Chicago police announce new limits on use of force

a reply to: WilburnRoach

What's stopping you?

originally posted by: odzeandennz
An emphasis on de-escalation... what are they thinking !!

/sarc

Not all crimes should equate to a death sentence by a trigger happy LEO... what a new concept.
'Murka

I know right..
Not all victims that die at the hands of waste of flesh criminals deserve it.
I mean criminals never are to blame for the consequences of their actions.
'Murka

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Perjury

Better yet , send in " Snake " Plissken to Clean up that Mess.

I heard he was dead.




As to this? Should we be giving the benefit of doubt to the potential criminal at the risk of law enforcement?

a reply to: WilburnRoach

Another fantastically ignorant post by you.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: WilburnRoach

Another fantastically ignorant post by you.

kill em all let god sort em out right?

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Perjury

Better yet , send in " Snake " Plissken to Clean up that Mess.

I heard he was dead.

The Reports of his Demise were Greatly Exaggerated . He is Still the Peoples Asset .


As to this? Should we be giving the benefit of doubt to the potential criminal at the risk of law enforcement?

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: snowspirit

Let's at least prove them guilty before their death sentencing.

In the moment, on the street, it is about survival. When someone presents a deadly threat they should be responded to in kind.

Unless the 'deadly threat' is being presented by the cops am I right?

Yea the killing of all of those innocent black folks by those racist cops has to stop! If black people are to be killed they are to be killed by other black people. ✊🏾

a reply to: WilburnRoach

Yes they should! Too many people are joining the military and our police forces to kill someone.

How about politicos, and politicians' hiding behind armed guards has no idea what life is REALLY like on the streets of America.

Especially in places like Chicago, Gun control capital of the world.

Where it's not the cops that are violating civil liberities of others, and using deadly force.

It's thugs,gang bangers and drug dealers that now virtually know they have free reign over the public.

Because instead of a cop doing his job.

99% of the time they are doing everything they can to keep it, and not end up in the national news.

a reply to: xuenchen

•Requiring that officers see an "immediate threat" before they use force against a fleeing person suspected of a felony. Current guidelines say officers can shoot a fleeing felony suspect who poses a threat. Under the new policy, there should be another threat present — such as a gun.

•Limiting Taser discharges to three during an incident.

•Requiring that officers administer first aid or medical care, whenever possible, to subjects they have used force against. Officers will be expected to show compassion and care.

•A general emphasis on de-escalation, or helping officers use time or distance to their advantage to get control of an incident before resorting to deadly force.

Point by point, I want someone to tell me what's wrong with this list.

I see no problems and am in fact surprised this wasn't always the case.

Do criminals not have rights?
You argue that free speech covers bad speech, well rights belong to bad people as well.

That's if they're bad and not mentally incapacitated.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

I see no problems and am in fact surprised this wasn't always the case.

The biggest problem with this is.

Current guidelines say officers can shoot a fleeing felony suspect who poses a threat. Under the new policy, there should be another threat present — such as a gun.

Under current federal law it's ILLEGAL for felons to be in possession of a firearm.

I guess cops are suppose to use kind words in the hope someone that doesn't care about laws doesn't kill them.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Hazardous1408

I see no problems and am in fact surprised this wasn't always the case.

The biggest problem with this is.

Current guidelines say officers can shoot a fleeing felony suspect who poses a threat. Under the new policy, there should be another threat present — such as a gun.

Under current federal law it's ILLEGAL for felons to be in possession of a firearm.

Kinda stating the obvious there, Neo.
Way to return to ATS.

I guess cops are suppose to use kind words in the hope someone that doesn't care about laws doesn't kill them.

No it clearly says if they're armed they can be perceived as a threat.

Under the new policy, there should be another threat present — such as a gun.

So what's the problem.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
An emphasis on de-escalation... what are they thinking !!

