It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Should Police be Required to Confirm the Threat Before Shooting.

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 08:33 AM
link   
A couple of things here...

Someone said the primary job of a cop was to go home at the end of the day. I disagree. If that were so, then they should be just fine sitting in the station waiting out the clock. They would still be doing their primary job if that were true; actually, they would be doing it better. Their primary job is to enforce the law.

It may be the primary goal; I'll grant that.

I don't agree on a directive to verify a threat, though. In a confrontation, there's no time to verify. A fatal shot can be fired from a hidden weapon in less than a second, faster than anyone can react. Actions must be proactive instead of reactive in many circumstances. That's just the nature of the job.

But that's where the real problem comes in: cops must be proactive, so by extension they must exhibit good judgement. There will always be accidents, but lately those accidents are becoming commonplace. That's evidence of a lack of good judgement. Maybe not illegal, per se, but certainly an indication that maybe they're just not cop material.

That's not a bad thing. Some people aren't cut out for some jobs. A 98 lb. woman is probably not going to make a good miner. Someone with bad eyesight shouldn't be driving jet airliners. Someone with poor hearing isn't going to do well as a sound engineer.

What we need is proven judgement under fire, not more restrictions that will increase the body count. We need cops who have the common sense to realize when someone is trying to understand why the situation is escalating, and not trying to get the drop on them. We need cops who realize and respect the authority given them, not who are on a power trip. Those cops are getting hard to find, usually because there are already too many crazy restrictions.

It is a rule of business that you get the kind of employees you act like you want. Treat them like kids, and the adults will leave for greener pastures while the kids stay because there are no greener pastures. Treat them like adults and the kids won't be able to hack it. Treat them like reasonable, respectful professionals, and the rest won't make the grade. Treat them like fallible, scared wanna-bes and the professionals will leave.

The root cause is not really the cops we have doing bad things. It's society trying to micromanage them like children, to the point all we have left holding that gun are children who have to be micromanaged.

TheRedneck




posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: JimNasium

Being I was a cop My views 'may' be viewed as 'biased' but can reveal this nugget:

The cop's primary JOB is to go home at the end of the shift.

I'll also agree 100% that there are many in the Law Enforcement community that have no business being IN the business, let alone a job that deals with the 'public'. e.g. If You identify as "White" and have even a tad bit of animosity towards anyone of a different shade, join the ARMY™ real "gung-ho" then the Marines™ are also hiring.

I'll even add this: It isn't that more illegal substances are being used/sold in the lower income communities, it is just "more likely" that those contacted and arrested in these communities won't hire LEGAL REPRESENTATION, they will 'roll the dice' with a newbie from the Public Defender's office who will have a "plea deal" already worked out. I ONLY mention this because until this is changed; the way snip gets handled will NOT change. Rinse; Repeat; Get Gov't. Grants; Rinse; repeat...

In closing, more cops nowadays are 'impatient' (in a hurry to get nowhere quicker..) this leads to 'rash judgements' I'd also suggest the Officer NOT drag the badge around. Not everyone needs to go to Jail...

Vaya Con Dias...

Proud Member of LEAP• Law Enforcement Against Prohibition






I thought cops were hero's who put their lives on the line to protect and serve?!?!

You don't get to claim to be a hero if your shooting people "just in case, they might have been armed."


Your not willing to take the risks required to call yourself a hero...

So are they regular joes who's only concern is making it home?


Or hero's who are the best of society???

Depends on the cop..



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

It's an intelligent question, and in a perfect world, that would be the preferred scenario every time.

But this world isn't perfect, and there are SO many scenarios where a suspect can use a deadly weapon before a police officer can even react, and knowing this and being trained to know that any encounter on any given day can end like the following videos is the reason why waiting to see the threat before responding with deadly force is not always an option:

skip to 3:48


skip to 8:54


watch it all


skip to 1:43 when he verifies that there is a threat...and he still gives him ample time to comply with commands. The officer is lucky that he wasn't killed.


Why didn't you just tase him?


This is why, in many instances, waiting is deadly for an officer. Like I said, in a perfect world, a threat should always be verified, but that just isn't reality. Way too many people are unwilling or incapable of showing empathy with LEOs in these situations and trying to understand what such a confrontation is like.

I'm in no way excusing the use of unjustified force, but if/when people begin to understand exactly what officers could face at ANY encounter on ANY day while on duty, the ignorance as to why LEOs can't just wait to verify a threat will persist throughout the world.

