Crazy Libral Rag: It May be Possible to Police People Without Killing Them

[Blackjack200]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/n...et-lessons-on-avoiding-deadly-force.html?_r=0

But a difference long curious to Americans stands out: Most British police officers are unarmed, a distinction particularly pronounced here in Scotland, where 98 percent of the country's officers do not carry guns. Rather than escalating a situation with weapons, easing it through talk is an essential policing tool, and is what brought a delegation of top American police officials to this town 30 miles northeast of Glasgow.

I know, I know, it wouldn't work here because we have black people. But...

Bernard Higgins, an assistant chief constable who is Scotland's use-of-force expert, stood and answered. Yes, his officers routinely take punches, he said, but the last one killed by violence was in 1994, in a stabbing.

There is poverty, crime, and a "pathological hatred of officers wearing our uniform" in pockets of Scotland, he said, but constables live where they work and embrace their role as "guardian of the community," not warriors from a policing subculture.

What a depressing article to read. You can just imagine the incredulous reaction from the guests.

"If you speak about a protest, for instance, the protest of the blacks in the street, well that's about justice; unfairness," Kirk Kinnell, the superintendent of Police Scotland and head of its hostage crisis negotiation unit, said after a lecture. "I would say, 'That message, we should embrace that,' because actually, as police officers, we want fairness. That's why we joined."

Yeah. No shit.

 

[glenn1]

I know, how will blacks maintain their rate of committing homicide that's like 10x the rates of other races when they're being forced to compete with the police in their market space?

 

[Jaskalas]

I know, I know, it wouldn't work here because we have black people. But...

It doesn't work because we have guns. Or at least... more guns, many more.
100 million sold in the past 7 years.

 

[Blackjack200]

I know, how will blacks maintain their rate of committing homicide that's like 10x the rates of other races when they're being forced to compete with the police in their market space?

Relevant:
http://bostonreview.net/us/joseph-margulies-criminal-justice-transformation

 

[Blackjack200]

It doesn't work because we have guns. Or at least... more guns, many more.
100 million sold in the past 7 years.

Actually I've been told that all these gun owners are law abiding citizens just exercising their rights. So this is not a problem.

 

[soulcougher73]

Could you imagine the open season on cops in say Compton or other really gang heavy areas if the cops didn't have guns in the US. Blood bath.

 

[rudder]

Take the financial incentives for violence away (i.e., legalize certain drugs) and gang violence will drop.

Because right now I think a lot of these cops have PTSD from dealing with this same element day in an day out. I don't think a police officer takes the job just so they can get the opportunity to gun down a black kid....or anyone for that matter (minus the crazy power tripper cops). These cops in these neighborhoods develop itchy trigger fingers. This sometimes, like the last incident in Chicago, ends with a cop murdering a suspect.

You saw the same thing in Vietnam and the way a young soldier felt about the local population they were fighting for. At first they felt it was their duty to protect them... but after they realized some of the local population was constantly trying to kill them.. the attitude of the value of these peoples lives changed.

I am not meaning to imply the cops are faultless. If one is that negatively effected by the job that their thought process is shoot first ask later.... then they should hang up their badge. But the attitude in these neighborhoods has to change as well. Part of that can be done by legalizing some drugs.

This is not a result of guns and certainly not by the ones owned by law abiding citizens.

 

[Jaskalas]

This is not a result of guns and certainly not by the ones owned by law abiding citizens.

It's entirely about guns insofar as police carry them.
Why do they carry?
Because people in the US are armed.

This translates into so much as flinching and police start shooting.
And you know what? Some people flinch.

 

[Blanky]

There are too many guns in the US currently for US cops to not carry them like they do in the UK.

But, I do think cops in the US are fucking rambos and a great percentage of them are shoot first ask questions later (after lying about the shooting). I do believe the average cop in the UK is simply better at his job than the average cop in the US. Not because they are smarter or necessarily better trained, but the culture here is despicable and shameful.

Too many cops here when their authority is questioned immediately switch into pig mode and look for any excuse to beat you or shoot you. It's all over youtube, it's all over statistics showing the number of killings by cops. I wonder if part of the problem is that so many cops here are pulled from the military where their first real job was professional killer. Do UK cops draw from the same ranks? I really don't know.

 

[BoberFett]

There's no reason cops couldn't have guns available in their vehicle, but is there a need for it to be on their belt, where it seems like it's too frequently the first option?

 

[Blanky]

There's no reason cops couldn't have guns available in their vehicle, but is there a need for it to be on their belt, where it seems like it's too frequently the first option?

With the ease that criminals have to get them I think they are probably still necessary on belts. I mean really would you be a cop now without a pistol at least?