/sarc

Not all crimes should equate to a death sentence by a trigger happy LEO... what a new concept.
'Murka

You are not understanding or learning anything from these shootings are you? Cops do not shoot a guy because of the crime he just committed. Ill say it again, you can kill 20 people, and surrender and be just fine, or you can steal a pack of gum, and then attack the police and get shot. They could care less what you did for them to be called. They want to go home at night alive or without being put in a coma. To give you an example, people say Mike Brown was killed over cigars..... No he was killed because he attacked a cop and tried to get his weapon.

Then the real racists show up and say "See, Dylan Roof was spared because he is White!" Sorry, but he surrendered peacefully. Had he attacked the police he would be dead too. The thing people fail to see in each of these cases is the individual circumstances pertaining to each incident.


Unarmed means nothing. People die all the time from fists and feet, and a few people have died from the so called knock out game in just one hit. If you are being pummeled by a person, there aren't many options left. Hear about the female cop just yesterday, who was afraid to use her weapon because of people like you? Yea she got her a$$ beat bad.

As far as the OP.

#1 Requiring that officers see an "immediate threat" before they use force against a fleeing person suspected of a felony. Current guidelines say officers can shoot a fleeing felony suspect who poses a threat. Under the new policy, there should be another threat present — such as a gun.

Sounds fair enough but, this requirement is also a "use your judgment" opinion. Different officers may see a different threat level. Another threat present, such as a gun.. Such as means not only limited to. In my opinion, a person with a weapon, who is refusing orders, and tries to escape, represents a clear and present danger to society, period. So really this requirement is nothing new and seems basically the same as their standard ROE anyway.

#2 Limiting Taser discharges to three during an incident.

If 3 taser discharges (not hits, misses count as your 3) don't stop a violent suspect, guess what their only option left is after that? That's right, hot lead. If the taser does not work, it escalates the situation to deadly force. This rule almost seems as if it is giving police more leeway to used deadly force, which is fine by me when concerning violent suspects actively posing a threat to not only the Police, but everyday citizens.

#3 Requiring that officers administer first aid or medical care, whenever possible, to subjects they have used force against. Officers will be expected to show compassion and care.

They do, but the key here is "whenever possible". Have you seen what happens in most cases after a shooting (in the hood)??? Do you want to turn your back and get on the ground to offer first aid when there are 6763327 angry people descending and surrounding you? No thanks.

#4 A general emphasis on de-escalation, or helping officers use time or distance to their advantage to get control of an incident before resorting to deadly force.

This one is hilarious.. How the heck are you supposed to de-escalate these people? Have you watched a single video lately? You CANNOT have a civil intelligent conversation with these people! They either have no clue what the Officer is saying or flat out don't care. You know the best way for the situation to be de-escalated? FOLLOW LAWFUL ORDERS AND GET ON THE FING GROUND. When the cop says drop the gun/weapon, he IS de-escalating the situation, by trying to get the weapon out of the equation. Duh?!

Why do people like to ignore common facts and factual solutions? Why is the blame never put on the criminal who created the situation himself in the first place? Why would you stand up for a violent criminal with a million prior convictions? Do you really think the person will contribute anything meaningful in society? There are many ways that things could be fixed in general as far the the inner city Black communities, but neither solution is politically correct and would hurt feelings, etc.

If I were President, the crime rate would drop within a week.

originally posted by: snowspirit

originally posted by: TheBulk
How about the criminals stop breaking the law? Naaaaaaa!

Let's at least prove them guilty before their death sentencing.

When your being attacked, how much more proof do you need that the suspect is guilty of attacking you? This is not about the crime the suspect committed, but about what he does when the cops show up.

a reply to: iTruthSeeker

I think i miised the point of not killing a perp for running away, or a man laying on the ground with hands in the air who gets shot, or a trying to run over a perp in a squad car or jumping on the hood of a car and unloading 18 rounds or while having a heart attack, or while having a head phone on... or do you want to see youtube videos where the above happened and people got killed within seconds ?

So police NOW need to assess a situation before killing and its a bad thing? Assessments like not killing a 6 year old playing at a park qith what dispatcher said maybe a toy gun in 2 seconds upon arrival near inches of a child.
No one is bringing race into this but you, the op is about police not using their pistol as a situation diffuser or within a quick glance or whatever reason is in their heads, which is time and time again wrong.