If we want officers to not need to be trained that any confrontation with civilians could end this way, we need to start holding these criminals with more contempt than society seems to hold law enforcement these days. We need to start realizing that, in most cases, it is the action of the suspect that gets them shot, not the malice or unnecessary paranoia of the LEO.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   

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

www.dailymail.co.uk...





I didn't say don't assume they are a threat....


Draw , cock and aim the instant they feel threatened.


Just don't squeeze until you know the treat is real.

That doesn't mean let them shoot at you, or aim at you not get within 15 feet with a knife.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 08:59 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

And how do you do that in one split second? It only takes another second for the perpetrator to fire if real.

We carriers have just milliseconds to decide....and we absolutely, positively, could be dead WRONG...or DEAD.

I know its bad either way....but its how it is....I wish there was an instantaneous way to determine threat intensity and validity....:/



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
I said confirm there is actually a weapon at all...


Sometimes the only time to make such a confirmation is once their bullets have entered your body.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: subject x

And also once again, nothing in the job requires taking a bullet so other people can be sure you made the right call. The job has an inherent risk factor that officers are aware of. That's absolutely correct. And if they can't handle that, they don't need to be in law enforcement. The job does not, once again, have a requirement to wait until an officer is at a disadvantage to take action.

I've taken all manner of weapons off of people. Why? Because they followed verbal commands and were taken in to custody without putting themselves and others at any further risk. Curious, innit?

I'm glad you won't be repeating yourself any further though. Saves time and server space.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Cops are being trained by ex military personnel to (hair) trigger on the slightest indication of a threat, not the actual threat. Its how they survived three tours of combat: shoot first, ask questions later. I mean that in all seriousness.

A subject reaching to the waist band, hands in pockets, 'non' compliance, or even slow compliance, is 'non' cooperative. 'Non' cooperation is a threat, draw your gun and point all 18 rounds at the (now) suspect and yell repeatedly to do some-thing or die.

At this point any 'wrong' move is likely to bring a torrent of bullets to prevent an 'escalation' on the part of the (now) criminal.

Subject, suspect, criminal, shoot, in three, two, one.

You want to survive, prostrate yourself fully before the alter of law enforcement, get down on the ground, face down and place you hands out at your sides. Now pray.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 09:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
I didn't say don't assume they are a threat....


Draw , cock and aim the instant they feel threatened.


Just don't squeeze until you know the treat is real.

That doesn't mean let them shoot at you, or aim at you not get within 15 feet with a knife.


The problem with your mentality on this issue is that even a person just holding a firearm is not necessarily a threat, but a potential threat. The same goes for a knife, or a stick, or a clenched fist, or someone sitting in a running vehicle who can throw it in reverse and pin you between your and their cars. My point being that potential threats can be just as potentially deadly as an active threat, so if you only wait until you feel like there is an imminent or active threat, that can and often will be the difference between life and death.

I'm certainly not saying that all officers should approach every situation with guns drawn and finger on the trigger before knowing any details, but the reality of how deadly a potential threat can be--and EVERY interaction can turn deadly and has to be seen as a potential threat--needs to be a conscious thought in every LEO's mind all the time.

All of this talk about verifying threats and this or that is fantasy, because if they all waited for verification, we'd have many more dead or wounded officers every year than we already have. What untrained people don't understand is what actually is a threatening action and what are the clues to tell you that a threat may be imminent? Many or most officers understand this, and know the clues, even if through subconscious intuition, and are much more capable of verifying a threat or threatening behavior, even if sometimes it turns out that the weapon may not have been what was expected.
edit on 28-9-2016 by SlapMonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

They definitely should confirm. I was recently a passenger in my aunt's car when she got pulled over, probably 2 weeks ago and separate from this.

With the current climate, I don't think anyone being pulled over or approached by police is very safe. Many police are trigger happy. It is often 'shoot first' not even 'tase first' even if a suspect is on the ground with hands up. Standing with hands up while someone else is shouting they are unarmed. It is sad that one just does not know what can happen.

She pulled over and went to reach into the glove compartment for her paperwork and wallet. I told her, "Stop. Don't reach. Turn off the car and put your hands on the steering wheel." She looked at me like I was nuts, but she did it. I said "Push the window button when he gets to the window. Do not search for anything until he tells you to."

I felt actual fear. She got a warning for a taillight being out. She thought I overreacted, but she doesn't do as much reading as I do.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Let me have a sim gun and play the "bad guy", you get one too and be the "officer".

