Should Police be Required to Confirm the Threat Before Shooting.

I don't think people realize how fast the situations deteriorate. If you want to know watch this video

www.dailymail.co.uk...

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
I think one MAJOR problem leading to most questionable police shootings is the concept of "well he might have had a weapon..."

I just don't see how that is enough of a threat for a police officer to pull the trigger.


Now I'm not saying do not draw your weapon and take aim the second the officer feels threatened, but shouldn't they be required to confirm the threat before actually firing????

For example,

A police officer encounters someone acting squirrlie. He orders them to put their hands up, but instead they fidget and reach behind their back.


At that point there are 2 reasonable options.

1) it is a rapey serial killer, wanted by the law, who "isn't going back".

2) some nervous citizen reaching for his ID to give to the officer.

Well shouldn't an officer be required to confirm it is a gun before squeezing the trigger???


I just don't find "well he might have had a gun," good enough...



I've called in with this to a couple of talk radio shows, only to have them claim "every cop would quit..." which I think is just insane...

I really hate the way the left and right have sold this issue as a black only issue. Your never gonna fix a problem by attacking it as a black only issue, when it never was in the first place.

It is an issue that effects blacks more, so when you tell 83% of the US population,

" nothing to see here. This doesn't concern your children. This only concerns black children.."

It is no surprise very little gets done.

Where are you getting that it concerns blacks more? Actually over double the amount of whites versus blacks have been killed by police in the last year...last stat I quoted on ATS this week I think was 760 whites killed and 347 blacks.

originally posted by: Bedlam
The other issue is that Graham v Connor is enshrined in American jurisprudence, and all they got to say is "I thought I saw a weapon" or "I felt afraid for my life".

The standard for "Your judgement sucks, and we find you guilty anyway" is so high as to be nearly insurmountable. Thus do we need a disinterested party that has no conflicts of interest that oversees and certifies police.

And feelings are totally subjective and unmeasurable...

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Without a doubt, some cops are "trigger happy" to use an old descriptive term. The problem all resides in training, they are trained to be quick on shooting because it is drummed into them that they have to be pro-active if they want to get home every night to their families. It is hard to argue with such an approach because there is no defining edge and at trigger-pulling time. It comes down to two people, the actions of the perp and the police officer.


Recently Netflix brought out a new series entitled "Under Arrest." The couple of hours I've watched has been illuminating. Mostly, if not all, a "reality" show recorded with Canadian police in Vancouver, BC. Many of the people they arrest are non-whites, whom tend to be quick on the draw themselves to claim (in front of the camera) racial discrimination when obviously none was evident.

The most telling thing about this show is the restraint and easy manner of these cops even when wrestling down a bad guy. Of course, the cops know they are being videoed, but so do US cops, so the comparison is still fair. Most notable is that the Canadian cops are more open to reasonable conversations with those they arrest. I've noticed a greater sense of respect for the humanity of the arrested person despite their strongly cursing the arresting officers.

originally posted by: subject x
Absolutely they should confirm the threat before firing.

Sure, the cop stands a higher chance of being shot, but hey, that's the job. For which they don't get paid enough. That's why the cops are issued vests, to give them a better chance of living through such events.

If they can't deal with the danger, they need to find other jobs. This may seem cold, but once again, that's the job. As a cop, they need to be willing to endanger themselves to protect the citizens, even from police.

Silly world, innit?

A higher chance maybe, but obviously wouldn't give the advantage to the citizen.

a reply to: subject x

No, but it does say they can deploy lethal force when they believe there is an imminent lethal threat to themselves or others.

Waiting until a weapon is produced and the threat has had time to evolve doesn't benefit the officer in any way. It benefits the armchair quarterbacks. Many of whom would still manage to find fault, as evidenced in any number of ats threads. Hence the comment.

a reply to: hutch622

a reply to: cynicalheathen
Yes, they should have 100% certainty before firing, even if that means suffering injury. Once again, that's the job. Sure it sucks. That's why they should be paid more.

However, nobody forced them to take the job. If they can't deal with the realities of the position, they need to quit. They are, after all, "the breed apart". Just ask them. Being willing to risk their life in an effort to protect us is what makes them a "breed apart". I know I wouldn't do it. Couldn't do it.

Not that they should be idiots about it, but killing somebody is not a thing to be taken lightly just because the criminals do. If that risk is too high for them, they need to seek other employment.

