suspect. Its just a recipe for bad things.

We are at a point in this country where we are more comfortable with allowing the violent suspect to escape rather than risking the suspect being harmed in the course of apprehension. We confer no responsibility on the suspect behaving badly no matter how many warnings they receive. We really don't want the cop to ever use any force at all...let alone deadly force. But we still want the cop to apprehend the subject.

We really need to stop putting cops out there.

 

[Lexicus]

We are at a point in this country where we are more comfortable with allowing the violent suspect to escape rather than risking the suspect being harmed in the course of apprehension. We confer no responsibility on the suspect behaving badly no matter how many warnings they receive. We really don't want the cop to ever use any force at all...let alone deadly force. But we still want the cop to apprehend the subject.

This is just so utterly preposterous that I can't even believe you live in the same country as metalhead and me. We are talking about the United States, not some hippy commune in the middle of a forest somewhere. In the United States we are so unconcerned about suspects being harmed by the police that we don't even collect statistics on it, but best estimates indicate that around 1,000 people per year are shot by the police and almost none of those police officers see any negative consequences.

You are, quite literally, living in a fantasy if you actually think your statements here apply to the United States in 2017.

 

[metalhead]

Thats my point exactly! Most cops, if any, do not have that level of training. And that is just in the assessment of a threat. Now lets assume the threat is 'real' (whatever that means), what sort of training do they have to deal with it without using deadly force? Most cops do have some such training, but suppose the situation goes beyond their physical ability to control?

If the threat is real, then they should be permitted to use deadly force. Nobody is trying to argue that deadly force should never be an option, only that there needs to be an objective way to determine that an officer's perception of a threat was reasonable before they decided to use deadly force. The military does it all the time; they train soldiers on it and then they hold soldiers to that standard when the soldiers enter combat. There is zero reason we can't establish stricter guidelines for use of deadly force and then expect cops to adhere to it and - most importantly - hold them accountable for failing to do so.

What constitutes legitimate justification? That is certainly a valid, legal point. Where does that *point* of justification begin? When the cop is injured? When a bystander is injured? These are difficult questions which supports my claim that it is too much for the average person. Even the average trained cop. We see these dilemmas with even the most highly trained individuals.

If the average soldier can be taught to discern legitimate threats before firing a weapon, surely police officers can as well. It makes no sense to say that we can't do this because it's difficult. These are matters of life and death; of course there are going to be difficult situations. That doesn't mean the correct thing to do is just throw up your hands and complain that we can't make it better, which seems to be the approach you're going for.

If Michael Brown is charging at you, and you fear for your safety because he is much larger than you, but he has no weapon - why can't protocol dictate the use of a taser instead of a firearm? Is it really too much to ask to say cops can't shoot people who are unarmed?

 

[Karpius]

Police training in the United States is incredibly deficient.

Agreed! But we keep putting them out there to face situations we then say they are not adequately trained for.

"the public" (an annoyingly vague phrase particularly in this context; probably over half the public is fine with the status quo or want to see more police shootings)

Then let me clarify by saying it is my perception of the direction of public opinion concerning police procedure.

Cops shoot first and ask questions later and get away with it because the law is set up such that their subjective perception of danger is the final word in a case

That is a horrible and annoying generalization of cops. Has it happened that way? yes. Is it the majority? Hardly. The issue is what metric are we comfortable with when allowing a cop to justify deadly force? Or any force? At what point is a cop not justified in fearing for their life? Can we define exactly at what point in every situation a cop becomes justifed in the use of force and what level of force? Is there common standard that can be applied and examined equally in all situations? Are we more comfortable with letting the cop get hurt before the suspect? Are we more comfortable with the suspecting escaping capture rather than being hurt?

These are the sort of questions that we as a society need to answer. Until we have those answers, we should remove cops from the equation.

 

[Lexicus]

These are the sort of questions that we as a society need to answer. Until we have those answers, we should remove cops from the equation.

I mean, yeah, I agree with you, except I just think we should take their guns until we can find some better answers to those questions than we have now.

