Should Police be Required to Confirm the Threat Before Shooting.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I find it entertaining that a police officer is not held to a greater standard in matters like these, than a citizen might be in a similar situation.

From 'civil servants' and 'peace officers' to enforcement arm of the state. Protect and serve used to be the logo on their patrol cars, now its just 'protect'.

Edit: 'To patrol and protect'.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: intrptr
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.

Ahhh ... a man who knows what it takes to survive.

There's usually a step prior to keep you free from all the drama. They preach this in the military too: "Don't draw fire."

As someone who spent long periods 'outdoors', Ive had to muster to the police numerous times in the middle of the night. I never had to assume the position because I never behaved in a threatening manner. I wonder how that would go nowadays. Police seem to be way more edgy than I ever remember them. Like someone else said too, they seem to be used as revenue collectors for minor infractions more and more, and in the particular case of the man in NC, he was apparently just waiting to pick up his kid at a bus stop.

Really? Thats some suspicious behavior there. Right there on that street somewhere is the house with the person in it who called it into police wth the hash tag, "I think he has a gun".

I hope they sleep well at night from now on. Maybe they're just racist and enjoyed the show, maybe they're just conditioned by the see something say something xenophobic media. Leastways, what a trifecta dystopia we find ourselves in.

I doubt it is more racist than dark skin makes facial features hard to make out in low light situations. Which the HUMAN brain registers as inherently more threatening.

I really think it is the OP that's the problem.

Allowing people to kill others over gut feelings is just crazy. Feelings are subjective and unmeasurable.


Here is the latest shooting....


Sister called because he has mental issues. Told police he was unarmed, but had his hands in his pockets when they arrived.

When ordered to remove his hands from his pockets, he did but also pulled out his vape pen, and was shot dead....

If they had confirmed it was a weapon everyone goes home safe.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: TrueBrit

I find it entertaining that a police officer is not held to a greater standard in matters like these, than a citizen might be in a similar situation.

From 'civil servants' and 'peace officers' to enforcement arm of the state. Protect and serve used to be the logo on their patrol cars, now its just 'protect'.

"Protect yourself" maybe...


Don't risk your life no matter how many innocents you have to kill...just incase..(the policy, not individual officers) edit)

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I find it entertaining that a police officer is not held to a greater standard in matters like these, than a citizen might be in a similar situation. And yet, a citizen may be arrested for murder, even if they shoot an armed individual in circumstances where it is not clear who the aggressor is immediately.

I think the balance needs to shift, and that officers SHOULD be aware that putting on a badge means playing the odds, and having to behave like better men and women, than those who surround them. That means risking their lives, taking that risk on the chin, and living or dying by the consequences with no hard feelings. Otherwise, why the hell become a cop in the first place? How can you avoid becoming the criminal, if your standards are so low as to prefer to take an innocent life, rather than lose your own?

And we should be paying them way more to make sure people don't want to lose the job..

I want cops who are willing to take a jaw shot rather than blow away some teen and think we need to pay more to get that.

originally posted by: VictorVonDoom
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I think the legal standard should be uniform. If a cop can shoot an unarmed person because he is in fear for his life, then a person should be able to shoot a cop if he is in fear for his life. The law should treat them both the same way.

How about no one is allowed to take a life over feelings lol..


If you don't KNOW you are in immediate danger, you don't get to legally kill people?!?!

I have no idea how that's controversial lol

a reply to: JoshuaCox

The hardest part of that unlawful killing in San Diego is listening to her tearful cries, "I called you for help and you kill him??!!"

a reply to: JoshuaCox

I since edited that post. The logos on the sheriffs car doors around here say "To patrol and protect". They protect their safety and established business, first. If a bank alarm sounds they come hard in seconds, if you call 911 it might be a half hour. Same if an officer calls for back up.

A call for backup is like kicking a hornets nest. Part of the problem is the aggressive way they respond and force a confrontation. Instead of holding back and first determining the problem, they pull up sirens blaring, jump out, expose themselves to danger up close and personal, guns draw shouting instructions over each other.

This is escalation to force quick closure. They were in imminent danger so they had to shoot. In the case of San Diego for instance...

parking a short distance away, maintaining cover behind their squad cars and determining the best course of action before firing because he 'removed something from his pocket", saves someones life.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The hardest part of that unlawful killing in San Diego is listening to her tearful cries, "I called you for help and you kill him??!!"

I've seen at least 5 or 6 VERY similar cases

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: JoshuaCox

I since edited that post. The logos on the sheriffs car doors around here say "To patrol and protect". They protect their safety and established business, first. If a bank alarm sounds they come hard in seconds, if you call 911 it might be a half hour. Same if an officer calls for back up.

