Should a Police Officer Have the Right to Kill a Person Based Only on the Fear the Officer Experiences??

[bilby]

On twitter you'd be branded a major racist for saying that Dubose did anything wrong at all. I totally agree with you and I've tried to explain reality to twitter. I'm apparently a racist for doing so. More likes than dislikes but still a racist, which hurts my feelings and confuses me.
Btw couldn't we pour some electricity into pellets and shoot them rapidly at a (white) villain to test this new stopping technique? One capsule wouldn't do much, but when shooting a sub machinegun it may work. I was also thinking about flying tripwires made of advanced materials that have electric installed in them. We could look to fiction for real solutions like Batman and even Spiderman devices. What about tranquilizer darts? That would certainly be less deadly than bullets. Also I think it would be a good idea for law enforcement to dress more intimidatingly. Demon masks and prosthetic wings that allow an officer to fly five feet above the ground would lower the crime rate. It sounds ridiculous but no less ridiculous than shooting a bullet at a person who is holding a knife. While they're at it, they should design guns with a little wore creativity. If societies are going to be so insane, they should reflect this insanity in their weapons. The general idea being pistols that double as dinosaur puppets. They could put in speakers that make a goofy roaring sound after each fire. I'm jus sayin, if things are insane, things should be insane.

You have some great ideas here; but to be workable, and idea has to not require the contravention of physical law. Being impossible is usually considered good reason for not even trying to build something.

I'm not sure what you think electricity is, but it isn't something you can pour into pellets; The advantage comic book writers have over real world law enforcement is that they can ignore physical law whenever it suits them, and can make up whatever properties they want for materials. Reality doesn't allow that; Not everything that can be imagined can be built, no matter how much we want it.

Science is a process for weeding out all of the impossible things from the infinite list of things that might have been thought possible. As such, it is very good at advising people not to waste time trying to do things that are not physically possible.

 

[another1]

I assumed electricity existed in liquid form. After researching all afternoon I've discovered that it does exist, but the instruments required to do the magic spell that manifests liquid electricity won't fit into a pellet. Liquid electricity is off the table at this point in scientifical history but they could still put some regular old generic electricity into pellets. Each pellet could have a tiny electricity producing machine inside. The machine incants and creates the magic spell that makes electricity appear and POW, the pellet opens and spills electricity when it hits the white villain. Fifty pellets would incapacitate someone. I'd like to thank my family and the good Lord for this prestigious Nobel Prize. They said the E.D.P.P, or the electric dinosaur puppet pistol was a crazy idea so I knew I was on to something.

 

[Bacillus anthracis]

Not asking about legality, but morality.

The answer is the same. There is a long recognized need, both moral and legal, for a person to defend themselves with like-force. It is moral, regardless of your occupation, to defend your own life by taking the life of the one who is threatening it.

It is only afterward whether an outside agency can decide if the taking of that life meets all the elements of the person's claim of necessity for killing the other person. Again, we run into the problem of scenario.

Did the aggressor attack with his fists and get responded to with fists that for some reason in the course of the confrontation manage to kill him? Well, it depends. If it was a single blow to the head, then it was result of the aggressor's aggression and most people would see that as an unfortunate by-product of the scenario.

Did the aggressor attack with his fists only to have the victim successfully defend himself and then go on to beat the aggressor to death while he was helpless? Most people would say that would be immoral and the law reflects that.

There is no black and white answer to this. It's all shades of gray.

 

[abaddon]

Not asking about legality, but morality.

The answer is the same. There is a long recognized need, both moral and legal, for a person to defend themselves with like-force. It is moral, regardless of your occupation, to defend your own life by taking the life of the one who is threatening it.

It is only afterward whether an outside agency can decide if the taking of that life meets all the elements of the person's claim of necessity for killing the other person. Again, we run into the problem of scenario.

Did the aggressor attack with his fists and get responded to with fists that for some reason in the course of the confrontation manage to kill him? Well, it depends. If it was a single blow to the head, then it was result of the aggressor's aggression and most people would see that as an unfortunate by-product of the scenario.

Did the aggressor attack with his fists only to have the victim successfully defend himself and then go on to beat the aggressor to death while he was helpless? Most people would say that would be immoral and the law reflects that.

There is no black and white answer to this. It's all shades of gray.

