Why police are weary during stops and quick to respond when attacked

[Keith&Co.]

Summary executions for truculence - wow.

There is a difference between a justified police shooting and self defense and a "summary execution"

There's also a difference between a justified shooting and a 'good ending.' A human has been shot.
That's not a 'good' ending.

 

[SimpleDon]

Finally you have to ask who exactly is suppose to be the professional in these cases?

I assert that it is the police who are suppose to be. That they are the ones who must be able to defuse and disarm. And to use some judgement to just let go in some cases. And to put aside their personal biases.

Our society does make it hard on the police. Obviously, we don't train our police very well.

And you hardly ever have these problems placing the police in such danger when there are two cops in the car, one to cover the other. We have twice the number of police per capita of any country in the world that isn't an oil rich kingdom on the island of Borneo. (Brunei) We should be able to put two policemen in a car easily, especially at night.

And in many jurisdictions the use of traffic fines as a revenue stream to support the government instead of taxes puts the police unnecessarily in the most dangerous position that they face, cold traffic stops.

And our society is hell bent to arm everyone or only the criminals will have guns.

And we top it all off we maintain the perfect breeding ground for criminals. A perpetual, hereditary underclass of disadvantaged people for no obvious good reason in the wealthiest country in the world.

 

[laughing dog]

Unfortunately there are many more like him.


Not only that it is dangerous, but that a situation can deteriorate very quickly, and the officer must react in a split second. Judging police based on hindsight or frame-by-frame analysis of videos is thus not exactly fair.

That cops need to be able to shoot back?

Not only back, but also first, like Han Solo.
Or do you think police should be required to take fire before being able to use deadly force?
If Lester shot Coffee after the punch and Coffee turned out to be unarmed (except for his fists), would he have become another #BLM darling? Florida has good protestin' weather this time of year.

Simply because there are bad guys who shoot police, that does not give police the right to shoot unarmed citizens with impunity.

list 10 such shootings, 100, 1000, 1,000,000, it won't matter. It won't make the killing of even one unarmed citizen righteous.

There's no such thing as perfection. There will be some unjustified shootings of suspects, there will be some police dying at the hands of suspects.

Is there a relevant point to this response? Most people would think acting to minimize these outcomes would be a good thing.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unfortunately there are many more like him.


Not only that it is dangerous, but that a situation can deteriorate very quickly, and the officer must react in a split second. Judging police based on hindsight or frame-by-frame analysis of videos is thus not exactly fair.

That cops need to be able to shoot back?

Not only back, but also first, like Han Solo.
Or do you think police should be required to take fire before being able to use deadly force?
If Lester shot Coffee after the punch and Coffee turned out to be unarmed (except for his fists), would he have become another #BLM darling? Florida has good protestin' weather this time of year.

Simply because there are bad guys who shoot police, that does not give police the right to shoot unarmed citizens with impunity.

list 10 such shootings, 100, 1000, 1,000,000, it won't matter. It won't make the killing of even one unarmed citizen righteous.

There's no such thing as perfection. There will be some unjustified shootings of suspects, there will be some police dying at the hands of suspects.

Is there a relevant point to this response? Most people would think acting to minimize these outcomes would be a good thing.

Yes, but the issue is people who think there should be no improper shootings no matter how many dead officers that means.

 

[laughing dog]

Unfortunately there are many more like him.


Not only that it is dangerous, but that a situation can deteriorate very quickly, and the officer must react in a split second. Judging police based on hindsight or frame-by-frame analysis of videos is thus not exactly fair.

That cops need to be able to shoot back?

Not only back, but also first, like Han Solo.
Or do you think police should be required to take fire before being able to use deadly force?
If Lester shot Coffee after the punch and Coffee turned out to be unarmed (except for his fists), would he have become another #BLM darling? Florida has good protestin' weather this time of year.

Simply because there are bad guys who shoot police, that does not give police the right to shoot unarmed citizens with impunity.

list 10 such shootings, 100, 1000, 1,000,000, it won't matter. It won't make the killing of even one unarmed citizen righteous.

There's no such thing as perfection. There will be some unjustified shootings of suspects, there will be some police dying at the hands of suspects.

Is there a relevant point to this response? Most people would think acting to minimize these outcomes would be a good thing.

Yes, but the issue is people who think there should be no improper shootings no matter how many dead officers that means.

I don't know any people who think that, so I doubt that is a real issue at all.

