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.

 

Should Police be Required to Confirm the Threat Before Shooting.

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

"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?"

That is what I've said. All you're doing is creating scenarios beyond the scope of the information I gave. You've turned my comment, and questions contained therein, into a specifically defined situation well beyond what information was given, and done so without answering any of the questions that were posed. And you continue to ignore the questions in your never-ending quest to concoct a "gotcha!" response.

I'm not defending anybody. I asked about a hypothetical situation. You're the one that's trying to mold my hypothetical into some other situation.




posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: intrptr

"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?"

That is what I've said. All you're doing is creating scenarios beyond the scope of the information I gave. You've turned my comment, and questions contained therein, into a specifically defined situation well beyond what information was given, and done so without answering any of the questions that were posed. And you continue to ignore the questions in your never-ending quest to concoct a "gotcha!" response.

I'm not defending anybody. I asked about a hypothetical situation. You're the one that's trying to mold my hypothetical into some other situation.






Assaulting an officer is a very serious felony. That carries years..



But is is not a death penalty charge. Besides officers are given night sticks and such for melee combat. Still meaning in the majority of situations the trained officer should have the advantage.

That said none of the shootings considered shady have the perp charging the officer. Not saying it doesn't happen.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   
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? Keep in mind that significant size/strength disparity is a reason to use lethal force.

How'd the petite officer get that close in the first place that the man was such an imminent threat?

Did he come at her or she at him? She had a gun so as soon as she got too close she got scared and 'let him ave it'?



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
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? Keep in mind that significant size/strength disparity is a reason to use lethal force.

How'd the petite officer get that close in the first place that the man was such an imminent threat?

Did he come at her or she at him? She had a gun so as soon as she got too close she got scared and 'let him ave it'?



I think it is a fair scenario..


Once it has gone to melee combat the stakes definitely raise.

Now I'm not saying the average (prob) drunk or idiot who takes a swing, would ever try and murder some one....but it's a worse case scenario you have to factor.

The main prob I have concerning melee instances, is retaliation. If it's tooth and nail and the fight has gone passed a single blow or 2. I'm ok with deadly force being used.

I feel like the fact they keep coming at you is a reasonable confirmation of a real threat.

Once subdued though retaliation should never be sanctioned. The perp will be getting a year +.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox


Besides officers are given night sticks and such for melee combat. Still meaning in the majority of situations the trained officer should have the advantage.

The biggest stick is their arsenal is their radio. When in doubt, shout it out.

Not one time was I harassed by the local pd. If they pulled up behind where I was parked in my truck, and the officer was alone, they'd sit and wait, with lights on until the second unit pulled up behind them. During this wait, the first was running my plate and getting a pic on his screen of a face to go with the name as the owner of the truck.

This isn't rocket science. The officer that approached on the drivers side (the other on the passenger side remained a little back), keeping an eye on me through the rear side window while the first officer saw my face, then asked for ID to match. He now knows its me, my truck and me by license and DMV record on his computer. All this goes so far to being familiar, being protected, and whether I have any priors warrants, etc, etc.

Then everyone can relax and chat about what I'm doing there.

I never saw them do it any different and I can't easily count the number of times this happened. Hats off to the local PD for behaving in a professional, unhurried, safe and thorough fashion.

What I see sometimes on YouTube in other similar cases is a bunch of guys ganging up on some hapless person aggressively processing the situation where there is no need for it. Everything is seemingly fine and then all of a sudden theres this flurry of violence uncalled for apparently. I can identify wth the hapless victims in these cases because I bee n the subject of multiple 'suspicious person parked on roadside' encounters that never went bad.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: cynicalheathen

So the maybe frightened citizen not wearing Kevlar takes the hit from maybe multiple cops, rather than the body protected
police, taking a second or two to ascertain a definite threat from one maybe aggressor that is likely to miss on a first shot. If you can't take the pressure, you shouldn't have the job. No one forced you into this career.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Mianeye

How many civilians have been killed by cop this year?