We can put your theory to the test and I bet I get a "fatal hit" 10 out of 10 times.

Action will ALWAYS beat reaction.


If they don't KILL the suspect, there will be lawsuits.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6


The job does not, once again, have a requirement to wait until an officer is at a disadvantage to take action.

Did you just say shoot first, ask questions later? In the case of 'suspiciousness' lethal force is not yet warranted.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: JoshuaCox

It's an intelligent question, and in a perfect world, that would be the preferred scenario every time.

But this world isn't perfect, and there are SO many scenarios where a suspect can use a deadly weapon before a police officer can even react, and knowing this and being trained to know that any encounter on any given day can end like the following videos is the reason why waiting to see the threat before responding with deadly force is not always an option:

skip to 3:48


skip to 8:54


watch it all


skip to 1:43 when he verifies that there is a threat...and he still gives him ample time to comply with commands. The officer is lucky that he wasn't killed.


Why didn't you just tase him?


This is why, in many instances, waiting is deadly for an officer. Like I said, in a perfect world, a threat should always be verified, but that just isn't reality. Way too many people are unwilling or incapable of showing empathy with LEOs in these situations and trying to understand what such a confrontation is like.

I'm in no way excusing the use of unjustified force, but if/when people begin to understand exactly what officers could face at ANY encounter on ANY day while on duty, the ignorance as to why LEOs can't just wait to verify a threat will persist throughout the world.

If we want officers to not need to be trained that any confrontation with civilians could end this way, we need to start holding these criminals with more contempt than society seems to hold law enforcement these days. We need to start realizing that, in most cases, it is the action of the suspect that gets them shot, not the malice or unnecessary paranoia of the LEO.



In a perfect world you wouldn't need police. Lol

By that same logic why shouldn't an officer shoot someone for for wiggling weird when he approaches the car window during a traffic stop?


IMHO

Before all this craziness with planned assaults on officers this year (which were coincidentally over shady shootings)


We were only having 13 cases of officers shot in the line of duty in 2015 and 14 in 2014.


Now 1 is too many, but that means it is and was FAR less dangerous than a lot of jobs. So I don't think it is fair for officers to assume anyone acting nervous is trying to kill them..that's Hollywood.

We all take a bigger risk every time we get on the interstate than a cop does on his average day.

All that said it is dangerous and I 100% understand drawing and aiming, on a gut feeling.

And there are exceptions to every rule, such as some one one yelling "die copper" as they dive and reach behind their back.


But ignoring a command and dropping their arms to the side does not equate to " is planning on charging me, taking my gun and killing me."


I think cops are trained to treat every situation as the worst case scenario.....and obviously your worst case scenerio doesn't fit the average encounter.

Our entire system is based on that logic with every crime (except financial) getting the penalty as if you are some criminal mastermind.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   
a reply to: cynicalheathen People that have never had to take action towards something that involves even a modicum of a threat to their well-being can't understand this.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox 42 were killed in 2015. Not sure where you get your stats. Also, cops are shot AT every day. ALSO, they get on the same freeway as you, dingus. Please don't ever bring up logic again until an adult explains the concept to you like your parents should have.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 09:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: JoshuaCox

It's an intelligent question, and in a perfect world, that would be the preferred scenario every time.

But this world isn't perfect, and there are SO many scenarios where a suspect can use a deadly weapon before a police officer can even react, and knowing this and being trained to know that any encounter on any given day can end like the following videos is the reason why waiting to see the threat before responding with deadly force is not always an option:

skip to 3:48


skip to 8:54


watch it all


skip to 1:43 when he verifies that there is a threat...and he still gives him ample time to comply with commands. The officer is lucky that he wasn't killed.


Why didn't you just tase him?


This is why, in many instances, waiting is deadly for an officer. Like I said, in a perfect world, a threat should always be verified, but that just isn't reality. Way too many people are unwilling or incapable of showing empathy with LEOs in these situations and trying to understand what such a confrontation is like.

I'm in no way excusing the use of unjustified force, but if/when people begin to understand exactly what officers could face at ANY encounter on ANY day while on duty, the ignorance as to why LEOs can't just wait to verify a threat will persist throughout the world.

If we want officers to not need to be trained that any confrontation with civilians could end this way, we need to start holding these criminals with more contempt than society seems to hold law enforcement these days. We need to start realizing that, in most cases, it is the action of the suspect that gets them shot, not the malice or unnecessary paranoia of the LEO.



