|
What was the cop actually charged with? If it was something like murder 1, then yeah once again that's a poor decision on what to file.
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:39 |
|
|
boop the snoot posted:But lmao at prefacing your question with "questionable use of lethal force aside" boop the snoot posted:but i mean if you want to play "what if" with people and shoot them because your "what if" scenario ends with them killing you, then i guess cops should just be weapons free on everyone. It's your premise. If you think it's "mental gymnastics" then maybe you should.. Shut. Up. Cole.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
Suck a duck vermis
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
yall eat rear end? It's for my thesis.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 06:41
|
|
|
Godholio posted:What was the cop actually charged with? If it was something like murder 1, then yeah once again that's a poor decision on what to file. Murder 2 I believe. As someone who has had a gun pointed at them by police two times during traffic stops I gotta say this video is loving terrifying. Even if this had been a shots fired scenario I would think that their conduct would be beyond redemption. That jury is stupid as poo poo. Kawasaki Nun fucked around with this message at 07:32 on Dec 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 07:28
|
|
|
Someone post a link about the defense cruising for blue line bunnies in voire dire or whatever. I don't doubt it, I'm just lazy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 07:36
|
|
Victor Vermis posted:It's your premise. If you think it's "mental gymnastics" then maybe you should.. i agreed with you in the next post fam. walter scott was armed to the teeth with a taser and was running away and would have done a flip like nic cage in face/off and popped the cop clean and accurate with that taser. the cop had no choice. no. other choice.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
how VV saw Walter Scott acting with that taser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmjrgmeWWJA
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
When John Woo tells you to do a flip you do a flip 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
Is there even any doubt that exercising more caution would result in far more alive suspects than dead cops? e: Like it makes sense to have a zero injury/zero death mindset when it comes to occupational safety in most jobs, but if the result in your industry is that a bunch of other people end up dead maybe reconsider things some? AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Dec 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Is there even any doubt that exercising more caution would result in far more alive suspects than dead cops? The two ideas aren't even mutually exclusive. By virtue of living in a state with easy concealed carry and license-free open carry, at least 1/3 of the people I come into contact with are armed. If we know or believe that a suspect is armed, we order them to the ground at gunpoint and then at least one officer covers them while another officer cuffs and searches them. I don't want to say this is "routine," per se, because no armed encounters are, but it's common enough that literally every cop in the city has done it multiple times. We've had exactly one officer killed by gunfire in our 68 year history. This is in a city with a higher violent crime rate per capita than Chicago. We're also trained to keep our fingers off the triggers and outside the trigger guards, even when aiming at a suspect. The only time we're supposed to touch the trigger is when we're actually about to fire. This is to prevent accidents in high-stress situations. I'm not normally a fan of Monday morning quarterbacking, but this is nuts. Issuing contradictory verbal commands to an already compliant suspect, while delaying the actual act of taking him into custody, just seems like they were looking for an excuse to shoot him. The cop's "YOU'RE hosed" dust cover on the rifle really doesn't help.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
According to this WaPo article the cop giving the commands and the one who eventually fired were different. Not that it excuses either of their conduct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Arc Light posted:The two ideas aren't even mutually exclusive. By virtue of living in a state with easy concealed carry and license-free open carry, at least 1/3 of the people I come into contact with are armed. If we know or believe that a suspect is armed, we order them to the ground at gunpoint and then at least one officer covers them while another officer cuffs and searches them. I don't want to say this is "routine," per se, because no armed encounters are, but it's common enough that literally every cop in the city has done it multiple times. We've had exactly one officer killed by gunfire in our 68 year history. This is in a city with a higher violent crime rate per capita than Chicago. Apparently the reason they wanted them to move forward was because there were uknown people with alleged firearms in the door just to the dead guy's left. They picked about the worst way to get the suspects to move out of that door's LOS except "lie on your back and crab-walk towards me!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 23:48
|
|
|
Arc Light posted:The two ideas aren't even mutually exclusive. By virtue of living in a state with easy concealed carry and license-free open carry, at least 1/3 of the people I come into contact with are armed. If we know or believe that a suspect is armed, we order them to the ground at gunpoint and then at least one officer covers them while another officer cuffs and searches them. I don't want to say this is "routine," per se, because no armed encounters are, but it's common enough that literally every cop in the city has done it multiple times. We've had exactly one officer killed by gunfire in our 68 year history. This is in a city with a higher violent crime rate per capita than Chicago. I mean more in the sense of when it's legally justifiable to kill someone. That is, if the standard for when it was acceptable to open fire was strengthened from "hands moved unexpectedly" to "he clearly has a gun in his hand", more people would survive and the increased risk to cops would be negligible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 08:19
|
|
|
Yes, cutting allowed reaction time in half would result in negligible risk.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 17:55
|
|
Godholio posted:Yes, cutting allowed reaction time in half would result in negligible risk. The threshold as of now seems to be "I felt like my life was in danger" which apparently means anything from a guy pulling a gun to a guy running away to a guy pulling his pants up. It would be nice if the allowed reaction time was based on something less arbitrary.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Yes, cutting allowed reaction time in half would result in negligible risk. Statistically speaking, yeah, probably. Suspects actually shooting and killing police officers is incredibly rare, a person already covered by police when they reach for an unknown object or move a hand towards a waistband is not going for a gun most of the time, and in those few cases where they are the police still have a significant advantage in having their guns up and usually outnumbering the person. If a policy change resulted in 10% more police officers being killed (that is, excluding accidents) but saved 10% of suspects, we would be up about 94 people. The approach of treating risk in policing like a workplace safety issue where the potential for any injury is unacceptable is pretty hosed up when the consequence is 1,000 bodies annually and who knows how many people unnecessarily beaten or injured.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
 And people here think DR is a robot. Jesus. That's not how you're going to fix police recruiting problems (to clarify, I mean getting better applicants).