 

[Berzerker]

If Michael Brown is charging at you, and you fear for your safety because he is much larger than you, but he has no weapon - why can't protocol dictate the use of a taser instead of a firearm? Is it really too much to ask to say cops can't shoot people who are unarmed?

I dont think a taser would be very useful in such a situation, they're better employed against stationary targets. By the time Brown was close enough to be tasered he would have been running full blast at you and probably ready to take evasive measures to dodge the 'shot'. Even with bullets Brown got close to the cop, if he was charging me I'd drop the taser after my shot and ready myself for a collision I can use to my advantage.

 

[Lexicus]

It's funny how black people are inferior until a cop is scared, then they turn into superhumans.

 

[Berzerker]

A guy big enough to be an offensive lineman is charging at you and you're unafraid? I bow to your superiority.

 

[Lexicus]

A guy big enough to be an offensive lineman is charging at you and you're unafraid? I bow to your superiority.

I'm sure I would be quite afraid, but I would rather get beaten up than kill someone.

 

[Berzerker]

He just punched you and went for your gun but you're not afraid of what'll happen when he's done beating you up again?

 

[Karpius]

There is zero reason we can't establish stricter guidelines for use of deadly force and then expect cops to adhere to it and - most importantly - hold them accountable for failing to do so.

I don't have a problem with whatever guidelines you want to apply. While I don't believe an objective metric can be applied to every situation, that is up to the community and not me alone. But as I said above, you need to have such strict guidelines before you tell a cop of any level of training to go catch a bad guy. Personally, I don't believe we will find a set of standards that will be satisfactory.

If the average soldier can be taught to discern legitimate threats before firing a weapon, surely police officers can as well.

I never said the average cop cannot be trained to such standards, but most are no where near such standards currently, But we expect them to have such standards. If most cops do not have such training, then why do we put them out there? Wouldn't it be better to have cops not engage at all? Or do we simply condemn the cop because we believe the cop could have done better, no matter the situation?

Is it really too much to ask to say cops can't shoot people who are unarmed?

Nothing is too much to ask. Is that the standard the community wants? So be it. But don't issue guns to cops. Don't put cops in situations where they have to make those choices.

Personally, if its me and some guy came running at me after I told him to stop or I'll shoot....I'm shooting. But thats just me and obviously not the standard the community wants to apply. That is perfectly fair! Let the community decide.

For the record, I don't own a gun, nor do I want one, because I might end up using it in a situation where I felt I was justified (such as protecting my home and family) but someone else, who wasn't there, wants to apply a different standard might decide I was unjustified and so I am in trouble anyway.

 

[Berzerker]

better judged by 12 than carried by 6

 

[metalhead]

I dont think a taser would be very useful in such a situation, they're better employed against stationary targets. By the time Brown was close enough to be tasered he would have been running full blast at you and probably ready to take evasive measures to dodge the 'shot'. Even with bullets Brown got close to the cop, if he was charging me I'd drop the taser after my shot and ready myself for a collision I can use to my advantage.

Of course a taser is not ideal in all situations, but if you have some hand-to-hand combat training, you have alternatives to killing him. Starting with a stun gun, or some other method of incapacitating him, in addition to the actual combat skills themselves.

I never said the average cop cannot be trained to such standards, but most are no where near such standards currently, But we expect them to have such standards. If most cops do not have such training, then why do we put them out there? Wouldn't it be better to have cops not engage at all? Or do we simply condemn the cop because we believe the cop could have done better, no matter the situation?

We condemn the cops in part because, rather than come out and say, "We aren't trained for this, please give us better training," they turtle under the protection of their unions, and nothing ever changes. They simply aren't trying. As you note, the status quo isn't working. But there is no impetus for change that would save lives. There are of course exceptions to this, as plenty of police departments have made significant changes. But there are many more that haven't.