Even if the aggressor is a police officer?

Maybe we need to make it more an issue of practically applied ethics rather than 'talking about morality not legality', so we get less idealistic answers. What can a real life person do to save himself when he feels he’s actually in danger for his life but it’s a police officer that’s brutally attacking him? Can he punch the officer without getting shot dead and then the officer gets paid leave until the prosecutor tells him he can go back to work? Now we know that's the likelihood in reality and that some people will call it “lawful”, but must the civilian submit to authority at the risk of his life simply because the officer has … mmm, how did a poster phrase it somewhere just yesterday?… has a “legal monopoly on force”?

ETA:
People say everyone has the same right to self-defense, but surely we all realize it’s not really true. An officer that kills someone is probably going to keep his freedom, even his job just as it was before, if it looks just remotely like the civilian did something that spooked him. A civilian that kills an officer is far, far, far more likely going to prison, regardless that he was in terror for his life.

 

[JonA]

Not talking about shootouts, armed suspects, hostage situations, or anything like that

Talking about routine encounters with the public where the public is unarmed and maybe or maybe not rude.

If a physical struggle should ensue because the officer instigated a confrontation and that act leads to the killing of an civilian, should the resulting death be the fault of the officer who initiated the disturbance?

What do "instigated a confrontation" and "initiated the disturbance" mean?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Not asking about legality, but morality.

The answer is the same.

No, it isn't. Jim Crow was legal, not moral. the concentration camps in WWII Germany were legal, and not moral.

There is a long recognized need, both moral and legal, for a person to defend themselves with like-force. It is moral, regardless of your occupation, to defend your own life by taking the life of the one who is threatening it.

It is only afterward whether an outside agency can decide if the taking of that life meets all the elements of the person's claim of necessity for killing the other person. Again, we run into the problem of scenario.

Did the aggressor attack with his fists and get responded to with fists that for some reason in the course of the confrontation manage to kill him? Well, it depends. If it was a single blow to the head, then it was result of the aggressor's aggression and most people would see that as an unfortunate by-product of the scenario.

Did the aggressor attack with his fists only to have the victim successfully defend himself and then go on to beat the aggressor to death while he was helpless? Most people would say that would be immoral and the law reflects that.

There is no black and white answer to this. It's all shades of gray.

I understand arguing legalities is easier than debating morality. Arguing legalities takes no emotional investment. But in the minutia of legislation, litigation, administration and regulations what is good and right and just sometimes gets lost. that is if we allow ourselves to lose sight of things that are indeed black and white in the weeds we like to call shades of gray.

The question isn't hard, but it sure must be scary. Or maybe just having to commit to an answer is.

 

[fromderinside]

The answer is the same.

No, it isn't. Jim Crow was legal, not moral. the concentration camps in WWII Germany were legal, and not moral.

There is a long recognized need, both moral and legal, for a person to defend themselves with like-force. It is moral, regardless of your occupation, to defend your own life by taking the life of the one who is threatening it.

It is only afterward whether an outside agency can decide if the taking of that life meets all the elements of the person's claim of necessity for killing the other person. Again, we run into the problem of scenario.

Did the aggressor attack with his fists and get responded to with fists that for some reason in the course of the confrontation manage to kill him? Well, it depends. If it was a single blow to the head, then it was result of the aggressor's aggression and most people would see that as an unfortunate by-product of the scenario.

Did the aggressor attack with his fists only to have the victim successfully defend himself and then go on to beat the aggressor to death while he was helpless? Most people would say that would be immoral and the law reflects that.

There is no black and white answer to this. It's all shades of gray.

I understand arguing legalities is easier than debating morality. Arguing legalities takes no emotional investment. But in the minutia of legislation, litigation, administration and regulations what is good and right and just sometimes gets lost. that is if we allow ourselves to lose sight of things that are indeed black and white in the weeds we like to call shades of gray.

The question isn't hard, but it sure must be scary. Or maybe just having to commit to an answer is.

What seems to be hard here is AthenaAwakened won't discus the moral issue raised by Bacillus anthracis which I emphasize in bold.

