New blockade in Minneapolis

[Loren Pechtel]

Also, it is very different to shoot at a deer with your .308 bolt action rifle from the comfort of your blind, with plenty of time to line up a shot, vs. shooting at an assailant who is running toward you wielding a knife. Esp. when you tried to use less lethal means (like tasers) first. If somebody is going to reach you in 1.2 seconds, you don't have the luxury of carefully aimed shots.

This. Carefully aimed shots in combat are snipers or special forces. People who encounter that sort of situation once in a lifetime are going to shoot poorly, period.

During the same period of time, 1059 civilians were shot to death by police officers.

And how many of those were ruled unjustified? How many were so clear-cut that not even #BLM bothered to protest/riot or even make up a hashtag in their honor?

Exactly. They struggle to find unjustified shootings where the cops aren't prosecuted, ignoring the fact that the protests are almost always about justified shootings.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Lol. No. Sounds like you’ve never been hunting. It’s not like on tv or those places where they put disabled people in blinds on a deer farm and let them shoot deer grazing.

A hunter might have to expend a lot of effort to get to the position they shoot from but they have plenty of time to aim very carefully and there's no adrenaline dump messing with them. Hunting is not a remotely valid comparison.

 

[laughing dog]

Lol. No. Sounds like you’ve never been hunting. It’s not like on tv or those places where they put disabled people in blinds on a deer farm and let them shoot deer grazing.

A hunter might have to expend a lot of effort to get to the position they shoot from but they have plenty of time to aim very carefully and there's no adrenaline dump messing with them. Hunting is not a remotely valid comparison.

You have no clue. Plenty of hunting is hitting moving targets.

 

[Toni]

Lol. No. Sounds like you’ve never been hunting. It’s not like on tv or those places where they put disabled people in blinds on a deer farm and let them shoot deer grazing.

A hunter might have to expend a lot of effort to get to the position they shoot from but they have plenty of time to aim very carefully and there's no adrenaline dump messing with them. Hunting is not a remotely valid comparison.

You don’t hunt, do you? Never have, I imagine. I know some people sit in blinds or deer stands and wait for something to mosey on by unawares.

That’s not how my family hunted.

Yes, for most human beings, shooting another human being is difficult. But I gotta give it to ‘em: Put some dark skin on a person and cops seem to have no trouble overcoming their aversion. Their accuracy ain’t for shit tho.

 

[Gospel]

The number of shots fired is not related to the threat level. Once the threshold to shoot has been crossed (which coming at the cops with a knife certainly would be unless the range was long) the cops are going to shoot until he's not coming at them anymore

Thugs in uniforms.

Precisely. What should distinguish law enforcement from common criminals is their strategic and discerning approach to apprehending individuals. However, what I observe is Black people (who, based on per capita figures, commit more crimes) being used as convenient targets. This seems to be a way for law enforcement to claim, "Your Honor, the citizen posed a threat," irrespective of the actual threat level, in order to lazily justify using lethal force against citizens. Before we know it, white kids in the suburbs playing with water guns getting shot will be normalized because law enforcement is applying far more aggressive tactics in urban areas.

 

[bilby]

In a suicide by cop

"Suicide by cop" is an almost uniquely American phenomenon, and is caused by your crazy system of allowing people to run around with guns, while also allowing police to shoot them for doing so.

As it is a direct consequence of your idiotic system, it cannot be a sane part of any rationalisation for keeping that system.

In countries where cops don't routinely kill people, suicide by cop isn't possible.

 

[Derec]

Here’s an article about the militarization of police in the USA.

How 9/11 helped to militarize American law enforcement | Brookings

Rashawn Ray writes that in light of 9/11 and America's overseas wars, policy makers should critically re-evaluate the benefits or costs (financial and human costs) associated with military equipment programs for law enforcement.

www.brookings.edu

1. It is not needed to quote my entire post, esp. not just to post a link to an article.
2. What are your actual thoughts, other than just posting to an article?

That said, this was written by Rashawn Ray, who is a anti-police left-wing activist. Second, he mentions "military equipment" a lot in his screed, but never bothers to define what he means by it or give some examples. That's because the term "military equipment" sounds much more ominous than the actual equipment covered by these programs actually is.

As to the case from this thread, what equipment used by the police would you classify as "military"? Do you think police should not have access to it, and why?