Its the way they are taught during police school, the instructors tell them not to hesitate, ever, one second is the difference between life and death, if they think they are in danger, even without clearly seeing a gun, they are instructed to shoot.
Its one of those debates, that we will always be getting into, because there is reason on both sides.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
I think one MAJOR problem leading to most questionable police shootings is the concept of "well he might have had a weapon..."

I just don't see how that is enough of a threat for a police officer to pull the trigger.


Now I'm not saying do not draw your weapon and take aim the second the officer feels threatened, but shouldn't they be required to confirm the threat before actually firing????

For example,

A police officer encounters someone acting squirrlie. He orders them to put their hands up, but instead they fidget and reach behind their back.


At that point there are 2 reasonable options.

1) it is a rapey serial killer, wanted by the law, who "isn't going back".

2) some nervous citizen reaching for his ID to give to the officer.

Well shouldn't an officer be required to confirm it is a gun before squeezing the trigger???


I just don't find "well he might have had a gun," good enough...



I've called in with this to a couple of talk radio shows, only to have them claim "every cop would quit..." which I think is just insane...

I really hate the way the left and right have sold this issue as a black only issue. Your never gonna fix a problem by attacking it as a black only issue, when it never was in the first place.

It is an issue that effects blacks more, so when you tell 83% of the US population,

" nothing to see here. This doesn't concern your children. This only concerns black children.."

It is no surprise very little gets done.

Where are you getting that it concerns blacks more? Actually over double the amount of whites versus blacks have been killed by police in the last year...last stat I quoted on ATS this week I think was 760 whites killed and 347 blacks.

Sorry...correcting my post...here are the physical numbers:

In 2015, The Washington Post launched a real-time database to track fatal police shootings, and the project continues this year. As of Sunday, 1,502 people have been shot and killed by on-duty police officers since Jan. 1, 2015. Of them, 732 were white, and 381 were black (and 382 were of another or unknown race).

Source

Granted that does not take "per capita" into account, but I don't see how per capita matters in this as it is not ever brought up by any protesters or even used by anyone except for MSM who typically try to skew numbers in whatever favor they decide for a story.

Fact of the matter is, in the last year, almost double the amount of whites have been killed by police versus blacks.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: subject x

What degree of confirmation would be appropriate? During sterile conditions? During a nighttime rainstorm? Do you require that the officer be shot/stabbed/assaulted first as confirmation?

Vests generally only protect against handgun rounds and only cover the vitals. They are not perfect. Head, shoulders, hips, legs and all related arteries are not covered. It is a bandaid at best.

If a citizen is not taking a threatening posture and following a lawfully given command, then what danger is the citizen in? Random police shootings on a truly innocent citizen are a rare occurance.

Prosecute police when necessary, jail them if need be. Absolutely demand accountability. But at the same time be realistic and understand that conflict doesn't occur in sterile conditions and "ideal" is rare.

Policing is a job where you may only have a split second to decide if you will shoot another human and live another day ( justified ) or shoot another human and lose your freedom/possessions in a heartbeat. And you only have a split second to make a judgement on whether something is a threat in less than optimal conditions.

Don't give police a pass, but at the same time realize that they aren't perfect and aren't robots.

How about actually see a weapon?!?!

Lol

a reply to: WilburnRoach

The differwnce the cops are doing their job and 99% of peiple they shoot are committing crimes. Stupid statement.

originally posted by: Mianeye
236 cops have been killed/injured in the US this year, no wonder they shoot first ask questions later.

SOURCES

That doesn't even rank in the top 25 most dangerous US jobs.

In fact, before this year, we were averaging like 15 a year (killed in line of duty)

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Should Police be Required to Confirm the Threat Before Shooting?

Of course they should!!! It's the difference between our inalienable right to life... as opposed to a privilege granted on the whim of someone with a badge and a gun... Which is exactly why every death at the hands of another is automatically a crime, because the dead person's right to life was violated; however, the person who took the life is always entitled to the right to provide an affirmative defense to justify the killing. If cops (or anyone) can kill at will and simply say, "Gee, I was afraid he might be a threat," no one has any right to life... or any rights at all.