What is the issue with doing police work before killing someone?
Im missing something...

a reply to: neo96

Your throwing a gun control argument at me....I'm very pro gun!

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

I think i miised the point of not killing a perp for running away, or a man laying on the ground with hands in the air who gets shot, or a trying to run over a perp in a squad car or jumping on the hood of a car and unloading 18 rounds or while having a heart attack, or while having a head phone on... or do you want to see youtube videos where the above happened and people got killed within seconds ?

So police NOW need to assess a situation before killing and its a bad thing? Assessments like not killing a 6 year old playing at a park qith what dispatcher said maybe a toy gun in 2 seconds upon arrival near inches of a child.
No one is bringing race into this but you, the op is about police not using their pistol as a situation diffuser or within a quick glance or whatever reason is in their heads, which is time and time again wrong.

What is the issue with doing police work before killing someone?
Im missing something...

You are indeed missing something. First off, in the Tamir Rice case, the dispatcher never told the responding Officers that the gun may be a toy. That has been covered, so why would you try to turn that case around on the Police?

So police NOW need to assess a situation before killing and its a bad thing?

They do assess the situation. Once a cop is being attacked or threatened, he has "assessed" that he is in danger and needs to respond. How much more time does the Cop need to see and feel that he is in trouble? Are you saying that when a suspect points a gun at them, they must duck behind their cars and "asses" the situation and talk about what to do next?

a reply to: WilburnRoach

kill em all let god sort em out right?

Another unbelievably stupid statement.

a reply to: Tsubaki

Unless the 'deadly threat' is being presented by the cops am I right?

I don't stand with police who needlessly threaten citizens.

I firmly believe that if an officer is presenting a deadly threat to an innocent citizen then it is within the rights of that citizen to kill the officer in question so long as the threat is present and real.

This has actually already happened once before(actually more than once) and the person who shot the officer was not convicted.

Examples

Don't try to muddy the waters. Most police officers would never engage in this sort of behavior.

originally posted by: iTruthSeeker

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: iTruthSeeker

I think i miised the point of not killing a perp for running away, or a man laying on the ground with hands in the air who gets shot, or a trying to run over a perp in a squad car or jumping on the hood of a car and unloading 18 rounds or while having a heart attack, or while having a head phone on... or do you want to see youtube videos where the above happened and people got killed within seconds ?

So police NOW need to assess a situation before killing and its a bad thing? Assessments like not killing a 6 year old playing at a park qith what dispatcher said maybe a toy gun in 2 seconds upon arrival near inches of a child.
No one is bringing race into this but you, the op is about police not using their pistol as a situation diffuser or within a quick glance or whatever reason is in their heads, which is time and time again wrong.

What is the issue with doing police work before killing someone?
Im missing something...

You are indeed missing something. First off, in the Tamir Rice case, the dispatcher never told the responding Officers that the gun may be a toy. That has been covered, so why would you try to turn that case around on the Police?

So police NOW need to assess a situation before killing and its a bad thing?

They do assess the situation. Once a cop is being attacked or threatened, he has "assessed" that he is in danger and needs to respond. How much more time does the Cop need to see and feel that he is in trouble? Are you saying that when a suspect points a gun at them, they must duck behind their cars and "asses" the situation and talk about what to do next?

if a LEO is in a life threatening situation, why would he/she not use lethal force. to try to interject words into my post or use ad homs to misdirect m point. if a LEO has a weapon drawn on on him/her, its fair game. now, search the forums and show an instance, in the past year's murderous rampage, where a LEO had a weapon drawn on him/her in order to kill a perp, vs having no weapons drawn or whilst a person was running away, or a person sitting in a stationary car, or the wrong person completely (wrong house breaches etc..) . ill wait.

no one in their right mind would want a LEO to not shoot if a weapon is pointed at them, but why would not using a gun in situation where there is no life threatening or imminent danger to them or the general public, be a better alternative. because you know, the last 5-10 deaths by cops perps had guns pointed at them in any way, or posed a life threat?