 

[Derec]

Yes, we all know that if anyone says anything that does not dump on the dead black victim of a police shooting, they are portraying him as a saint.

News outlets should report on events critically. That means not taking what is told by the perp's family and friends uncritically. That also means reporting accurately on things that do not portray the shootee in a good light even if anti-police people like you think that's "dumping" or that it should not be allowed if the person is black.

BTW, the St. Louis paper is the Post-Dispatch.

My bad.

 

[Derec]

If someone is running at you with a knife, that's the appropriate response.

Not if you have means to defend yourself. The assailant may be quicker than you, or you may stumble and fall, making it easy for the attacker to finish you off. And in the case of police officers, they have the duty to confront suspects and criminals, not just to run away from them.

Your unspoken assumption that they should then keep running, in a cowardly rout, is utter drivel though.

I agree that it is utter drivel, but it is the logical consequence of your position.

The tactical doctrine of never conceding an inch of territory is really, really, stupid.

Of course. Sometimes retreating in order to take cover is useful. I do not see how retreating would have been to a tactical advantage in this case. Esp. since you don't want them to use their firearms despite the perp being armed with a deadly weapon and is attempting to use it.

You get out of the way, running if needed, and let the attacker wear himself out; Then you can intervene with non-lethal force against a tired and heavily outnumbered opponent, and apprehend him with relative ease, and little risk to either police or suspect.

That may work if the suspect can easily be contained. There is no indication that approach would have worked here, certainly not without placing the officers and the public at large at an increased risk.

Literally the only obstacle to this ideal outcome, wherein the suspect is apprehended alive, and nobody suffers from any major injuries, is the egoistic stupidity that says that running away is somehow shameful, even as part of a successful strategy to arrest the suspect.

You have not demonstrated that it would be a successful strategy in this case. And it's not like your unarmed UK Bobbies do not get stabbed by perps.

The objective should be to arrest the suspect, without anyone being seriously injured. Maintaining the pride, ego, and machismo of the police officers involved isn't a necessary, or a desirable, goal, and certainly doesn't override that primary objective.

If the suspect is attacking police or others with a deadly weapon, safety of the officers and of the public should take precedence over the safety of the attacker.

Yes, they should have run away.

And then? He could have easily escaped, maybe jacking a car or taking hostages in the process. Or he could have ran after one of the cops and stabbed him or her from behind. There are too many ways your brilliant plan can go wrong.

It's the best option, to achieve the desired result.

No, it is not.

If a few teenage boys feel less inclined to hero worship of cops as a result, that's probably a smaller problem than someone dying.

The person dying brought it on himself by charging at cops with a knife.

 

[bilby]

Not if you have means to defend yourself.

Guns are not defensive in nature; A gun is the means to attack or counterattack, not the means to defend yourself.

The assailant may be quicker than you, or you may stumble and fall, making it easy for the attacker to finish you off.

...or you could fall into a lazy rationalisation that invokes a wide range of possible disasters none of which are likely to befall trained officers.

Your "defensive" fire could hit a colleague or a bystander, causing death or serious injury. By drawing a gun, you risk shooting yourself, for that matter.

You know, while we are making shit up out of whole cloth, we should consider the stuff that didn't happen (but could have) that undermines your position, as well as stuff that didn't happen, but that would potentially support your position if it had.

 

[Derec]

Use of deadly force, when non-lethal force was an option, is unacceptable - even if it's (stupidly) not unlawful.

When somebody attempts to use unlawful deadly force on you, using deadly force to defend yourself is not only acceptable but commendable. Placing yourself at an increased risk of death or serious injury to avoid using deadly force when such force is readily available is being foolhardy.

That you not only condone this, but are also incapable of believing that anyone would condemn it, says many very unpleasant things about your morality, and that of Second Amendment/Hollywood Action Movie dominated America in general.

Oh I am capable of believing some people (like you) would condemn people defending themselves from attacks with deadly weapons. I just think you are wrong.

Guns aren't a sane person's first resort.

But they should be a resort. Like when attacked with a deadly weapon.
We are talking in this thread about the officers who shot a perp who was charging at them and advanced to about ~4m from them. Before that, they attempted to use a taser. So it wasn't the first resort.

Defensive guns are almost exclusively a fictional concept.

