International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   The behaviour of US police officers (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=323251)

erlando 16th September 2020 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13224680)
It would be nice, but I don't know what can be done about that that wouldn't result in the police not being allowed to shoot people who meant them genuine harm. Even the ones you are counting as "suicide by cop", I'm not sure how we know that the officer wouldn't have been harmed if they hadn't fired.

In other words, "shoot first, ask questions later".

shuttlt 16th September 2020 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by erlando (Post 13224696)
In other words, "shoot first, ask questions later".

If the cop has a reasonably belief that they are about to be seriously injured/killed and lethal force is needed to eliminate the threat, then sure. What do you expect police to do, wait to find out what you intend to do when you get up close to them? There are certainly cases where people got shot despite obeying police, but at that point you are talking about a very small number of cases indeed.

Darat 16th September 2020 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by erlando (Post 13224696)
In other words, "shoot first, ask questions later".

Nah - more like. "Shoot first and get a tattoo"

Captain_Swoop 16th September 2020 03:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13224703)
Nah - more like. "Shoot first and get a tattoo"

Find someone to shoot.
Anyone will do, you can just say that you were in fear of your life.

SuburbanTurkey 16th September 2020 04:40 AM

Quote:

New video footage shows the moment two Department of Homeless Services police officers handcuffed, detained and searched a Queens man after he photographed them without masks, in what their own agency has called an "absolutely unacceptable abuse of authority."
https://patch.com/new-york/astoria-l...tographed-them

Guy took a pic of two NYPD pigs not wearing masks, so they arrested him and fabricated a story of unlawful harrassment. They later tried to access his phone illegally by removing his mask and trying to force a face-id unlock while he was under arrest.

Contempt of cop is the most serious crime there is.

Suddenly 16th September 2020 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13224700)
If the cop has a reasonably belief that they are about to be seriously injured/killed and lethal force is needed to eliminate the threat, then sure. What do you expect police to do, wait to find out what you intend to do when you get up close to them?

Yes. Yes. Yes. This is what cops should be doing rather than placing the risks on innocent people.

"Reasonable" is way to low of a bar. Not to mention too vague. "Certain" is more where it should be. If even that.
Quote:


There are certainly cases where people got shot despite obeying police, but at that point you are talking about a very small number of cases indeed.
There are certainly cases where people come up with a surprise weapon and shoot cops, but at that point you are talking about a very small number of cases indeed.

jimbob 16th September 2020 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13223593)
Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbob (Post 13223128)
Like being black and seeing a cop?

No, that would be ridiculous. If you are compliant and not up to violent criminal ****, your odds of getting shot by the cop are infinitesimal.

The odds are small but far higher than the odds of an unarmed person or a compliant person shooting a cop.

What happens if you see a cop with a tattoo celebrating their use of lethal force?


Or a cop in one of the areas where no-knock warrant raids have killed as many people as there were murders?

Steve 16th September 2020 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13224700)
If the cop has a reasonably belief that they are about to be seriously injured/killed and lethal force is needed to eliminate the threat, then sure.What do you expect police to do, wait to find out what you intend to do when you get up close to them? There are certainly cases where people got shot despite obeying police, but at that point you are talking about a very small number of cases indeed.

Yes. That is exactly what I expect. Shooting people on spec is just plain unacceptable.

JoeMorgue 16th September 2020 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13224700)
If the cop has a reasonably belief that they are about to be seriously injured/killed and lethal force is needed to eliminate the threat, then sure. What do you expect police to do, wait to find out what you intend to do when you get up close to them? There are certainly cases where people got shot despite obeying police, but at that point you are talking about a very small number of cases indeed.

Why do the police only have the right to absolute metaphysical absence of any threat?

I don't know if what the cop is going to do anymore then the cop knows what I'm going to do. What does he "first draw" benefit of the doubt and I don't?

All your arguments work just as well for the general populace to be shooting the police as it does for the police to be shooting the general populace.

jimbob 16th September 2020 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13224842)
Why do the police only have the right to absolute metaphysical absence of any threat?

I don't know if what the cop is going to do anymore then the cop knows what I'm going to do. What does he "first draw" benefit of the doubt and I don't?

All your arguments work just as well for the general populace to be shooting the police as it does for the police to be shooting the general populace.

Exactly. And merely being certain demographics and exercising one's second amendment rights would be enough to give one reasonable fear of some cops.

pgwenthold 16th September 2020 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13224546)
I'm not constantly bringing up Breonna Taylor just because she's black or just because of this or this because of that.

