ronburgundy
Contributor
Some of those 3 men per day killed by cops should have been killed given the situation, and their deaths saved lives and prevented violent harm to others.
However, cops clearly are killing some number of people that they should not, who are either completely innocent of any crime or whose actions did not make the cops actions a reasonable or moral one. It is also very likely that some cops are racist and prone to assume, all other factors being equal, that a black suspect is more of a threat. But for this post, I am sticking to explaining unwarranted use of lethal force in general.
The following observations seek to understand why unwarranted use of lethal force is occurring for reasons more complex (and more accurate and science based) than simply assuming that cops are evil racist nazis. Like most wrongful behavior, such an explanation accounts for little of it. Rather the explanation usually lies in considering what context would lead the average person to such actions. It is predictably sad how many people are quick to agree with this perspective when explaining the actions of criminals but then completely ignore it when explaining the actions of cops.
I view what follows as part of the explanation for why US cops use lethal force when it's unjustified, and do so more than cops other modern democratic nations.
Of the dozens of millions of criminals that US cops encounter every year, a significant number of them are armed, with many additional that are not armed still attempting violent assault of the officers, and huge % of the rest being suspected of violent crimes and thus a plausible violent threat.
The frequency with which cops encounter an armed threat or otherwise actual violent threat (not even counting potential threats from violent nature of the suspected crime) is many times higher than the tiny fraction of a percentage of the time the cops react with deadly force. IOW, cops take suspects lives many times less often than the suspects legitimately threaten the cops lives. The fact that the cops don't die as often is because they are more skilled than the suspects.
This doesn't mean that the cops do not make mistakes in their reactions and over-react given an actual threat level in a given situation.
But it does help explain why such over-reactions sometimes occur. They must make split second decisions and often hesitation would mean they or other innocent civilians will die when the threat is real. Human beings are not capable of reacting that quickly solely to the information within an isolated context. Their past experiences will always impact where that threat assessment level starts before even taking into account what is known in that specific situation. For example, if they have encountered many armed suspects in general, or in that neighborhood, or in the last weeks, then they will enter a new situation with a higher level of perceived possible threat. That will make it more likely that a sudden move or pulling out of an object is reacted to as a lethal threat. When it is in fact a lethal threat that is a good thing, and it gets neutralized more quickly. When it isn't a threat, then it leads to an over-reaction and potential use of lethal force that exceeds the actual threat as assesses post-hoc using only the facts of that context in isolation. Post-hoc assessments can approach the situation leisurely without time limit or emotion, and without influence of past experiences. Thus, post-hoc assessments will sometimes reach a different (and more rational) conclusion than the cop did (or anyone would) in that moment.
Cops in other developed countries make decisions the same way because its just basic human cognition. The difference is that other cops do not have the experiences of US cops regarding encountering suspects with guns. Thus, they react to suspects without thinking about the high probability of a gun. In fact, the cops own gun puts the idea of guns even more in their mind. In countries where many cops do not carry guns, they don't have a gun to prime them to worry about the suspect having a gun. Add to that the fact that an increasing % of US cops are ex-military who experienced armed combat and you have a perfect storm where both the actual lethal dangers they face as cops, the presence of their own guns, and their military experience with encountering armed enemies would many anyone in that situation more likely to use lethal force, both when it is justified and when it isn't.
Note that none of this means that the errors cannot be reduced or that punishment isn't called for and wouldn't help the situation. If cops fear reprisal for using unwarranted force, then they will raise the bar for using force and delay its use until more certainty of a threat can be determined. That will reduce the number of suspects killed who should not have been. But doing so will inherently delay their use of force in most situations, including when it is neccessary, because they cannot know it was neccessary until the now raised threshold has been met. This makes it is certainty that more punishment for lethal force when unjustified will increase the number of cops and others (e.g., victims of the suspects) who are killed or injured while the cop is trying the definitively verify the suspect is a threat.
