To Protect and to Serve II

#4,351
#4,351
MercyPercy said:
Neither can I, but shoot first and ask questions later is not a privilege that will often be afforded to me.

It's okay to expect better from trained individuals. Your job does in fact offer insights many of us don't have, but it is also apparent that it blinds you to a very real problem with the culture of law enforcement in this country.
Click to expand...


That's because in real life there is no 20/20 hindsight when you are dealing with someone who may be some toxic mixture of a) in the midst of a criminal act; b) desperate; c) intoxicated; d) mentally ill.

This is the court's lingo from a particularly cogent case:

"Reconsideration will nearly always reveal that something different could have been done if the officer knew the future before it occurred. This is what we mean when we say we refuse to second-guess the officer.”
 
#4,352
#4,352
Rasputin_Vol said:
The simple/easy solution would be to shave down the number of infractions/laws that are enforced, which would in turn mean that you will need less police on the streets. Which means you can then use that excess money to go towards training fewer cops. We have far too many laws on the books and are asking these guys to do far too much.
Click to expand...


Ok. Get the Legislature to get rid of some.
 
#4,353
#4,353
lawgator1 said:
It can always be said that it would be great if police agencies had unlimited budgets for training their officers.

It can always be said that it would be great if police agencies had unlimited budgets to hire better people to be officers.

But two things are true. Number one, they don't have unlimited budgets. Two, even if they did, their officers are still going to daily insert themselves into conflicts and situations which involve people who are aggressive, dangerous, and unpredictable.

No matter how much you pay to get good officers and no matter how much you train them, they can't read the minds of the people they are dealing with.
Click to expand...

I don't think this was necessarily all about "more money". Being trained "better" needn't be predicated on better funding. Think more along the lines of when better coaching can beat better talent in sports.

The rest of your post comes awfully close to sounding like "It's tough out there and, well, sometimes civilians that should still be alive aren't.". That's an immensely unsatisfying answer even to people predisposed to being sympathetic to how tough being an LEO can be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,354
#4,354
hndog609 said:
I don't think this was necessarily all about "more money". Being trained "better" needn't be predicated on better funding. Think more along the lines of when better coaching can beat better talent in sports.

The rest of your post comes awfully close to sounding like "It's tough out there and, well, sometimes civilians that should still be alive aren't.". That's an immensely unsatisfying answer even to people predisposed to being sympathetic to how tough being an LEO can be.
Click to expand...


No, there are mistakes made and civil lawsuits follow. However, it seems rarely to be the case that an officer's mistaken judgment about the need for force rises to a criminal violation. Yes, law enforcement officers are given more leeway than an ordinary citizen in this regard, but that is because it is his duty to intervene in a crime.
 
#4,355
#4,355
lawgator1 said:
That's because in real life there is no 20/20 hindsight when you are dealing with someone who may be some toxic mixture of a) in the midst of a criminal act; b) desperate; c) intoxicated; d) mentally ill.

This is the court's lingo from a particularly cogent case:

"Reconsideration will nearly always reveal that something different could have been done if the officer knew the future before it occurred. This is what we mean when we say we refuse to second-guess the officer.”
Click to expand...

Refuse to second guess the officer... ever? At all? Or even if they are referring to taht one specific case, it is still a dumb thing to say. That is dangerous ideology.

If we can't even question of they did the right thing, then we are truly at the mercy of the state.
 
#4,357
#4,357
lawgator1 said:
No, there are mistakes made and civil lawsuits follow. However, it seems rarely to be the case that an officer's mistaken judgment about the need for force rises to a criminal violation. Yes, law enforcement officers are given more leeway than an ordinary citizen in this regard, but that is because it is his duty to intervene in a crime.
Click to expand...

What people are arguing (mostly at least) is to get out in front of the problem. Mistakes in judgement with lethal force have to START with the implementation of lethal force. This idea of "leeway" at the back end isn't the issue when dealing with unarmed individuals but rather a poor approach from the outset.

Let's go back to that Shaver case. I'm betting there are a bunch of middle school kids could come up with the question "How come an unarmed guy surrounded by a SWAT team couldn't just be cuffed and have things sorted out calmly?". The answer is there absolutely is no damn reason whatsoever. That isn't 20/20 hindsight...it's something that should be standard tactical procedure.

I'm not about to poo poo the expectations placed upon LEO in the field. What many people don't understand is that, as opposed to civilians, LEO have to "press" self defense. For instance when a "bad guy" is confronted by an armed individual and he runs away a civilian is done. They get to say "Glad I had a gun!" and call the police. LEO are charged with apprehending so they have to press their position which obviously leads to a conflict that needs dynamic resolution. Ideally that's a peaceful surrender and at worst it means use of lethal force for the LEO to defend themselves from an articulable threat. My issue, and it's the same with a great many others, is that the gap between those two can be terrifyingly narrow. Examination of equipment and tactics should (arguably well before now) be used to widen this gap as far as possible whenever the situation allows.

People absolutely have a right to expect that government agents aren't going to become lethal threats in ambiguous situations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#4,358
#4,358
Rasputin_Vol said:
At this point, nothing short of a revolution would be able to do that, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Not true. Think about all the zillions of folks that have been arrested over the past x number of years for possessing pot. Now think about all the states that have decriminalized pot. Of course it will take some time for the more backward states to follow suit, but they will.
 