Not true. There are many cases where people use guns to defend themselves, both in their homes and on the street.
Two people killed after trying to rob man at ATM on the south side, SAPD says
Carjacking suspect in critical condition after being shot by victim: Police
Alabama homeowner fatally shoots intruder during home invasion, authorities say
Just three examples. There are many more.

 

[Derec]

Perhaps you should try not letting many criminals have firearms?

We have laws against for example felons possessing firearms. Of course, no law is perfect.

 

[Derec]

Because it's a sensible tactic.
Why shouldn't they?

I disagree it's a sensible tactic in most cases. Certainly not during say a traffic stop.

 

[Derec]

So what? Argumentum ad populum remains a fallacy even when you really want it to be a solid argument.

It would be a fallacy iff I was making an argument akin to "it's proper to arm all police because vast majority of countries do so". I wasn't making a fallacious argument like that of course.
I was merely replying to Toni. She said "in civilized nations where police officers are not usually armed with firearms." So either she thinks only 18 (mostly small) countries are "civilized" or else (and more likely) she wasn't aware just how few countries do not routinely arm police officers.

Countries in which police are routinely armed are de facto countries in which people can be lawfully killed by the authorities without trial, on mere suspicion that they might engage in violent acts.

But that is also the case in countries that do not routinely arm police officers. When a firearms unit of a UK police force engages a suspect they do not wait until the trial to use deadly force against him.
So if you think any police killings of suspects are a priori wrong because a trial hadn't taken place yet, I do not think any actually existing society would meet your unrealistic criteria.

In fact, it's worse than that - in such countries, people can generally be killed by any individual police officer who feels like doing so, for any reason or none, and his only risk of being punished for such an extrajudicial killing is the slim possibility that his claim to have been fearful of being attacked might be contradicted, by any surviving witnesses.

The reason few police killings get prosecuted is that most are justified. When police screw up, they usually get prosecuted.

This is a particular concern in the USA, where the prevalence of firearms in society makes contradicting such claims far more difficult.

Most police officers have been wearing cameras for years now. Even in the absence of such video (or in addition to it) there is other evidence that may incriminate or exonerate police officers.

Perversely, Americans believe that they have the right to bear arms, while simultaneously believing that "I thought he had a gun" is sufficient excuse for a police officer to summarily execute any citizen without trial.

You have the right to own and bear arms (unless you are a convicted felon). You do not have the right to attack police, point/brandish the gun, shoot the gun into the air (like Thurman Blevins) or at passing cars (like Adam Toledo) or not drop it when ordered by police.

Routinely arming police and giving them the authority to use deadly force creates a police state, in which no person is safe from lethal attacks on them by police officers.

So all but 18 countries in the world are "police states"?

That many people are comfortable with this kind of society is a searing indictment of the woeful state of education with regards to ethics, politics, and history.

Even in the US, where police kill >1000 people a year, your chance of getting shot by police are very low (1/300,000 roughly). But since police shootings are not indiscriminate, but rather mostly justified, those average odds are not uniformly distributed. If you do not attack police, refuse to drop your weapon when ordered or do something else terminally stupid, your odds are infinitesimal. If you do these things, your odds increase astronomically.
That's why most people are fine with it.

Basically, people are happy to live in such conditions as long as they anticipate that the victims will be other people;

A pretty safe assumption, depending on your actions.

And they will tell themselves all kinds of comforting stories about how very different they themselves, and their families and friends, are from those others who are at risk of police violence.

And they would be right.

I am not in favour of allowing the state to use capital punishment; I am considerably less in favour of giving individual police officers the power to be judge, jury, and executioner.

It is not being "judge, jury and executioner". If cops have a suspect in custody and execute him because they are convinced he is guilty, that would be it. Shooting at somebody who is attacking them or is otherwise a threat to them or others is not that.

Are you saying that it is never justified for police to use deadly force? Even in order to defend themselves or others? Because that's what this language used by you means if you think it through. Should UK disband all their firearms units?

 

[Derec]

It's the police's responsibility to face dangers, but they should do so with caution and intelligence. Opting against tactical retreats to outmaneuver criminals seems counterproductive.

That depends on the situation. What leads you to believe that such maneuver would have been advisable in the situation from the OP?