 

[bilby]

Unfortunately there are many more like him.


Not only that it is dangerous, but that a situation can deteriorate very quickly, and the officer must react in a split second. Judging police based on hindsight or frame-by-frame analysis of videos is thus not exactly fair.

That cops need to be able to shoot back?

Not only back, but also first, like Han Solo.
Or do you think police should be required to take fire before being able to use deadly force?
If Lester shot Coffee after the punch and Coffee turned out to be unarmed (except for his fists), would he have become another #BLM darling? Florida has good protestin' weather this time of year.

Simply because there are bad guys who shoot police, that does not give police the right to shoot unarmed citizens with impunity.

list 10 such shootings, 100, 1000, 1,000,000, it won't matter. It won't make the killing of even one unarmed citizen righteous.

There's no such thing as perfection. There will be some unjustified shootings of suspects, there will be some police dying at the hands of suspects.

Is there a relevant point to this response? Most people would think acting to minimize these outcomes would be a good thing.

Yes, but the issue is people who think there should be no improper shootings no matter how many dead officers that means.

I don't know any people who think that, so I doubt that is a real issue at all.

Actually, the issue is people who are so immersed in the American way of doing things that they view any alternative as 'impossible' - despite observable examples elsewhere in the world where killings both of, and by, police are several orders of magnitude less common than in the USA.

It's easy to declare that it is impossible to improve, and it certainly is a good excuse for doing nothing. But when every other developed nation does far better than America, it takes wilful ignorance and/or a high tolerance for cognitive dissonance to sustain such an evidently false belief.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Unfortunately there are many more like him.


Not only that it is dangerous, but that a situation can deteriorate very quickly, and the officer must react in a split second. Judging police based on hindsight or frame-by-frame analysis of videos is thus not exactly fair.

That cops need to be able to shoot back?

Not only back, but also first, like Han Solo.
Or do you think police should be required to take fire before being able to use deadly force?
If Lester shot Coffee after the punch and Coffee turned out to be unarmed (except for his fists), would he have become another #BLM darling? Florida has good protestin' weather this time of year.

Simply because there are bad guys who shoot police, that does not give police the right to shoot unarmed citizens with impunity.

list 10 such shootings, 100, 1000, 1,000,000, it won't matter. It won't make the killing of even one unarmed citizen righteous.

There's no such thing as perfection. There will be some unjustified shootings of suspects, there will be some police dying at the hands of suspects.

But we can demand justice as a response to imperfection and not stand for more imperfection as the correct answer to the problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Unfortunately there are many more like him.


Not only that it is dangerous, but that a situation can deteriorate very quickly, and the officer must react in a split second. Judging police based on hindsight or frame-by-frame analysis of videos is thus not exactly fair.

That cops need to be able to shoot back?

Not only back, but also first, like Han Solo.
Or do you think police should be required to take fire before being able to use deadly force?
If Lester shot Coffee after the punch and Coffee turned out to be unarmed (except for his fists), would he have become another #BLM darling? Florida has good protestin' weather this time of year.

Simply because there are bad guys who shoot police, that does not give police the right to shoot unarmed citizens with impunity.

list 10 such shootings, 100, 1000, 1,000,000, it won't matter. It won't make the killing of even one unarmed citizen righteous.

There's no such thing as perfection. There will be some unjustified shootings of suspects, there will be some police dying at the hands of suspects.

But we can demand justice as a response to imperfection and not stand for more imperfection as the correct answer to the problem.

In other words, skew the answer towards dead cops. There's an optimum point and it's not at zero.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Unfortunately there are many more like him.


Not only that it is dangerous, but that a situation can deteriorate very quickly, and the officer must react in a split second. Judging police based on hindsight or frame-by-frame analysis of videos is thus not exactly fair.

That cops need to be able to shoot back?

Not only back, but also first, like Han Solo.
Or do you think police should be required to take fire before being able to use deadly force?
If Lester shot Coffee after the punch and Coffee turned out to be unarmed (except for his fists), would he have become another #BLM darling? Florida has good protestin' weather this time of year.

Simply because there are bad guys who shoot police, that does not give police the right to shoot unarmed citizens with impunity.

list 10 such shootings, 100, 1000, 1,000,000, it won't matter. It won't make the killing of even one unarmed citizen righteous.

There's no such thing as perfection. There will be some unjustified shootings of suspects, there will be some police dying at the hands of suspects.