If there was a widespread, honest effort being made by police departments to train officers in threat assessment and de-escalation, and sincere attempts to hold officers accountable when they breach protocol and a civilian ends up dead, then there wouldn't be a problem. Nobody is demanding perfection, because perfection is impossible. Likewise, nobody is arguing for unreasonably strict standards.

Also, they're human beings. Generally, when a human being escalates a fist fight into a shooting, we think poorly of that person. We call it murder. We mourn for the life cut short. Setting aside the badge, it's just garbage human behavior to shoot an unarmed person.

 

[Lexicus]

Of course a taser is not ideal in all situations, but if you have some hand-to-hand combat training, you have alternatives to killing him. Starting with a stun gun, or some other method of incapacitating him, in addition to the actual combat skills themselves.

Wait, hold on a moment. Before getting into this, let's ask what happened to backing up and calling for more officers to help handle the situation?

 

[Berzerker]

Of course a taser is not ideal in all situations, but if you have some hand-to-hand combat training, you have alternatives to killing him. Starting with a stun gun, or some other method of incapacitating him, in addition to the actual combat skills themselves.

We just need an army of Chuck Norris' policing the streets

Wait, hold on a moment. Before getting into this, let's ask what happened to backing up and calling for more officers to help handle the situation?

he did call for help but he wanted to delay Brown's escape until they arrived, Brown didn't leave him that option - he'd be alive if he hadn't turned and run back at the cop.

 

[metalhead]

he did call for help but he wanted to delay Brown's escape until they arrived, Brown didn't leave him that option - he'd be alive if he hadn't turned and run back at the cop.

That isn't what he's supposed to do. He breached protocol by approaching and engaging the suspect before backup arrived. You don't approach a suspect to delay their escape - you wait for backup, and then you approach.

Make whatever argument you want about Michael Brown's behavior, but Wilson messed up first. Had he waited for backup, he would have had help apprehending Brown, not felt like his life was in danger, and Mike Brown would be alive.

 

[Berzerker]

That isn't what he's supposed to do. He breached protocol by engaging the suspect before backup arrived. Period. You're only supposed to engage a suspect on your own if they are a threat to the public, which there was no indication that Brown was armed, and he certainly wasn't doing anything threatening as the only people there were him and his friend walking down the street.

Make whatever argument you want about Michael Brown's behavior, but Wilson messed up first. Had he waited for backup, he would have had help apprehending Brown, not felt like his life was in danger, and Mike Brown would be alive.

Cops routinely engage 'suspects' w/o back up, the mistake Wilson made was trying to exit his vehicle with Brown close enough to use the door on him like a battering ram, ie his mistake was assuming these guys wouldn't attack him. Ideally I want cops making that assumption, if I get pulled over, I dont want the cop waiting for back up just so I can be surrounded by a bunch of cops with their guns pointing at me.

 

[Karpius]

but if you have some hand-to-hand combat training, you have alternatives to killing him. Starting with a stun gun, or some other method of incapacitating him, in addition to the actual combat skills themselves.

Even those methods are under severe scrutiny. Not long ago in Philly, it took several cops to physically subdue a very large, uncooperative man. In the process, the very large man was brought to ground so he could be cuffed, but one cop used an apparently unauthorized choke hold in doing so and the man died. It was on video and there was nothing particularly brutal in evidence. It was a simple consequence of using physical force. The community believed the cops were in the wrong and as I recall the one officer did lose his job. In that situation, what is the answer? Is better training the simple answer? Or is disengaging better? To me, the suspect should have simply complied with the police. To the community, the cops should have let it go. To me, the community gets to decide, so in the future, the cops would be better served to not engage in such situations.

Setting aside the badge, it's just garbage human behavior to shoot an unarmed person.

Very unfair, unless you are trained in threat assessment. Unarmed people can kill. Can you be quite certain the unarmed does not intend to harm you, or kill you. Do you think it is better to 'take the chance'? Suppose you are much smaller than the assailant? Suppose you're not sure if there is a concealed weapon? If you are willing to set the standard that cops should never meet a threat with a greater force, then so be it. Not sure how many people are willing to do that.