I constantly bring her up to counter the biggest narrative that deny's the reality of what is happening; the whole "Oh just do whatever you're told and the cop won't kill you..." nonsense.

1. As many other people have pointed out that's a functionally insane, psychopathic defense of a living in a police state.
2. As noted by myself and other people that doesn't help you when police scream contradicting instructions at you and shot you for not doing both at the same time.
3. But most importantly, as I said, it counters the "Well if they had just have done this they would have still been alive" because I can offer a scenario where they did do the thing and question are are still dead.

It's acceptable collateral damage, that's all.

It is kind of interesting. In a country based on "innocent until proven guilty" and "better a dozen guilty go free than an innocent in jail" we have people who have no problem with the execution of innocents as collateral damage.

SuburbanTurkey 16th September 2020 07:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgwenthold (Post 13224928)
It's acceptable collateral damage, that's all.

It is kind of interesting. In a country based on "innocent until proven guilty" and "better a dozen guilty go free than an innocent in jail" we have people who have no problem with the execution of innocents as collateral damage.

It's ok, leadership from the top is that getting gun downed in the street is "retribution". Expect more ambushes of cops. Some might call that retribution too.

johnny karate 16th September 2020 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13224700)
What do you expect police to do, wait to find out what you intend to do when you get up close to them?

What do you expect firefighters to do, run into burning buildings?

pgwenthold 16th September 2020 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13224930)
It's ok, leadership from the top is that getting gun downed in the street is "retribution". Expect more ambushes of cops. Some might call that retribution too.

The importance of the 2nd amendment is that it protects the rights of citizens to protect itself against the tyranny of the oppressive government.

But you don't actually to exercise that right to fight an oppressive government, you only get to use it to uphold government's version of Law and Order.

Distracted1 16th September 2020 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnny karate (Post 13224933)
What do you expect firefighters to do, run into burning buildings?

Not if they can get the fire out some safer way, no.

Distracted1 16th September 2020 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pgwenthold (Post 13224928)
It's acceptable collateral damage, that's all.

It is kind of interesting. In a country based on "innocent until proven guilty" and "better a dozen guilty go free than an innocent in jail" we have people who have no problem with the execution of innocents as collateral damage.

Indeed. Here in Philadelphia, we have had 322 executions so far this year!

JoeMorgue 16th September 2020 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13224963)
Not if they can get the fire out some safer way, no.

Yeah the "Fire" in the metaphor is the lives of innocent people.

Suddenly 16th September 2020 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13224963)
Not if they can get the fire out some safer way, no.

Safer for whom? The firefighters or the people trapped in the fire?

JoeMorgue 16th September 2020 08:44 AM

Also firefights aren't allowed to stand outside my house and spray high pressure hoses through my windows because "well we can't prove there's NOT a fire in there."

Distracted1 16th September 2020 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suddenly (Post 13225006)
Safer for whom? The firefighters or the people trapped in the fire?

Wow, we are going to keep going with this analogy. Okay :)

Safer for the firefighters, of course.
It is the fire that is the enemy of both the firefighters- and the trapped people.
Concern for the safety of the fire is last on the list.

SuburbanTurkey 16th September 2020 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13225009)
Wow, we are going to keep going with this analogy. Okay :)

Safer for the firefighters, of course.
It is the fire that is the enemy of both the firefighters- and the trapped people.
Concern for the safety of the fire is last on the list.

Firefighters are often characterized as heroes because they knowingly take actions that place their lives at risk in order to save people and to serve the community.

Meanwhile cops perforate crying men because they tried to pull up their pants in the name of "officer safety". The way cops justify the massive body count they rack up in the guise of "officer safety" is a direct repudiation of the heroic public servant model.

Everyone loves firefighters, and more and more people are growing to detest the cops.

rockysmith76 16th September 2020 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13225007)
Also firefights aren't allowed to stand outside my house and spray high pressure hoses through my windows because "well we can't prove there's NOT a fire in there."

But they should be

Distracted1 16th September 2020 09:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey (Post 13225024)
Firefighters are often characterized as heroes because they knowingly take actions that place their lives at risk in order to save people and to serve the community.

Meanwhile cops perforate crying men because they tried to pull up their pants in the name of "officer safety". The way cops justify the massive body count they rack up in the guise of "officer safety" is a direct repudiation of the heroic public servant model.

Everyone loves firefighters, and more and more people are growing to detest the cops.