I think we should mandate all police forces are dissolved if they don't get cams on each cop.

Second, we need to stop internal investigations. Police investigating themselves is outrageously corrupt. I would create a federal department that has no goal than to investigate and prosecute police, prosecutors, and judges for misbehavior and I dare say there would be overwhelming national support for it. And, since all the cops would be wearing cameras on their vests, they could know that it won't just be he said she said. Any cop who doesn't like this can piss off and go mow lawns or do something else for a living.

 

[PokerGuy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/n...et-lessons-on-avoiding-deadly-force.html?_r=0

Do you suppose they have the same kind of criminals (and number of them) that we have in many places?

It doesn't work because we have guns. Or at least... more guns, many more.
100 million sold in the past 7 years.

It's not the number of guns that's the problem, it's the number of violent criminals wielding them.

Actually I've been told that all these gun owners are law abiding citizens just exercising their rights. So this is not a problem.

No, the vast majority of the *legal* gun owners are law abiding citizens. They aren't the ones committing crimes, and they are not the ones the cops have to be armed for. The cops have to be armed because there are too many armed or dangerous criminals.

 

[PokerGuy]

There's no reason cops couldn't have guns available in their vehicle, but is there a need for it to be on their belt, where it seems like it's too frequently the first option?

Uh, no. They need to have the weapon available immediately if the situation demands it, not have to run back to their vehicle. That said, I do think they need a ton more training in de-escalation techniques and they need to be held to a higher standard in terms of unneeded use of their weapons. Good luck with that though, seems virtually impossible to have any of that happen.

 

[BoberFett]

With the ease that criminals have to get them I think they are probably still necessary on belts. I mean really would you be a cop now without a pistol at least?

I think we should mandate all police forces are dissolved if they don't get cams on each cop.

Second, we need to stop internal investigations. Police investigating themselves is outrageously corrupt. I would create a federal department that has no goal than to investigate and prosecute police, prosecutors, and judges for misbehavior and I dare say there would be overwhelming national support for it. And, since all the cops would be wearing cameras on their vests, they could know that it won't just be he said she said. Any cop who doesn't like this can piss off and go mow lawns or do something else for a living.

How many times per year are cops actually responding to an active shooter? In those instances, they'll roll out of the car guns blazing, because they still have them available.

But how often are situations escalated because some unarmed person is being a dick? And it would entirely eliminate the "he was going for my gun" problem.

Let's think about actual use cases where a cop requires a firearm because it was a violent perp with a firearm of his own, but the cop wouldn't have exited the vehicle knowing that he needed a firearm. Keep in mind they still have tasers, nightsticks, etc.

Let me be clear, I'm not advocating that cops get rid of guns. I believe everybody should have the right to carry a weapon for self defense if they choose, cops would of course have that right as a citizen, and therefore could while on duty as well. This is mostly a thought exercise for me.

 

[Blackjack200]

Do you suppose they have the same kind of criminals (and number of them) that we have in many places?

They have none. In Scotland people just sit around campfires with a guitar and sing cumbaya.

 

[Subyman]

This is mostly a thought exercise for me.

You'll probably be really cramped tomorrow.

 

[PokerGuy]

They have none. In Scotland people just sit around campfires with a guitar and sing cumbaya.

Not likely, but I'm fairly confident that they don't have the kind of places like exist in some cities in the US, and they certainly don't encounter the same number of armed violent offenders there as police do here.

 

[EOM]

How many times per year are cops actually responding to an active shooter? In those instances, they'll roll out of the car guns blazing, because they still have them available.

But how often are situations escalated because some unarmed person is being a dick? And it would entirely eliminate the "he was going for my gun" problem.

Let's think about actual use cases where a cop requires a firearm because it was a violent perp with a firearm of his own, but the cop wouldn't have exited the vehicle knowing that he needed a firearm. Keep in mind they still have tasers, nightsticks, etc.

Let me be clear, I'm not advocating that cops get rid of guns. I believe everybody should have the right to carry a weapon for self defense if they choose, cops would of course have that right as a citizen, and therefore could while on duty as well. This is mostly a thought exercise for me.

I concur with the sentiments of the final paragraph. Cops, on or off duty, should be bound by the same laws as the masses of 2nd class citizens.

 

[JSt0rm]

This is 'murica. Everybody on the planet hates us and wants to kill us but we even do that better than them.

Praise Satan. Guns are here forever. There is no going back. The only thing I could see happening that could get rid of all the guns is some massive ww2 level combat on our soil. Total destruction of the cities and a reset of the economic power. Maybe in that environment we may feel like enough is enough and pull all the guns. But until then? Kill the person on your porch before they kill you.