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 03:17 PM
link   
since too many cops would rather shoot at the big bad criminal and not allow him his day in court, police should have their license to kill revoked...rubber bullets is within the interest of justice?
sure- still aim for center mass, but, you only get to use rubber bullets, your taser, or your bare hands.
non-lethal means.

if you can't fulfill the task correctly, you should apply whatever talents you have elsewhere-where you won't be soiling the entire department when you crap your pants for whatever deficit one would claim.

suspects are due their day in court?

in the interest of justice?



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: wannaknow49
a reply to: Mianeye

How many civilians have been killed by cop this year?





Think we are averaging roughly 1000 a year, but that includes those who did deserve it.


Vs a little less than 50 cops killed in the line of duty.

The real question is what's the number of innocents killed vs. the number of officers that would have died had they hesitated.

I'm betting 200 civilians survive while we lose a hand full or less of police.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The baton is not there to "engage in melee combat" with anybody. An officer isn't under any obligation to stand there and duke it out with anybody.

And batons are considered "less lethal" as opposed to "non lethal."



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
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? Keep in mind that significant size/strength disparity is a reason to use lethal force.

How'd the petite officer get that close in the first place that the man was such an imminent threat?

Did he come at her or she at him? She had a gun so as soon as she got too close she got scared and 'let him ave it'?


How does the officerknow he's an imminent threat when he or she gets to the scene? What if the officer coming out of a 7-11 after grabbing a gatorade and isn't even on a call?

Why do you continue to refuse to answer the question I keep asking? At what point can the officer "confirm" that he's a threat? Does the officer have to wait until he's got him or her on the ground? Until he's taken a certain number of swings at them? Till they've lost a certain number of teeth?

You continue to refuse to answer because you can't. That's why you persist in trying to narrow down the scope of the question posed beyond what the question actually is. Since you can't seem to resist the urge to try and change the question to something that it isn't, we're done here. I expect you'll have some pithy reply that allows you to declare yourself the victor here, as usual, but we both know the question will remain unanswered.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The baton is not there to "engage in melee combat" with anybody. An officer isn't under any obligation to stand there and duke it out with anybody.

And batons are considered "less lethal" as opposed to "non lethal."






A baton by definition is for melee combat and I'm cool with using deadly force if the attack continues past a single swing or two... and assuming the officer is physically out classed.



I think we should pay more , kill
The war on drugs and remove the victimless crimes that are really just income generators. Double down on violent crime and theft and let the cops go back to saving the day with safety issues and only being hero's rather than tax collectors.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You miss the point. The baton isn't there so the officer can trade blows with somebody. It's there for joint manipulation and quick strikes. Not some long drawn out "melee combat" situation.

Nor does a baton become some sort of instant equalizer in a confrontation. Again, not addressing the question I posed.

It's whatever at this point. Nobody has given an answer as to when a threat justifying lethal force can be considered "confirmed." And that's because there isn't a cookie cutter situation to which one can point when making the blanket statement that threats should be "confirmed" before action is taken. This is all just talking in circles and avoiding the question.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: JoshuaCox

You miss the point. The baton isn't there so the officer can trade blows with somebody. It's there for joint manipulation and quick strikes. Not some long drawn out "melee combat" situation.

Nor does a baton become some sort of instant equalizer in a confrontation. Again, not addressing the question I posed.

It's whatever at this point. Nobody has given an answer as to when a threat justifying lethal force can be considered "confirmed." And that's because there isn't a cookie cutter situation to which one can point when making the blanket statement that threats should be "confirmed" before action is taken. This is all just talking in circles and avoiding the question.




I think you are the only one who inferred a "long drawn out melee conflict."


A baton is a club and has many uses, I don't know how joint locks would change that.


Yes I have many times..and have given multiple examples of what I was talking about. One in the OP I think lol.

If an officer encounters some one acting fidgety, he yells freeze and they reach behind their back. It is either ,

A) some normal joe who is nervous and reaching for his wallet to hand the officer.