Parsing as Bacillus anthracis illustrates only makes moral and legal mud. By continuing to insist that a principle taken by the state is not a moral position since the state permits it, implying state morality is something different, may be a nice elite position AthenaAwakened, but, it doesn't change the values associated with underlying principles.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Btw couldn't we pour some electricity into pellets and shoot them rapidly at a (white) villain to test this new stopping technique? One capsule wouldn't do much, but when shooting a sub machinegun it may work. I was also thinking about flying tripwires made of advanced materials that have electric installed in them. We could look to fiction for real solutions like Batman and even Spiderman devices. What about tranquilizer darts? That would certainly be less deadly than bullets. Also I think it would be a good idea for law enforcement to dress more intimidatingly. Demon masks and prosthetic wings that allow an officer to fly five feet above the ground would lower the crime rate. It sounds ridiculous but no less ridiculous than shooting a bullet at a person who is holding a knife. While they're at it, they should design guns with a little wore creativity. If societies are going to be so insane, they should reflect this insanity in their weapons. The general idea being pistols that double as dinosaur puppets. They could put in speakers that make a goofy roaring sound after each fire. I'm jus sayin, if things are insane, things should be insane.

1) Electricity: No. It's theoretically impossible to build a taser-type weapon into a pellet--the voltage needed is too high. The contact points arc through the air.

2) Tranquilizer darts: Again, theoretically impossible. Even if you get it directly into the bloodstream it takes many seconds for it to work.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The answer is the same. There is a long recognized need, both moral and legal, for a person to defend themselves with like-force. It is moral, regardless of your occupation, to defend your own life by taking the life of the one who is threatening it.

It is only afterward whether an outside agency can decide if the taking of that life meets all the elements of the person's claim of necessity for killing the other person. Again, we run into the problem of scenario.

Did the aggressor attack with his fists and get responded to with fists that for some reason in the course of the confrontation manage to kill him? Well, it depends. If it was a single blow to the head, then it was result of the aggressor's aggression and most people would see that as an unfortunate by-product of the scenario.

Did the aggressor attack with his fists only to have the victim successfully defend himself and then go on to beat the aggressor to death while he was helpless? Most people would say that would be immoral and the law reflects that.

There is no black and white answer to this. It's all shades of gray.

Even if the aggressor is a police officer?

The police normally are the aggressor--it's their job to be.

 

[abaddon]

Even if the aggressor is a police officer?

The police normally are the aggressor--it's their job to be.

In context that’s a gross misreading of what I was asking.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

No, it isn't. Jim Crow was legal, not moral. the concentration camps in WWII Germany were legal, and not moral.

There is a long recognized need, both moral and legal, for a person to defend themselves with like-force. It is moral, regardless of your occupation, to defend your own life by taking the life of the one who is threatening it.

It is only afterward whether an outside agency can decide if the taking of that life meets all the elements of the person's claim of necessity for killing the other person. Again, we run into the problem of scenario.

Did the aggressor attack with his fists and get responded to with fists that for some reason in the course of the confrontation manage to kill him? Well, it depends. If it was a single blow to the head, then it was result of the aggressor's aggression and most people would see that as an unfortunate by-product of the scenario.

Did the aggressor attack with his fists only to have the victim successfully defend himself and then go on to beat the aggressor to death while he was helpless? Most people would say that would be immoral and the law reflects that.

There is no black and white answer to this. It's all shades of gray.

I understand arguing legalities is easier than debating morality. Arguing legalities takes no emotional investment. But in the minutia of legislation, litigation, administration and regulations what is good and right and just sometimes gets lost. that is if we allow ourselves to lose sight of things that are indeed black and white in the weeds we like to call shades of gray.

The question isn't hard, but it sure must be scary. Or maybe just having to commit to an answer is.

What seems to be hard here is AthenaAwakened won't discus the moral issue raised by Bacillus anthracis which I emphasize in bold.

Parsing as Bacillus anthracis illustrates only makes moral and legal mud. By continuing to insist that a principle taken by the state is not a moral position since the state permits it, implying state morality is something different, may be a nice elite position AthenaAwakened, but, it doesn't change the values associated with underlying principles.

And how does one judge if one's life is being threatened? If fear enough, all by itself, to determine the threat? Growing up I feared clowns. The clown didn't have to do anything, didn't have to say anything, didn't even have to have seen me. Had I had a gun, I would have shot every clown I saw. Was my fear enough to justify such an action? Should it have been?

- - - Updated - - -

Even if the aggressor is a police officer?