 

[Darwin333]

It doesn't work because we have guns. Or at least... more guns, many more.
100 million sold in the past 7 years.

I don't think the argument is necessarily to take guns away from LEO but rather to have them use said guns far less.

 

[Jaskalas]

I don't think the argument is necessarily to take guns away from LEO but rather to have them use said guns far less.

When a criminal's quick move can be your last...
I'm not seeing a means of reducing much of the shootings being protested these days.

See the video of the knife wielding teen in Chicago? I would have pulled the trigger. It's dark, he's moving and ignoring commands. Something in his hands, a weapon. Your life or his... your life or his. Your life or... BANG! When lives are placed on a hairline trigger people are going to be killed.

 

[WelshBloke]

Cops in most countries in Europe have guns on their belts at all times but they don't go round shooting their citizens all the time.

I dont think its the police having guns thats causing this. Its the polices willingness to use guns as a first option thats doing it.

Also you seem to have a craptacular way of dealing with any possible police shenanigans.

 

[werepossum]

It may be possible to police people without killing them, but it probably wouldn't be much fun.

 

[Pipeline 1010]

When a criminal's quick move can be your last...

Knock it off with the melodramatic bullshit. Cop murders are on target to be the 2nd lowest in history this year. Since 1860. When there were FAR fewer cops. So yes, although cops should not be unarmed, they should use their guns less. Their lives aren't quite so in danger as many would lead them to believe they are.

I'm not seeing a means of reducing much of the shootings being protested these days.

Here, let me help you see the means: STOP PULLING THE FUCKING TRIGGER WHEN NOBODY IS TRYING TO KILL YOU ASSHOLE. Wow, why was that so hard?

See the video of the knife wielding teen in Chicago? I would have pulled the trigger. It's dark, he's moving and ignoring commands. Something in his hands, a weapon. Your life or his... your life or his. Your life or... BANG! When lives are placed on a hairline trigger people are going to be killed.

Ugh...I SAID, knock it off with the melodramatic bullshit. This sounds like it is being read by a narrator for the opening of a really bad made for TV cop drama. Or a shitty ass cop training video telling cops why they should be super scared at all times and shoot anybody who scares them because be super scared at all times, cops.

In the case you reference, there were like 8 cops surrounding this guy, all with weapons drawn and aimed and ready to fire in under 1/4 second. How in the fuck were the cops' life placed on a hairline trigger when each of the 8 cops can fire a minimum of 3 times at the guy before he can even reach one of them?

Dammit...all that work typing my comment, and I only now realized that you are probably being sarcastic. A tip of the hat to you. Wait a minute...your sarcasm scares me! And it's dark! And your next move could be me last! Something in your hands, a keyboard. My life or yours... my life or yours...POST COMMENT!

 

[werepossum]

Knock it off with the melodramatic bullshit. Cop murders are on target to be the 2nd lowest in history this year. Since 1860. When there were FAR fewer cops. So yes, although cops should not be unarmed, they should use their guns less. Their lives aren't quite so in danger as many would lead them to believe they are.

Here, let me help you see the means: STOP PULLING THE FUCKING TRIGGER WHEN NOBODY IS TRYING TO KILL YOU ASSHOLE. Wow, why was that so hard?

Ugh...I SAID, knock it off with the melodramatic bullshit. This sounds like it is being read by a narrator for the opening of a really bad made for TV cop drama. Or a shitty ass cop training video telling cops why they should be super scared at all times and shoot anybody who scares them because be super scared at all times, cops.

In the case you reference, there were like 8 cops surrounding this guy, all with weapons drawn and aimed and ready to fire in under 1/4 second. How in the fuck were the cops' life placed on a hairline trigger when each of the 8 cops can fire a minimum of 3 times at the guy before he can even reach one of them?

Dammit...all that work typing my comment, and I only now realized that you are probably being sarcastic. A tip of the hat to you. Wait a minute...your sarcasm scares me! And it's dark! And your next move could be me last! Something in your hands, a keyboard. My life or yours... my life or yours...POST COMMENT!

When there are multiple cops drawing down on one suspect, SOP needs to be that only one cop (the one most likely to hit the target/least likely to shoot without cause, and preferably with a long gun) should continue aiming whilst the rest take cover and holster their weapons. If the suspect makes what one cop considers a threatening move, that cop shoots and then they'll all shoot. Nearby (East Ridge) there was a disgruntled old black man sitting on his porch with a shotgun, an admittedly dangerous situation but not one that must be resolved immediately. He shifted the shotgun and the cops brought the rain, fatally striking him dozens of times as well as not only his house but two other houses. That's just stupid, and dozens of poorly aimed pistol rounds are more of a danger to the public than is one man with a shotgun.