I look forward to mindless replies that ignore all the many facts presented and nuance, and accuse me of being a goose-stepping boot-licker.
However, cops clearly are killing some number of people that they should not, who are either completely innocent of any crime or whose actions did not make the cops actions a reasonable or moral one. It is also very likely that some cops are racist and prone to assume, all other factors being equal, that a black suspect is more of a threat. But for this post, I am sticking to explaining unwarranted use of lethal force in general.
The following observations seek to understand why unwarranted use of lethal force is occurring for reasons more complex (and more accurate and science based) than simply assuming that cops are evil racist nazis. Like most wrongful behavior, such an explanation accounts for little of it. Rather the explanation usually lies in considering what context would lead the average person to such actions. It is predictably sad how many people are quick to agree with this perspective when explaining the actions of criminals but then completely ignore it when explaining the actions of cops.
I view what follows as part of the explanation for why US cops use lethal force when it's unjustified, and do so more than cops other modern democratic nations.
Of the dozens of millions of criminals that US cops encounter every year, a significant number of them are armed, with many additional that are not armed still attempting violent assault of the officers, and huge % of the rest being suspected of violent crimes and thus a plausible violent threat.
The frequency with which cops encounter an armed threat or otherwise actual violent threat (not even counting potential threats from violent nature of the suspected crime) is many times higher than the tiny fraction of a percentage of the time the cops react with deadly force. IOW, cops take suspects lives many times less often than the suspects legitimately threaten the cops lives. The fact that the cops don't die as often is because they are more skilled than the suspects.
This doesn't mean that the cops do not make mistakes in their reactions and over-react given an actual threat level in a given situation.
But it does help explain why such over-reactions sometimes occur. They must make split second decisions and often hesitation would mean they or other innocent civilians will die when the threat is real. Human beings are not capable of reacting that quickly solely to the information within an isolated context. Their past experiences will always impact where that threat assessment level starts before even taking into account what is known in that specific situation. For example, if they have encountered many armed suspects in general, or in that neighborhood, or in the last weeks, then they will enter a new situation with a higher level of perceived possible threat. That will make it more likely that a sudden move or pulling out of an object is reacted to as a lethal threat. When it is in fact a lethal threat that is a good thing, and it gets neutralized more quickly. When it isn't a threat, then it leads to an over-reaction and potential use of lethal force that exceeds the actual threat as assesses post-hoc using only the facts of that context in isolation. Post-hoc assessments can approach the situation leisurely without time limit or emotion, and without influence of past experiences. Thus, post-hoc assessments will sometimes reach a different (and more rational) conclusion than the cop did (or anyone would) in that moment.
Cops in other developed countries make decisions the same way because its just basic human cognition. The difference is that other cops do not have the experiences of US cops regarding encountering suspects with guns. Thus, they react to suspects without thinking about the high probability of a gun. In fact, the cops own gun puts the idea of guns even more in their mind. In countries where many cops do not carry guns, they don't have a gun to prime them to worry about the suspect having a gun. Add to that the fact that an increasing % of US cops are ex-military who experienced armed combat and you have a perfect storm where both the actual lethal dangers they face as cops, the presence of their own guns, and their military experience with encountering armed enemies would many anyone in that situation more likely to use lethal force, both when it is justified and when it isn't.
Note that none of this means that the errors cannot be reduced or that punishment isn't called for and wouldn't help the situation. If cops fear reprisal for using unwarranted force, then they will raise the bar for using force and delay its use until more certainty of a threat can be determined. That will reduce the number of suspects killed who should not have been. But doing so will inherently delay their use of force in most situations, including when it is neccessary, because they cannot know it was neccessary until the now raised threshold has been met. This makes it is certainty that more punishment for lethal force when unjustified will increase the number of cops and others (e.g., victims of the suspects) who are killed or injured while the cop is trying the definitively verify the suspect is a threat.
I look forward to mindless replies that ignore all the many facts presented and nuance, and accuse me of being a goose-stepping boot-licker.