B) some one who is armed, wanted enough to kill a cop and willing to kill a human being.

The officer should wait until the hand starts coming back around to confirm it is a weapon before firing.

Now the biggest probability is it is the normal joe, because your average encounter won't be the worst case scenario...or it wouldn't be the worst case lol.






If they have a weapon and refuse to drop it (gun) and or charge (knife).

If a melee encounter lasts longer than a swing or 2 and the officer thinks they are out classed.

The only thing in question is the times deadly force was used and there was no weapon. The officer shot "just in case, maybe they had a weapon."



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 06:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

You keep changing to another scenario, I was addressing what seems to be a lack of training or a pile on attitude when it comes specifically to roadside stops or call ins of 'suspicious behavior". Specifically the ones lately, that could have been handled lots better, imo.


How'd the petite officer get that close in the first place that the man was such an imminent threat?

Instead of addressing it, you keep saying...


Why do you continue to refuse to answer the question I keep asking? At what point can the officer "confirm" that he's a threat? Does the officer have to wait until he's got him or her on the ground? Until he's taken a certain number of swings at them? Till they've lost a certain number of teeth?


My responses have addressed that directly so have JC, throughout this thread.

When the threat is real, not perceived, then they can riddle the body with bullets... lol



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Shamrock6

You keep changing to another scenario...


In Shamrock's defense, you seem to think there are 'standard scenarios'. Whilst I can only come at it from a military perspective and not civil enforcement, it's both dangerous and naive to think any encounter is 'standard'. That said, the vast majority are not life threatening. IME you tend to assess how the thing's going to go in the first 10-20 seconds, and you see it through that lens afterward. So maybe if you were pleasant and non-threatening in the first half minute you could be less so later and still get away with it.



... a pile on attitude when it comes specifically to roadside stops or call ins of 'suspicious behavior". Specifically the ones lately, that could have been handled lots better, imo.


I think 'pig piling' is sort of questionable behavior in most circumstances, unless the guy you stop is not manageable, or is acting like he might not be, or the car's full of people who are trying to distract you and maybe get out while you're focused on someone else. In any case where you have too much going on and you're by yourself, hell yes, lots of help.

But you see lots of times where you get one squad car after another joining the stop, and I have to assume that either (1) they're all bored as # and they're there to see what you're doing or (2) it's a pretty young lady worth ogling or (3) the stop is someone with some spectacularly amusing occupant(s) and everyone wants to see the freak show. The downside is that if you get enough extra LEOs on scene they can start spinning each other up, and some people instead of being intimidated by the over the top show of force become agitated, and away you go, when it might not have required that to happen. IMHO.

Not to mention THEY'RE BUNCHING UP. STOP THAT.



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 04:22 AM
link   
Mandy Florez xx a reply to: loveguy



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 04:25 AM
link   
Xxxwas weo



posted on Oct, 1 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam


In Shamrock's defense, you seem to think there are 'standard scenarios'.

I was trying to stick to the incidents at hand, the subject of the debate lately, not hyperbole.

Imo, part of the problem is with veterans become cops where potentially everyones the enemy in hostile territory...

its okay to come home. We're civil servants now, no longer occupying and patrolling enemy territory.



posted on Oct, 3 2016 @ 08:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: sirlancelot
Im sure this has been seen by most but it sums up the hypocrisy and lack of knowledge of the anti force/cop peeps!

Use Of Force Role Play Video- Activist

It take less then a second for someone with a gun to shoot you dead!

Lack of compliance of a cops commands is the cause of most shootings. Of Course you have a few bad apples as well!



Then they should shoot everyone they approach... just incase...


What could happen is irrelevant, anything could happen.


" I didn't go to work because I could have had a car wreck and died. (Link to wreck to blind side)

See how quick some one can hit you?"


Could have should not be a good enough excuse WHEN THE PERSON WASNT EVEN ARMED AFTER THE FACT!

Just like the activist in the video I guess it's easy to be a arm chair quarterback sitting behind your computer.










top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join