I would agree all day long that the majority of shady shootings are police officers put in a crazy situation. Who just made the wrong call and maybe don't have the nerves of Steele required for the work.

Not cold blooded murderers.


The problem is accountability... instead of firing the officer and paying the family. They villanize the victim and put out false reports.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 09:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: neveroddoreven99
a reply to: JoshuaCox 42 were killed in 2015. Not sure where you get your stats. Also, cops are shot AT every day. ALSO, they get on the same freeway as you, dingus. Please don't ever bring up logic again until an adult explains the concept to you like your parents should have.




The rest were prob car accidents.

Edit:" my bad it was that it dropped 14% from 2014. Your right it is 42. www.npr.org... "


I know....


The point is that everytime any of us get on the freeway, it is statistically more dangerous and yet your not allowed to shoot some one for cutting you off.

edit on 28-9-2016 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-9-2016 by JoshuaCox because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

In a perfect world you wouldn't need police. Lol


Right, and logic would prevail and we wouldn't be continuing this conversation, either.


By that same logic why shouldn't an officer shoot someone for for wiggling weird when he approaches the car window during a traffic stop?


That's not "that same logic," and any odd movement in a vehicle does heighten the concern of an officer. But wiggling is not in and of itself a threatening action, so there's no reason to shoot. When did I say that it's okay to shoot someone just because they move a little?




Before all this craziness with planned assaults on officers this year (which were coincidentally over shady shootings)


We were only having 13 cases of officers shot in the line of duty in 2015 and 14 in 2014.


I guess that you need to quantify who "we" are--if you're speaking about America, you are woefully inept at citing appropriate statistics. Assuming that you meant "killed in the line of duty" instead of "shot," you are pretty far off on your 2015 stat:

Preliminary statistics released today by the FBI show that 41 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty in 2015. This is a decrease of almost 20 percent when compared with the 51 officers killed in 2014.

source


But ignoring a command and dropping their arms to the side does not equate to " is planning on charging me, taking my gun and killing me."


I never said that such an action does equate to that, and none of my videos show that, either. I think that you're arguing with me against other people's assertions, because I haven't said such a thing.


I think cops are trained to treat every situation as the worst case scenario.....and obviously your worst case scenerio doesn't fit the average encounter.


LEOs are trained to know that any encounter could escalate into a life-threatening situation, for sure, but that does not mean that they treat every civilian with whom they interact as a deadly criminal. Like I've mentioned before in other threads, I legally carry a concealed weapon, and I have been stopped twice since having the permit to do so, and I have never been treated like a deadly criminal, and I've never had my firearm removed from me out of paranoia on the LEO's behalf.

Of course worst-case scenarios don't fit the average encounter--the proof is in the terminology of it being "worst-case."

One of my biggest issues in these debates is that everyone focuses on the LEO, but few focus on the suspect and their actions that led to getting shot. People in Charlotte, N.C., and now in El Cajon, CA, are still chanting "hands up, don't shoot," which is based on Michael Brown in Ferguson, which was shown beyond reasonable doubt to be a false narrative and that the shooting was justified.

People keep making excuses for criminals and their actions, but rarely think on behalf of what it's like to be in the LEOs' shoes, and that's a big problem.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Maybe law enforcement should move more toward mechanization like the military has.

Use them bomb robots to approach vehicles in traffic stops to avoid putting officers in harms way, use remote devices to get a clearer idea of what the situation they are entering into is.

Using a bit of discretion based on a clearer idea of the situation they are entering into would be a plus too, because a lot of the time the reason the event escalates to violence is solely because of the law enforcement officer injecting himself into the situation at all.

Stick to revenue collection from nice safe sheeples.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Mianeye

how many not guilty of a crime have cops killed this year? or not proven guilty of any crimes, or didnt pose a threat.

but i think cops should kill in every situation just to protect themselve i love the state of things right now. more guns, our rights, kill first, then identify weapon, kill first if there maybe a weapon, kill if perp is trying to get away, saves paper work, kill if in road rage, kill in any conflicting situation. forget training.

cops need to protect themselves at all times, killing is the only option i see. dont compare our population with china or in european countries with gunless LEOS, its different here. police need to react before a perp can think to act or pull out what maybe IDs or guns hidden in gym shorts or under naked skin of their body.

our brave LEO needn't have to identify a threat before killing. they need to protect themselves first in any possibility of probable danger. thats how our men and women in the forces do it in hostile regions 10000 times deadlier than Orange county CA. these LEOs are in constant danger.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join