For a police force that often employs military tactics,

That is an allegation made a lot, but with little justification. The only time police may employ quasi-military tactics is large-scale raids and other deployments. Not two cops stopping a car for a traffic violation.
I guess riot control would resemble military tactics in a way since police can do things like encirclement that are also employed by militaries. Not that this makes riot police illegitimate of course, no matter how much rioters dislike them.

it's surprising how they sometimes position themselves vulnerably and then resort to using excessive force when in those precarious situations.

I do not think using deadly force when attacked with a deadly weapon is "excessive force".

 

[bilby]

If you do not attack police, refuse to drop your weapon when ordered or do something else terminally stupid, your odds are infinitesimal. If you do these things, your odds increase astronomically.
That's why most people are fine with it.

Until a cop mistakes your sandwich for a deadly weapon.

 

[bilby]

I do not think using deadly force when attacked with a deadly weapon is "excessive force"

How about using deadly force when not attacked at all, but fearful that a benign non-weapon object might be a gun (which in principle would not be unlawful to have anyway)?

 

[Derec]

You didn't parody anything. You made it up, or at the very least were mindlessly repeating what others made up about his alleged sainthood.

Wrong. I am parodying left-wing media's uncritical treatment of people like Michael Brown, Daunte Wright et al.
I guess the whole thing started with Trayvon Martin and how the media like CNN tried to portray him as a little kid by using old photos.

That article quoted Brown's friends and family 2 days after he was killed, when they were going through the initial stages of grief (denial and anger). It did not sanctify him, it reported what people who knew him said about him.

With that one-sided portrayal of Michael Brown as a "gentle giant" they certainly did sanctify him. Journalism should be more critical in its use of sources, esp. biased sources like friends and family.

And you have no comment about MSNBC comparing Michael Brown with Emmett Till?

You, who did not know him, decided they were wrong and that news articles quoting people who liked the guy were the exact same thing as publicly declaring him a saint.

It was glaring in how uncritical and one-sided the portrayal was, but it was proven wrong when a more accurate picture of St. Michael of the Blessed Swisher Sweets emerged.

You found an article that humanizes Brown. Find an article that sanctifies him, or don't find one and admit that you can't.

I guess we disagree what these articles signify. In any case, it is one-sided, uncritical and biased portrayals like these that I parody with the "Saint" moniker.

 

[robnisch]

In a suicide by cop

"Suicide by cop" is an almost uniquely American phenomenon, and is caused by your crazy system of allowing people to run around with guns, while also allowing police to shoot them for doing so.

As it is a direct consequence of your idiotic system, it cannot be a sane part of any rationalisation for keeping that system.

In countries where cops don't routinely kill people, suicide by cop isn't possible.

How dare you criticize our heath care system!

 

[Derec]

Unlike you, I do not think the skin color of the assailant has any bearing on officers' right to self defense.

I certainly do.

You think an officer's right to self-defense is contingent on the skin color of the assailant?

Your misconception is that you assume I only advocate for justice for the so-called "saintly" Black individuals you reference. In reality, I believe that everyone deserves a police force that enforces laws and protects the public equitably.

So far, so good. But that is in contradiction with your "I certainly do" above. Did you miswrite?

The flawed tactics and behaviors they sometimes exhibit towards Black individuals can and has affected every American. The same flawed tactics you endorse when used against others could very well be used against you too.

I do not endorse flawed tactics and unprofessional behaviors. But shooting a knife-wielding attacker is neither. By the way, something similar happened just now. In LA.
Knife-wielding suspect shot, wounded during police shooting in Highland Park, LAPD says
I do not see what police did wrong here. Or how the same could happen to me. I do not plan to attack police with a knife anytime soon.

Now, while vast majority of police shootings are justified, some are wrongful.
Like the guy who got shot in the ass when he tried to get his license.
Ex-South Carolina trooper sent to prison for shooting unarmed black motorist
I do not condone or endorse behavior like that, and the cop certainly screwed up.

I don't know about your perspective, but I'd prefer you to stay active on this forum rather than lose you to a tragic outcome of a police encounter, because they're trained to choose the swiftest and most forceful approach.

I must say, if I do something terminally stupid like charge a cop with a knife, or point a gun at a cop, etc. I alone would be to blame for the outcome. If, on the other hand, I get shot because an officer screws up, that is very different.