But we can demand justice as a response to imperfection and not stand for more imperfection as the correct answer to the problem.

In other words, skew the answer towards dead cops.

No. Wrong again.
How does it feel to bat a thousand ... BACKWARDS...

Again.

There's an optimum point and it's not at zero.

So why try?

 

[Arctish]

Why do so many people have so much trouble with "weary" vs. "wary"? Is it a regional thing?

My first thought when I read the thread title was that it would contain a study about cops going short on sleep and taking stimulants to compensate, thus the increasing number of short-tempered, ill-considered overreactions to potential threats we have been seeing lately.

 

[Keith&Co.]

In other words, skew the answer towards dead cops. There's an optimum point and it's not at zero.

When I carried a gun regularly, it was acknowledged that the conditions of deadly force pretty much made it clear that there was a good chance someone would be dead before we were allowed to return fire.

Cops already accepted, or should have accepted, or it could be expected that they've accepted the fact that they might die in defense of the people they're out there to protect. And every time there is an unjustified shooting, the person being shot is one of the people they've sworn to protect, no?

The system SHOULD be skewed to dead cops if the only other option is the death of innocent lives.

Or skewed towards better armored, better trained, better supported cops, to give them more options short of shooting 'just in case.'

 

[Derec]

When I carried a gun regularly, it was acknowledged that the conditions of deadly force pretty much made it clear that there was a good chance someone would be dead before we were allowed to return fire.

You know the saying: better be tired by twelve than carried by six?

Cops already accepted, or should have accepted, or it could be expected that they've accepted the fact that they might die in defense of the people they're out there to protect. And every time there is an unjustified shooting, the person being shot is one of the people they've sworn to protect, no?

Yes, police officers are expected to expose themselves to danger, but that doesn't mean they are expected to accept undue danger or to act in a suicidal manner only to avoid shooting at perps.
And yes, sometimes mistakes will be made. They are unavoidable in any system. What you and other lefties want is to reduce these mistakes by allowing many more dead cops. I think that is not conscionable.

The system SHOULD be skewed to dead cops if the only other option is the death of innocent lives.

Coffee certainly wasn't innocent.

Or skewed towards better armored, better trained, better supported cops, to give them more options short of shooting 'just in case.'

Body armor only covers the torso. I have no problem with shooting armed perps who refuse to drop their weapon and/or attack police with it. Reactions to shootings of Mario Woods or Nicholas Robertson show that many people disagree.

 

[Derec]

But we can demand justice as a response to imperfection and not stand for more imperfection as the correct answer to the problem.

Justice, or a witch hunt with a pre-determined outcome?

For example "Justice4JamarClark" in BLM Newspeak means "try and convict the cops", not "have an honest investigation and prosecute iff warranted". See for example the calls to prosecute no matter what the investigation results and are without even convening a grand jury.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

But we can demand justice as a response to imperfection and not stand for more imperfection as the correct answer to the problem.

Justice, or a witch hunt with a pre-determined outcome?

What did I say?

For example "Justice4JamarClark" in BLM Newspeak means "try and convict the cops", not "have an honest investigation and prosecute iff warranted".

Other than in your mind, where is there proof that this is the case? But since you don't strike me as a person would ever ask someone in BLM to explain what they mean or why they protest, feel free to live in your own mind. Just don't expect others to join you there.

See for example the calls to prosecute no matter what the investigation results and are without even convening a grand jury.

If the investigations have historically been suspect and if the grand jury process has over time proven biased, why wouldn't there be calls for trials, hearings, and more transparency?

These are not new stories but the latest installments in a long running series called the history of America. Try as you might and as much as you like, you cannot divorce bits and pieces from the over arching narrative.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You know the saying: better be tired by twelve than carried by six?

I don't know that saying.
Did you mean 'tried' by twelve? Although 'tired by twelve' fits in with why cops are weary at stops...
Anyway, that's pretty accurate for armed forced in occupied territories. The priorities are the mission, the personnel and the natives, in that order. It shouldn't be the same for cops that are not occupying forces.

But still, part of the problem is that they aren't being tired by twelve. Their admin, time and again, excuses their improper conduct without trial.

Yes, police officers are expected to expose themselves to danger, but that doesn't mean they are expected to accept undue danger or to act in a suicidal manner only to avoid shooting at perps.