The police normally are the aggressor--it's their job to be.

Their job is to protect and serve. NOWHERE will find a police dept. that hold as its creed, "We are the aggressors."

 

[ksen]

not out loud anyway

 

[another1]

But Loren... 50,000 volt stun guns are the size of cigarette packs and those can knock a 300lb man down in a second. It is safe to say 5,000 volt pellets fired in succession couldn't fail, so don't discount the pellet gun. I promise not to gloat when this really happens in the near future. This isn't about me. This is about the safety of the kids. This is about the fabric of society slowly tearing. We can hear the sad sound of it tearing in the ambiance of this polluted and roasting air. Things have been bad for a while and we should be focused on reinventing the wheel instead of arguing about new ways to turn it. This is more important than "physics" and "facts". This is beyond "improbabilities" and the illusion that things are impossible.

I was thinking electric footballs would work. A football is big enough to house the components necessary to produce the charge needed to incapacitate a villain. When thrown at the head of a fleeing suspect, or even the body, it would do the job safely and efficiently. It would be a fun weapon for the cops to use, too.

Tranquilizer darts would be slow but isn't that better than chasing robbers, rapists and potheads? They could put a tracer in the tranquilizing projectiles. That way they could shoot and catch up with the criminal later when the signal stops moving. The darts could emit feedback sounds arranged as popular tunes, which would humiliate the suspect and entertain onlookers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But Loren... 50,000 volt stun guns are the size of cigarette packs and those can knock a 300lb man down in a second. It is safe to say 5,000 volt pellets fired in succession couldn't fail, so don't discount the pellet gun. I promise not to gloat when this really happens in the near future. This isn't about me. This is about the safety of the kids. This is about the fabric of society slowly tearing. We can hear the sad sound of it tearing in the ambiance of this polluted and roasting air. Things have been bad for a while and we should be focused on reinventing the wheel instead of arguing about new ways to turn it. This is more important than "physics" and "facts". This is beyond "improbabilities" and the illusion that things are impossible.

A cigarette pack is as small a device as can emit 50,000V--anything less and you'll just get an arc through the air that dissipates the power.

You'll need a pretty big pellet to emit even 5,000V without causing an arc.

I was thinking electric footballs would work. A football is big enough to house the components necessary to produce the charge needed to incapacitate a villain. When thrown at the head of a fleeing suspect, or even the body, it would do the job safely and efficiently. It would be a fun weapon for the cops to use, too.

But what makes it stay in place?

Tranquilizer darts would be slow but isn't that better than chasing robbers, rapists and potheads? They could put a tracer in the tranquilizing projectiles. That way they could shoot and catch up with the criminal later when the signal stops moving. The darts could emit feedback sounds arranged as popular tunes, which would humiliate the suspect and entertain onlookers.

Chasing is almost certainly safer than a tranquilizer dart.

 

[DBT]

Fear being subjective, the sensation of fear may or may not be related to an actual threat. An irrational fear may not be related to any sort of threat.

 

[another1]

There must be a way around the arc problem. it can't be eliminated by considering it recoil and augmenting the way the gun fires? Electricity is essentially magic and it can do anything you want it to do if you try. I don't know about these things because I'm not an electric scientist but I've seen miracles. Resting a pile of metal BB gun pellets on a recharging mat overnight seemed be utterly useless so you're right, the electricity has to be crammed into a device large enough to house the shocking power.
The dissipation can be reversed, and flying through the air could actually accelerate the charge. The charge has to occur on impact, not when the device is thrown or shot. The "football" is just an idea for the shape of a device. Something the size of a football could explode a persons head if enough electricity was installed in it.
It would stay in place if highly compressed electricity was installed in a football shaped object that spins through the air because the spinning would sustain it's position. The spin could wind coils made of copper. Copper I've learned is an excellent conductor of electricity. The coils could intertwine, and with the help of magnets and other features that use gravity and the electromagnetic mood of the air, the weapon could kill elephants. I wouldn't want to kill an elephant, though I'm not above it because killing elephants helped make electric archaeologists discover the fundamentals of lighting homes and businesses.
Acquiring elephants is a long way off and that is just a silly notion. The key point here is to give examples of how police could more humanely control the public. There are better ways, and dreamers working intimately with thinkers can pave the way to finding those ways.