Indeed, firefighters have been known to act heroically, as has the occasional LEO.

Those actions (the heroic ones) are "above and beyond" what they are being paid to do, however.
On a day to day basis, we do not expect the people charged with protecting our lives and property to be running suicide missions.

Bob001 16th September 2020 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13224700)
If the cop has a reasonably belief that they are about to be seriously injured/killed and lethal force is needed to eliminate the threat, then sure. What do you expect police to do, wait to find out what you intend to do when you get up close to them? There are certainly cases where people got shot despite obeying police, but at that point you are talking about a very small number of cases indeed.

What constitutes "a reasonabl[e] belief?" Should a guess be grounds for killing somebody? And what should the consequences be when the cop is wrong? Suppose a guy reaches into his pocket for his wallet, and gets killed because a cop "reasonably believes" that he might be pulling a gun? Or cops break into a home and kill the lawful, law-abiding resident because they "reasonably believe" that a drug dealer might be inside?

How 'bout this: If a cop acts on his "reasonable belief" and he turns out to be wrong, he gets a mandatory life sentence at hard labor? I bet they'd adopt a little narrower definition of what's "reasonable."

shuttlt 16th September 2020 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13225058)
Indeed, firefighters have been known to act heroically, as has the occasional LEO.

Those actions (the heroic ones) are "above and beyond" what they are being paid to do, however.
On a day to day basis, we do not expect the people charged with protecting our lives and property to be running suicide missions.

Firefighters are sometimes disciplined for doing exactly this. The first case I found was this:
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/12/u...rnd/index.html

Part of that I think is that one individual going on a suicide mission potentially adds to the risk of everybody else.

There are plenty of other cases.

SuburbanTurkey 16th September 2020 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13225072)
What constitutes "a reasonabl[e] belief?" Should a guess be grounds for killing somebody? And what should the consequences be when the cop is wrong? Suppose a guy reaches into his pocket for his wallet, and gets killed because a cop "reasonably believes" that he might be pulling a gun? Or cops break into a home and kill the lawful, law-abiding resident because they "reasonably believe" that a drug dealer might be inside?

How 'bout this: If a cop acts on his "reasonable belief" and he turns out to be wrong, he gets a mandatory life sentence at hard labor? I bet they'd adopt a little narrower definition of what's "reasonable."

I think a better system is to randomly ambush cops while they are sitting in patrol cars. ;)

Darat 16th September 2020 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue (Post 13224842)
Why do the police only have the right to absolute metaphysical absence of any threat?

I don't know if what the cop is going to do anymore then the cop knows what I'm going to do. What does he "first draw" benefit of the doubt and I don't?

All your arguments work just as well for the general populace to be shooting the police as it does for the police to be shooting the general populace.

It gets even better, I'm walking down the street and I know that I've not committed any crime, a police officer shouts at me to stop, that would make me very scared, I would be thinking they might decide to shoot me even though I am committing no crime and even if I obey their non-legal order, I pull out my legally owned and carried pistol and shoot the police officer dead.

I was scared so it must be fine I killed the officer.

Bob001 16th September 2020 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13225086)
It gets even better, I'm walking down the street and I know that I've not committed any crime, a police officer shouts at me to stop, that would make me very scared, I would be thinking they might decide to shoot me even though I am committing no crime and even if I obey their non-legal order, I pull out my legally owned and carried pistol and shoot the police officer dead.

I was scared so it must be fine I killed the officer.

Sounds like "stand your ground" to me. Probably legal in Florida.

shuttlt 16th September 2020 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13225072)
What constitutes "a reasonabl[e] belief?" Should a guess be grounds for killing somebody?

Not as a rule, that is pretty well established.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13225072)
And what should the consequences be when the cop is wrong? Suppose a guy reaches into his pocket for his wallet, and gets killed because a cop "reasonably believes" that he might be pulling a gun?

Why would the cop be punished for acting in a way that any other given cop might well have acted? If that is all that went wrong, then the issue isn't with the individual cop. One would have to know more about the encounter to know whether it was reasonable or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13225072)
Or cops break into a home and kill the lawful, law-abiding resident because they "reasonably believe" that a drug dealer might be inside?

Believing a drug dealer is in a house isn't a reason to kill anybody. If the person in the house starts shooting, then that might well change things. Who if anybody needs to get punished depends on the details of the event, what errors were made, and whether anybody acted unreasonably.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 13225072)
How 'bout this: If a cop acts on his "reasonable belief" and he turns out to be wrong, he gets a mandatory life sentence at hard labor? I bet they'd adopt a little narrower definition of what's "reasonable."