A call for backup is like kicking a hornets nest. Part of the problem is the aggressive way they respond and force a confrontation. Instead of holding back and first determining the problem, they pull up sirens blaring, jump out, expose themselves to danger up close and personal, guns draw shouting instructions over each other.

This is escalation to force quick closure. They were in imminent danger so they had to shoot. In the case of San Diego for instance...

parking a short distance away, maintaining cover behind their squad cars and determining the best course of action before firing because he 'removed something from his pocket", saves someones life.

Well Said!!!!

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

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...

No, but behavioral clues in the totality of the circumstances are usually a pretty good indicator of a threat, or lack of one.

How long does a 5'3, 110 lbs officer have to wait when dealing with a 6'3, 245 lbs offender before the officer can discharge their weapon? Keep in mind that significant size/strength disparity is a reason to use lethal force. Should the officer wait until he or she has been punched a few times? Wait until they've been taken to ground? Or stand there and try to trade punches because no weapon has been shown?

At what point do you consider a threat confirmed? When a weapon is brandished? When a verbal threat is made? When a weapon is pointed?

The problem with your question is that there is no "one size fits all" answer to law enforcement shootings. So simply saying officers should "confirm" a threat is entirely too ambiguous a statement to get anywhere.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Wait for backup? if the physical odds so against.

a reply to: vonclod

And do what, exactly, until backup arrives? Run around in circles? Run away? Hide in their vehicle?

a reply to: Shamrock6

I know, it's easy to say, I admit I do not have alot of answers.
1st I would first question why a 110 lb officer is solo..no budget for partners I guess.
2nd..why not observe? till backup arrives..if it's a violent crime in progress then threat confirmed.

a reply to: vonclod

You can "what if" all day long, and eventually I'm sure we can find a scenario that's specific enough to "prove" your point. The problem is that one scenario is only one out of 100. And you still haven't answered the topic of the reason deadly force was used is because of the size disparity.

Not every agency in the country has officers riding in pairs. I feel like that's pretty common knowledge at this point.

a reply to: Shamrock6

How long does a 5'3, 110 lbs officer have to wait when dealing with a 6'3, 245 lbs offender before the officer can discharge their weapon?

Again, worst case scenario. All your examples are worst case. The answer to how long they should wait is as along as it takes to determine the actual threat from a safe distance.

Running alone after people, approaching suspects, standing in the open with gun pointing at someone isn't determining anything except, when am I justified to shoot?

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: vonclod

And do what, exactly, until backup arrives? Run around in circles? Run away? Hide in their vehicle?

Maintain a safe distance. You forgot felony stop, 101? We been around this corner a number of times right here. Approaching a suspected violent felon alone in the open is dumb as the day is long.

a reply to: intrptr

All my examples are simply multiple examples. Because it's a single-scope answer being applied to a question that has thousands of possibilities. I'm sure the eight year-old hiding in a closet on the phone with 911 would be super stoked that an officer waited outside her house for 10 minutes because a super-sleuth on the internet said that was the only way the officer could determine if it was safe to get out of their vehicle or not.

If you're concerned about when you can use lethal force, I would urge you check your state law on the issue.

a reply to: intrptr

But how do you know it's a suspected felon? All you got over the radio was a male twice your size doing something sketchy on the side of the road so....how'd you determine it's a violent felon? Why are you trying to jump out of your vehicle with your gun drawn on a guy standing on the side of the road? Are you that scared? Guess it's a good thing you're not a cop, eh?

Or are you just trying to tweak the scenario ever so slightly so you can give a smug little answer, even though it's not an answer to the question that was posed?

It's funny that nobody seems able to answer the very first question I asked, which is at what point is a threat considered to be "confirmed."

a reply to: Shamrock6

But how do you know it's a suspected felon?

The first leo to respond runs the plate of the car, then waits for backup which arrives and then they ask him to get out of the car, which he does. Then they shot him.

The only thing smug about your response is defending police before we know if he had a gun. So far nothing they show at the scene can confirm this.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: intrptr

All my examples are simply multiple examples. Because it's a single-scope answer being applied to a question that has thousands of possibilities. I'm sure the eight year-old hiding in a closet on the phone with 911 would be super stoked that an officer waited outside her house for 10 minutes because a super-sleuth on the internet said that was the only way the officer could determine if it was safe to get out of their vehicle or not.

If you're concerned about when you can use lethal force, I would urge you check your state law on the issue.

I'm pretty sure the assertion was that police officers draw and aim when ever they feel threatened, but don't shoot till you confirm the threat...


Shooting at shadows is way more likely to get that kid hurt than a robber who would 99% chance be scared to death a kid is home... that's a whole new charge.