Common expressions that are wrong....

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I mean suspect safety trumps officer safety in my opinion. Police don’t get to make mistakes in regards to using deadly force. If a cop shoots an unarmed citizen, or a kid with a toy gun, they should be fired.

Two very different things here. It would not be a mistake to use deadly force, as the officer was dealing with a deadly threat. The only way I see your argument making sense is if you believe officers should allow themselves to be shot before responding at all.

Cop is a job people choose to do. Innocent people don’t choose to be shot because a coward was a little scared doing the job they chose.

How is someone running away,
unarmed, and obviously not shooting an immediate deadly threat exactly? That’s part of deadly force use…immediate threat, but it doesn’t matter if he shot previously. No cops returned fire then, but when his back was turned and running like 12 cops did a mag dump.

From your example, you did not mention the guy being unarmed. In fact you referred to him being armed last that they knew. Someone running away, with a gun that they used a minute earlier to shoot at police (while escaping, so in the exact same situation), is an immediate deadly threat. There's been no changes that would indicate the threat is gone.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I just realized you have dragged me into politics, and completely off topic of the thread, so will stop posting here before I get a warning.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Wow, I've heard that one before.

Where'd you first hear that?

In military academy

 

[Steve]

Not experts. Knowledgeable more than most in the areas I mentioned.

I don't think I know your writing style well enough to know when you're being sarcastic or not. I'm glad we agree that not all cops are experts on those things you mentioned in your earlier post. At least, I think we are agreeing.

FWIW, the original point I made is that not all cops are experts on civilian self defense. The skills and knowledge required to arrest someone and determine probable cause (for example) have zero benefit to a computer programmer who lives in an upscale urban village, or a middle class civil servant, or a female grad student at the state university. There may be some intersection between what cops do and what will actually make a non-cop more safe, but it's not automatic. That list of skills and abilities you shared earlier was pretty extensive, but very little of that is relevant or useful to someone who isn't a cop, or even to a cop who isn't on the job. Some, maybe... but not much.

And the reason I posted it in this thread is that this is a common trope we hear often. To be clear, I'm not saying you believe otherwise. I really don't know for sure what your thoughts are on this. You might agree or disagree, but I'm not presuming anything. Just sharing my thoughts and opinions.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger." Heard that a lot at my first dojo. Still have some lingering injuries from that place, and had quite a few concussions from there. Not sure those made me stronger, even in the mental aspect of overcoming them.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

“Put some Tussin on it”

 

[Steve]

“Put some Tussin on it”

Tussin? Is that code?

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Tussin? Is that code?

Nah it’s an old Chris Rock joke

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Tussin? Is that code?

Got a cough? Put some Tussin on it. Broke your leg? Put some Tussin on it.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Tussin? Is that code?

Bottle of Tustin empty? Put some water in it and shake, more Tussin!

 

[GojuTommy]

Two very different things here. It would not be a mistake to use deadly force, as the officer was dealing with a deadly threat. The only way I see your argument making sense is if you believe officers should allow themselves to be shot before responding at all.

From your example, you did not mention the guy being unarmed. In fact you referred to him being armed last that they knew. Someone running away, with a gun that they used a minute earlier to shoot at police (while escaping, so in the exact same situation), is an immediate deadly threat. There's been no changes that would indicate the threat is gone.

The gun was found in his car.
Last they knew. Exactly. They did not know he was currently a threat, and he wasn’t.
They were wrong, that mistake cost a man his life. They do not deserve the opportunity to be wrong again.

The deadly force triangle was not complete when they shot him. He did not have capability, he did not have opportunity, and he no longer showed intent.

If an officer must let a suspect get the first shot off, to ensure no more innocent people are gunned down by cowards then so be it. If that’s not a risk you’re willing to take don’t be a cop.
They’re encouraged to abuse their power in a way no other profession save judges are encouraged to do so. Removing that protection will almost assuredly help with the issue as well.