I'm not saying they should avoid shooting at perps. But they should make damned sure that who they're shooting at ARE perps, even if that increases the risk to the cops.

And yes, sometimes mistakes will be made. They are unavoidable in any system. What you and other lefties want is to reduce these mistakes by allowing many more dead cops. I think that is not conscionable.

IF the choice is more dead cops or more dead citizens, then just accepting dead citizens is the unconscionable choice. I don't think it's a 'lefty' choice to think that the chops should be damned sure of their targets before firing.
That lesser means should be employed before deadly force is applied. That's pretty much how every list of the conditions of deadly force are written, but too few cops are held to the actual written policies.

I have no problem with shooting armed perps who refuse to drop their weapon and/or attack police with it.

Frankly, I don't have a problem with that, either.
I have a problem with cops overreacting as if everyone who isn't a cop is armed and already firing at them. And I have a problem with authorities who accept cops behaving as occupying forces.

 

[ksen]

Actually, the issue is people who are so immersed in the American way of doing things that they view any alternative as 'impossible' - despite observable examples elsewhere in the world where killings both of, and by, police are several orders of magnitude less common than in the USA.

It's easy to declare that it is impossible to improve, and it certainly is a good excuse for doing nothing. But when every other developed nation does far better than America, it takes wilful ignorance and/or a high tolerance for cognitive dissonance to sustain such an evidently false belief.

You keep forgeting the most pertinent difference between America and the rest of the developed world. We have more blacks. Therefore the police have to kill more people.

QED

 

[Derec]

I don't know that saying.
Did you mean 'tried' by twelve?

Yes. Damn typos keep haunting me in this thread.

Although 'tired by twelve' fits in with why cops are weary at stops...

Well BLMers can be tiresome.

Anyway, that's pretty accurate for armed forced in occupied territories. The priorities are the mission, the personnel and the natives, in that order. It shouldn't be the same for cops that are not occupying forces.

The saying is actually more general and does not specifically aim at police officers. Basically, if you are faced with an attacker who poses mortal danger it's better to take your chances with a jury ("tried by twelve") than risk getting killed (and carried by six pallbearers).

But still, part of the problem is that they aren't being tired by twelve. Their admin, time and again, excuses their improper conduct without trial.

Actually when there is improper conduct there usually is a trial. Sometimes when there is no improper conduct there is a trial anyway (see Jonathan Ferrell).

I'm not saying they should avoid shooting at perps. But they should make damned sure that who they're shooting at ARE perps, even if that increases the risk to the cops.

They have to make that determination in a split second, otherwise they put themselves and their fellow cops in mortal danger.
And among the controversial police shootings recently, vast majority were perps, usually armed.
Michael Brown - unarmed, but a violent perp who robbed a store and attacked the cop.
VonDerritt Myers - shot at police
Antonio Martin - pointed gun at police
Nicholas Thomas - tried running over police in a customer's Maserati
Tony "not Baldrick" Robinson - attacked police after attacking random strangers while high on shrooms
Jamar Clark - attacked his girlfriend, paramedics and the police
Mario Woods - stabbed somebody, refused to drop the knife even after non-lethal beanbags were deployed
Nicholas Robertson - was shooting his gun, refused to drop it when police arrived
Even Laquan McDonald was armed with a knife and behaved in a threatening manner when he was gunned down.

About the only non-perp was Tamir Rice and in his case there were reasons why police thought him to be a threat - his large size for his age and his possession of a realistic looking gun.
Again, these decisions must be made quickly and that by necessity means that sometimes mistakes will be made. That is unavoidable.

IF the choice is more dead cops or more dead citizens, then just accepting dead citizens is the unconscionable choice. I don't think it's a 'lefty' choice to think that the chops should be damned sure of their targets before firing.

That is an unrealistic standard.

That lesser means should be employed before deadly force is applied. That's pretty much how every list of the conditions of deadly force are written, but too few cops are held to the actual written policies.

If feasible they usually are. Cops usually try tasers first if feasible and if they have them. In Mario Woods' case they deployed bean bags first. That doesn't quiet those who insist it was "murder" though.

I have a problem with cops overreacting as if everyone who isn't a cop is armed and already firing at them. And I have a problem with authorities who accept cops behaving as occupying forces.

Example?

 

[Derec]

You keep forgeting the most pertinent difference between America and the rest of the developed world. We have more blacks guns. Therefore the police have to kill more people.
QED

FIFY.