But we also have to consider our -- the public's -- responsibility to those men and women that we hire to literally provoke confrontations with the public for our safety. We must equip officers with the best defensive training and equipment possible, in order to minimize risk to both officers and the public. That's where we have dropped the ball in the worst way. Not just in terms of failing to provide things like bulletproof vests and less-than-lethal weapons, etc., but also in how we train our officers. For example, no good can come from training officers that EVERYONE is a threat (guilty until proven innocent) and that their life is more important than anyone else's... we all want to go home at night. Nor can any good come from dumbing down the force with officers that don't even have the mental capacity to reasonably and rationally assess a situation -- much less the potential threat involved.

Most of all we need to restore the trust of the public in our law enforcement agencies, and that won't happen without the highest level of transparency and accountability.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: subject x

Waiting until a weapon is produced and the threat has had time to evolve doesn't benefit the officer in any way.

No, but it benefits the guy who might be getting dead over nothing.

Once again, it's the job. It's a dangerous job. It's not an easy job. They're vastly underpaid. But killing unarmed civilians is not part of it. They need to be absolutely certain they are in danger before taking the shot.

So there you have it. I shan't be repeating myself any more here. I've stated my thoughts on the question at hand. You don't have to agree, that's ok. After all, when it comes down to disagreement on a public forum, well, that's the job, innit?

a reply to: subject x

The problem is this... 100% certainty is not possible in all, or I'd argue, most cases. So what then? Dead officer? Dead civilian?

Absolutely nobody forced them, and you want people who take the job for the correct reasons. However, there seems to be a trend towards lower quality police candidates. Why is this? No more interest in the profession? People deciding that the risk is not worth the pay? What happens when there are not enough quality police officers to do the job? It seems as if we are there now...

It is reasonable for a police officer to defend themselves against a legitimate threat. It is up to we the people to hold our elected officials accountable to ensure that the bad apples are brought to trial where a jury of the common people can decide if they were justified or not.

I feel that there is a sense of entitlement nowadays that "I don't have to listen to the police". I'm sorry, even if I am 100% right and the officer is 100% wrong, I am still going to comply until I have a chance to lawyer up and have my day in court. Hard to collect on a lawsuit for deprivation of civil rights under color of law if I choose to fight and give an officer an excuse to shoot me and kill me.

I don't see it as "Comply or Die", I see it as common sense that if a person vested with authority points a gun at me and gives me commands, it is likely in my best interest to obey at that specific moment and settle the issue of who is right or wrong later.

They do

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Doesn't happen in every case, just like in the example I gave.

If you were forced to make a shoot/don't shoot decision based on being presented with what appeared to be a firearm pointed in a threatening manner directly at your face, would you take the time to study it and decide if it was a replica or not before shooting?

Remember, you only have a split second to decide...

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Confirm in 1 second? Stupid idea...if a 8 yr old points a black toy gun towards you me/them?

Sorry...but one pointing second? I'm shooting. 8 yr old, toy gun or not...sorry.

One can die in one second...confirm 1st? No way....you've never fired one I'm guessing...

Your literally argueing that police can shoot some one without any evidence they are a threat..

A gut feeling isn't evidence..

What if you had an anti social kid who was no threat, but acting fidgety and put his hands in his pocket out of nervousness...

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: subject x I'm sorry, even if I am 100% right and the officer is 100% wrong, I am still going to comply until I have a chance to lawyer up and have my day in court. Hard to collect on a lawsuit for deprivation of civil rights under color of law if I choose to fight and give an officer an excuse to shoot me and kill me.
.

Me, too. On the few occasions the cops have found me to be on the wrong side of the law and called me on it, I was Mr. Cooperative. (Which, incidentally, is strangely similar to my real name, spelling-wise) I called them sir, they called me sir, and everything was cool, considering I was being arrested.

And oddly enough, none of them ever had to even unholster their weapon.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Doesn't happen in every case, just like in the example I gave.

If you were forced to make a shoot/don't shoot decision based on being presented with what appeared to be a firearm pointed in a threatening manner directly at your face, would you take the time to study it and decide if it was a replica or not before shooting?

Remember, you only have a split second to decide...

Like the guy Lamont (something) assuming he did get out of the car holding a gun, and/or refused to drop it. That's a good shoot. You verified the threat exc.


If the officer has no reason to assume they are armed, then he should wait until you see a weapon.

Now a BB gun is different....

If it's a 12 year old you should prob take cover and order him to drop it, since probability says it's a toy.

If it's an adult, you assume the gun is real and fire.