While this wouldn’t likely stand up in court, if the officers could be brought to court for their actions, but the circumstances do not seem to indicate he ever had the intent to kill or seriously harm any of the officers. Even if he did he likely could not continue to be a threat.
He fired one shot out of the window of a speeding car behind him. This tells me one of two things occurred.
1. His intention was only to dissuade further pursuit (stupid I agree), therefore no intention to cause harm.
2. His firearm malfunctioned and thus no longer allowed him the opportunity nor the capability to use deadly force against the officers.

 

[GojuTommy]

"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger." Heard that a lot at my first dojo. Still have some lingering injuries from that place, and had quite a few concussions from there. Not sure those made me stronger, even in the mental aspect of overcoming them.

Yep it’s one of the most toxic mindsets. I am sorry that happened to you. Sounds like you realize you deserve better and won’t let it happen again.

 

[Jared Traveler]

Personally, what counts as ‘nothing wrong’ is often very wrong in my opinion.
A dude fired 1 shot out his car window during a high speed chase, got out and ran on foot. He was shot something like 90 times in the back. It was deemed a justified shooting because he fired a shot a minute or more before that, despite no immediate threat to anyone.

I’m of the opinion that if you cannot confirm 100% a suspect is a deadly force threat, then you shouldn’t be using deadly force as a cop. And if someone is uncomfortable with that I don’t believe they should be a cop. Both tamir rice and philando Castile would be alive today, along with god knows how many others, and if they wouldn’t be their killers would at least suffer some consequences.

I will make an attempt to discuss this topic with you. There is no reasonable way anyone (civilian or cop) could confirm a threat is 100 percent a threat.

For example, I tell you I'm going to shoot you, I pull out a gun and point it at you. Am I a 100 percent a deadly force threat? How do you know if the gun has bullets? How do you know my true intentions? I may have zero intention of actually pulling the trigger. Maybe I'm just trying to commit suicide by cop. Maybe it's a replica gun? Maybe the gun jambed or I have run out of ammunition.

I could deep dive on use of force topics. But if you have bias against the police, you are going to have a hard time understanding why the supreme court has made the decisions it makes regarding civilian and law enforcement using appropriate force.

 

[GojuTommy]

I will make an attempt to discuss this topic with you. There is no reasonable way anyone (civilian or cop) could confirm a threat is 100 percent a threat.

For example, I tell you I'm going to shoot you, I pull out a gun and point it at you. Am I a 100 percent a deadly force threat? How do you know if the gun has bullets? How do you know my true intentions? I may have zero intention of actually pulling the trigger. Maybe I'm just trying to commit suicide by cop. Maybe it's a replica gun? Maybe the gun jambed or I have run out of ammunition.

I could deep dive on use of force topics. But if you have bias against the police, you are going to have a hard time understanding why the supreme court has made the decisions it makes regarding civilian and law enforcement using appropriate force.

We are all some level of threat to each other at all times. Until intent is proven, I don’t believe a cop should get to randomly kill someone.

I would rather 100 dead cops in the line of duty than 1 more tamir rice, or philando castille.

It’s that simple. If someone is not willing to take those risks I do not believe they are fit to be a police officer.

Civilians are a different matter as civilians do not volunteer to go into harm’s way.

If I had acted like a cop while deployed we’d have been at war with iran a long time ago.

Military RoEs make sense. Police RoEs do not.

I do not have a bias against police, I have a bias against corruption and hero worship.
Why is it most other nations can deal with suspects armed with knives, swords, pipes, etc, without shooting them but American police can’t?
Why is it that we cannot hold police accountable for their mistakes or even their willful harm?

The Supreme Court decisions are all too focused on officer safety, when they should be focused on civilian safety.

If you check the source I shared in a previous post you’ll see that in most states civilians are killed at rates massively higher than police are.

Being a cop is not a dangerous job seeing as a trucker is more likely to die on the job than a cop is.

 

[tkdroamer]

Personally, what counts as ‘nothing wrong’ is often very wrong in my opinion.
A dude fired 1 shot out his car window during a high speed chase, got out and ran on foot. He was shot something like 90 times in the back. It was deemed a justified shooting because he fired a shot a minute or more before that, despite no immediate threat to anyone.