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Godholio posted:
Maybe the police would recruit fewer trigger-happy sadists if recruits knew going in that they would be held to a marginally higher standard for shooting people than "I feared for my life!" I mean, probably not, but it still seems worth a try.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
Haha I forgot about this thread holy poo poo have fun guys
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 18:37
|
|
|
Zeris posted:Haha I forgot about this thread holy poo poo have fun guys ya I’m gonna forget about it too
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 18:48
|
|
|
.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Godholio posted:
 It's their job to risk their lives to protect people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
While some of the lack of good applicants is poor pay. I'd argue that another huge factor in quality of applicants is that a lot of people view being a cop as bad because of the worst of the bunch shooting people and being racist fucks. Would I, a college educated miliant liberal, want to work in my hometown police department? No. Hell no. Despite being in a democratic town in a liberal state, its rural enough that the whole police force is known to be racist as gently caress and are a miserable lot to deal with even as an affluent white. That mindset is driving away good applicants who would make inroads to correcting that mindset. No one wants to be the one guy in twenty with no friends at work because he's the dirty liberal who won't billy club the black man outside the local dive bar.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 19:40
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:While some of the lack of good applicants is poor pay. I'd argue that another huge factor in quality of applicants is that a lot of people view being a cop as bad because of the worst of the bunch shooting people and being racist fucks. Would I, a college educated miliant liberal, want to work in my hometown police department? No. Hell no. Despite being in a democratic town in a liberal state, its rural enough that the whole police force is known to be racist as gently caress and are a miserable lot to deal with even as an affluent white. I think a huge factor is that a lot of applicants think Lethal Weapon and Die Hard, or any generic late 80s/early 90s cop action movies were documentaries.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 20:26
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:
Guess we're done here, folks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
recruitment isnt going to fix this unless you're going to shoot every cop into the sun, hire good people, take all the military toys away and say "We're never going to do that again"
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:
Godholio posted:Guess we're done here, folks. Police regularly get away with what would be war crimes in Afghanistan so I don't know what you're trying to argue here. Cops should be in danger before they can shoot people, they shouldn't feel they're in danger before they shoot people. we're talking about policing our own loving citizens for fucks sake are you actually arguing cops should shoot people the moment they feel threatened? There are ways to minimize risks taken by officers beyond shooting everyone before they can shoot me regardless of whether they have a gun or not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:That mindset is driving away good applicants who would make inroads to correcting that mindset. No one wants to be the one guy in twenty with no friends at work because he's the dirty liberal who won't billy club the black man outside the local dive bar. Basically this. I've been in enough situations where I'm the sole voice against the Fox News crowd. I couldn't imagine having to deal with it in real life, (in a non-deployed status.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 22:39
|
|
|
did you guys know in the rest of the world most cops don't even carry guns!"!??