That would be ridiculous. Lets imagine the final scene in falling down where it turns out Michael Douglas only has a water pistol. Are you saying that the cop there should be off to prison?
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Wudang 16th September 2020 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13225106)
Why would the cop be punished for acting in a way that any other given cop might well have acted? If that is all that went wrong, then the issue isn't with the individual cop.

Hmm.

shuttlt 16th September 2020 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13225086)
It gets even better, I'm walking down the street and I know that I've not committed any crime, a police officer shouts at me to stop, that would make me very scared, I would be thinking they might decide to shoot me even though I am committing no crime and even if I obey their non-legal order, I pull out my legally owned and carried pistol and shoot the police officer dead.

I was scared so it must be fine I killed the officer.

Somehow most people manage not to get shot by the police when they are ordered to stop. Similarly the vast majority of non-criminals don't start shooting under these circumstances. You would therefore be acting well outside the norm in terms of your threat assessment and reaction. I think you would have an uphill struggle in defending your actions.

Dave Rogers 16th September 2020 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13225119)
Somehow most people manage not to get shot by the police when they are ordered to stop.

Somehow most people manage not to get killed by serial killers. The likelihood of any specific individual being killed by a serial killer is infinitesimal. There is therefore no need to do anything about serial killers.

Dave

Darat 16th September 2020 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13225119)
Somehow most people manage not to get shot by the police when they are ordered to stop. Similarly the vast majority of non-criminals don't start shooting under these circumstances. You are therefore acting well outside the norm in terms of your threat assessment and reaction. I think you would have an uphill struggle in defending your actions.

What do you expect me to do, wait to find out what the police officer intended to do when they get up close to me?

shuttlt 16th September 2020 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers (Post 13225124)
Somehow most people manage not to get killed by serial killers. The likelihood of any specific individual being killed by a serial killer is infinitesimal. There is therefore no need to do anything about serial killers.

Dave

False analogy. If we want to compare the situations it would be if you shot your neighbour when he rang on your door because you were concerned based on the 1/30,000,000 chance of him being a serial killer that he was about to murder you. That is the reasoning of a lunatic.

Wudang 16th September 2020 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13225138)
False analogy. If we want to compare the situations it would be if you shot your neighbour when he rang on your door because you were concerned based on the 1/30,000,000 chance of him being a serial killer that he was about to murder you. That is the reasoning of a lunatic.

I wonder what the ratio is of cases of someone pulling a gun versus pulling out a wallet.

shuttlt 16th September 2020 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13225128)
What do you expect me to do, wait to find out what the police officer intended to do when they get up close to me?

You can obviously shoot when ever you think it is necessary, but if the rest of the world decides that your fears were not reasonable you will be off to prison. I do not see that a cop acting in a manner consistent with normal cop behaviour is ever going to be grounds for successfully claiming self defence.

chrispy 16th September 2020 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13225106)

Why would the cop be punished for acting in a way that any other given cop might well have acted? If that is all that went wrong, then the issue isn't with the individual cop.



Getting closer..

Distracted1 16th September 2020 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darat (Post 13225086)
It gets even better, I'm walking down the street and I know that I've not committed any crime, a police officer shouts at me to stop, that would make me very scared, I would be thinking they might decide to shoot me even though I am committing no crime and even if I obey their non-legal order, I pull out my legally owned and carried pistol and shoot the police officer dead.

I was scared so it must be fine I killed the officer.

Give it a try.
You will get your day in court, perhaps you could convince the jury of the reasonableness of your fear.

Darat 16th September 2020 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13225152)
You can obviously shoot when ever you think it is necessary, but if the rest of the world decides that your fears were not reasonable you will be off to prison. I do not see that a cop acting in a manner consistent with normal cop behaviour is ever going to be grounds for successfully claiming self defence.

I find your asymmetrical assessment of "reasonable" fear quite strange.

In my country we (try to) hold our police officers to higher standards than we do the non-police whereas it appears in the USA it is the other way around.

Darat 16th September 2020 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distracted1 (Post 13225160)
Give it a try.
You will get your day in court, perhaps you could convince the jury of the reasonableness of your fear.

See my post above. I really can't understand why you don't want your police officers to be held to higher standards than non-police. It seems rather arse about tit to me.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:45 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-20, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.