#4,359
#4,359
MercyPercy said:
Refuse to second guess the officer... ever? At all? Or even if they are referring to taht one specific case, it is still a dumb thing to say. That is dangerous ideology.

If we can't even question of they did the right thing, then we are truly at the mercy of the state.
Click to expand...


No, this is specific to the situation where the cop reasonably perceives a deadly threat, even if mistaken, and chooses to use deadly force rather than lower level of force.
 
#4,360
#4,360
lawgator1 said:
No, this is specific to the situation where the cop reasonably perceives a deadly threat, even if mistaken, and chooses to use deadly force rather than lower level of force.
Click to expand...

Was the pathetic, drunken guy crawling on his belly in the hotel hallway, pleading for his life while trying to follow contradicting commands screamed at him aggressively, reasonably perceived as a fatal threat?

Am I allowed to use that same definition of "reasonably" even though I'm not a cop?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#4,362
#4,362
Man killed by police; online gaming community blames 'swatting' | The Wichita Eagle

Family talks about son killed by police in swatting | The Wichita Eagle

From what I can tell via multiple new stories, two online gamers got into an argument over a two dollar bet. One swatted the other. Swatting is apparently to call a 911 murder or hostage situation to the other person's address in order to get a massive police response to that address.

The Person who called in the swatting called in the wrong address. Police show up and get into position. Innocent 28 year old guy answers the door and gets gunned down by a police officer.
 
#4,363
#4,363
MercyPercy said:
Was the pathetic, drunken guy crawling on his belly in the hotel hallway, pleading for his life while trying to follow contradicting commands screamed at him aggressively, reasonably perceived as a fatal threat?

Am I allowed to use that same definition of "reasonably" even though I'm not a cop?
Click to expand...

Exactly... I've been saying for years that if situations like this, when the shooting was so obviously not justified, were met with swift and unified condemnation by the law enforcement community and the officers involved were held accountable then people would be far more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt in questionable situations.

The problem is they don't and, as far as I can tell, never will. As a result, they're losing more and more of the public's trust by the day and a large portion of our society simply doesn't trust law enforcement. And I'm sorry but they have no one to blame but themselves.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#4,364
#4,364
Cdywolfe said:
Exactly... I've been saying for years that if situations like this, when the shooting was so obviously not justified, were met with swift and unified condemnation by the law enforcement community and the officers involved were held accountable then people would be far more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt in questionable situations.

The problem is they don't and, as far as I can tell, never will. As a result, they losing more and more of the public's trust by the day and a large portion of our society simply doesn't trust law enforcement. And I'm sorry but they have no one to blame but themselves.
Click to expand...

It isn't just the cops. We have far too many blue pill citizens that will defend anyone in uniform or any action they commit. These are the "thank you for your service" types.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#4,365
#4,365
Orange_Crush said:
Man killed by police; online gaming community blames 'swatting' | The Wichita Eagle

Family talks about son killed by police in swatting | The Wichita Eagle

From what I can tell via multiple new stories, two online gamers got into an argument over a two dollar bet. One swatted the other. Swatting is apparently to call a 911 murder or hostage situation to the other person's address in order to get a massive police response to that address.

The Person who called in the swatting called in the wrong address. Police show up and get into position. Innocent 28 year old guy answers the door and gets gunned down by a police officer.
Click to expand...

I read this earlier and it's heart breaking. I'll wait til more info comes out before I'm too critical but I will say there's a fairly giant hurdle in the way of them justifying this one.

And the punks that set this up need to be charged with first degree murder and I'd be in favor of the death penalty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#4,366
#4,366
Cdywolfe said:
I read this earlier and it's heart breaking. I'll wait til more info comes out before I'm too critical but I will say there's a fairly giant hurdle in the way of them justifying this one.

And the punks that set this up need to be charged with first degree murder and I'd be in favor of the death penalty.
Click to expand...
Agreed. You just can't let loose these cops on someone and not expect them to come out with guns blazing and a blood thirst to take down a civilian. Fish swim. Birds fly. Cops kill.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#4,368
#4,368
Rasputin_Vol said:
Agreed. You just can't let loose these cops on someone and not expect them to come out with guns blazing and a blood thirst to take down a civilian. Fish swim. Birds fly. Cops kill.
Click to expand...

Well it certainly is ridiculous that one of the quickest ways to get someone shot is by sending the cops to their house.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#4,370
#4,370
MercyPercy said:
Was the pathetic, drunken guy crawling on his belly in the hotel hallway, pleading for his life while trying to follow contradicting commands screamed at him aggressively, reasonably perceived as a fatal threat?

Am I allowed to use that same definition of "reasonably" even though I'm not a cop?
Click to expand...



I don't know. A jury will decide.
 
#4,373
#4,373
Cdywolfe said:
Well it certainly is ridiculous that one of the quickest ways to get someone shot is by sending the cops to their house.
Click to expand...

If you called 911 and told them the guy has killed several people and is armed it sorta increases the odds they use deadly force.
 
#4,375
#4,375
Rasputin_Vol said:
Well, the suspect in that case is dead and the officer that shot him was acquitted.
Click to expand...

So you saw the video, read some articles, and your judgment is superior to the collective judgment of the jury who sat there for days, saw all the evidence, and deliberated?

You have an uninformed opinion. That's it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top