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Nostalgia4Dogges posted:did you guys know in the rest of the world most cops don't even carry guns!"!?? In India there’s at least one cop with two guns at all times  https://www.ketto.org/fundraiser/helpindianpolice?source=similar
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
pretty sure everyone has seen this by now https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byOw4AYd7-8
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
45 ACP CURES NAZIS posted:Police regularly get away with what would be war crimes in Afghanistan so I don't know what you're trying to argue here. Cops should be in danger before they can shoot people, they shouldn't feel they're in danger before they shoot people. I don't think it's quite as often as you seem to think, but it's obviously a problem. quote:we're talking about policing our own loving citizens for fucks sake are you actually arguing cops should shoot people the moment they feel threatened? There are ways to minimize risks taken by officers beyond shooting everyone before they can shoot me regardless of whether they have a gun or not. Thing is, it takes time for the human brain to process something. Waiting until a gun is visible and identifiable is physically impossible. It'd be akin to being expected to hit a home run on a fastball over 100mph the first time you see it. Except if you miss, you die before you even realize you missed. The solution isn't making the job more dangerous, it's making it more attractive to decent human beings. Starting wages in the $13/hr range isn't cutting it, for one thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 03:23
|
|
|
How often has a suspect accurately shot from the hip? This isn't a western and the perp isn't John Wayne. Practicing snapshots from a stable position with your gun loose at your side is one thing, drawing a concealed weapon while often crouched or just at a weird angle is another, and on adrenaline. The more I see these videos the more i'm starting to think that forcing officers to take a moment to register a weapon won't move the needle on annual uniform deaths. I'm curious, if you separate out the statistics for officer fatalities when confronting suspects already armed and brandishing, vs those who attempt to draw once already in a low intensity alternation with the police, what you'll find. I'm mostly thinking of things like these traffic stop murders. These aren't potentially armed suspects who you have been chasing through the alleys of a city. If you have a hostile suspect resisting arrest odds are he'll already have his weapon out when you come around a corner. How often will the suspect standing by his car successfully pull off a quick draw no scope, one in a hundred? assuming the officer does nothing once its no longer ambiguous if he's reaching for his wallet or his waist gun? Maybe find a three gun and get a conservative sample size from experienced shooters to see how often they put a single shot into a figure. I want this to be analytical and empirical now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
I'm fine with empiricism. But I'm also not sure we want people popping off badly aimed shots in public either. Any more so than the cops already are.  Edit: But there are a bunch of dashcam videos of pretty much exactly what you're looking for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I don't think it's quite as often as you seem to think, but it's obviously a problem. If any of these sort of incidents were committed by some sort of UN peace keeping force we would be seeing IRA type response to this poo poo. Instead its just cops, they get away with it, and we don't do a god drat thing. If some cop killed my wife like that I'd go extremely buck wild with a nail gun on his family.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 05:58
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:How often has a suspect accurately shot from the hip? This isn't a western and the perp isn't John Wayne. Practicing snapshots from a stable position with your gun loose at your side is one thing, drawing a concealed weapon while often crouched or just at a weird angle is another, and on adrenaline. I also think the "reasonable belief" standard is workable, but a lot of people (and jurors) don't understand it. 45 ACP CURES NAZIS posted:If any of these sort of incidents were committed by some sort of UN peace keeping force we would be seeing IRA type response to this poo poo. Instead its just cops, they get away with it, and we don't do a god drat thing. If some cop killed my wife like that I'd go extremely buck wild with a nail gun on his family. Uh, OK. A lot to unpack there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 06:29
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:While some of the lack of good applicants is poor pay. I'd argue that another huge factor in quality of applicants is that a lot of people view being a cop as bad because of the worst of the bunch shooting people and being racist fucks. Would I, a college educated miliant liberal, want to work in my hometown police department? No. Hell no. Despite being in a democratic town in a liberal state, its rural enough that the whole police force is known to be racist as gently caress and are a miserable lot to deal with even as an affluent white. boop the snoot posted:I think a huge factor is that a lot of applicants think Lethal Weapon and Die Hard, or any generic late 80s/early 90s cop action movies were documentaries. This is why I never enlisted. The military is not for people who consider themselves individuals; it's for people who like to stack naked Arabs in pyramids and clear houses with grenades. Also, as someone who doesn't identify as a conservative christian xenophone, I'd never make any friends. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 12:25
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:In a lot of cases, you're talking about hallway distances. It doesn't take Anne Oakley for a person to start dumping bullets in the general direction of "those cops" and let the law of averages be his guide. Action is going to beat reaction every time, and I don't think it's reasonable to ask the police to gamble on aggressors being a bad shot in the name of public interest. yeah and if a few innocent people die as a result who gives a poo poo? that's just how it goes. you wanna make an omelette, you gotta shoot some innocent people, amirite?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:39 |
|
|
boop the snoot posted:yeah and if a few innocent people die as a result who gives a poo poo? that's just how it goes. you wanna make an omelette, you gotta shoot some innocent people, amirite? Are you arguing in favor of cops shooting people or guys pulling guns from waistbands shooting people?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2017 16:27
|
|