I’m of the opinion that if you cannot confirm 100% a suspect is a deadly force threat, then you shouldn’t be using deadly force as a cop. And if someone is uncomfortable with that I don’t believe they should be a cop. Both tamir rice and philando Castile would be alive today, along with god knows how many others, and if they wouldn’t be their killers would at least suffer some consequences.

If you followed both of these stories, you know there is a lot of the full story left out my mainstream media. I am not taking up of the officers. But there is much more to both of these stories.

 

[tkdroamer]

We are all some level of threat to each other at all times. Until intent is proven, I don’t believe a cop should get to randomly kill someone.

I would rather 100 dead cops in the line of duty than 1 more tamir rice, or philando castille.

It’s that simple. If someone is not willing to take those risks I do not believe they are fit to be a police officer.

Civilians are a different matter as civilians do not volunteer to go into harm’s way.

If I had acted like a cop while deployed we’d have been at war with iran a long time ago.

Military RoEs make sense. Police RoEs do not.

I do not have a bias against police, I have a bias against corruption and hero worship.
Why is it most other nations can deal with suspects armed with knives, swords, pipes, etc, without shooting them but American police can’t?
Why is it that we cannot hold police accountable for their mistakes or even their willful harm?

The Supreme Court decisions are all too focused on officer safety, when they should be focused on civilian safety.

If you check the source I shared in a previous post you’ll see that in most states civilians are killed at rates massively higher than police are.

Being a cop is not a dangerous job seeing as a trucker is more likely to die on the job than a cop is.

It is not a fair comparison.
Military in a defensive position are sometimes as far as miles away from the enemy and have had days or weeks or months of intel.
An officer on a traffic stop is usually the first source of intel. A bullet leaving the chamber travels much faster than the human mind can process.

 

[Jared Traveler]

We are all some level of threat to each other at all times. Until intent is proven, I don’t believe a cop should get to randomly kill someone.

I would rather 100 dead cops in the line of duty than 1 more tamir rice, or philando castille.

It’s that simple. If someone is not willing to take those risks I do not believe they are fit to be a police officer.

Civilians are a different matter as civilians do not volunteer to go into harm’s way.

If I had acted like a cop while deployed we’d have been at war with iran a long time ago.

Military RoEs make sense. Police RoEs do not.

I do not have a bias against police, I have a bias against corruption and hero worship.
Why is it most other nations can deal with suspects armed with knives, swords, pipes, etc, without shooting them but American police can’t?
Why is it that we cannot hold police accountable for their mistakes or even their willful harm?

The Supreme Court decisions are all too focused on officer safety, when they should be focused on civilian safety.

If you check the source I shared in a previous post you’ll see that in most states civilians are killed at rates massively higher than police are.

Being a cop is not a dangerous job seeing as a trucker is more likely to die on the job than a cop is.

I appreciate you clearly articulating what you believe. You seem firm in your beliefs, so I will try not to alter them in any way regarding police matters.

 

[Steve]

On a phone so I’ll keep this short, but just want to say I don’t want 100 dead anybody, cop or civilian. But to the point of this thread, I do think there are tropes in policing that have led to some counterproductive policies that increase the danger to both cops and civilians.

 

[Tez3]

Do you have a source for this?
In the becoming a cop requirements are almost nonexistent. Most states require more training to cut hair than required to be a cop. Example in Iowa hair stylist, 2100 hours training vs 520 hours training to be a cop.
Most cops can’t fight, and the number of abuse of force complaints, would indicate most cops don’t know the law. That’s not getting into the general lack of knowledge of citizen’s rights.

HI has no training requirements, some states you can be a cop for 18 months no academy training, many states 12 months, and even more states 6 months.

State Law Enforcement Training Requirements — The Institute for Criminal Justice Training Reform

www.trainingreform.org

How long training to become a police officer in the UK depends on what route you take, all routes need academic qualifications as well as interviews, fitness and written tests as well as security checks. The traditional route is 22 weeks classroom training and 2 years training on the job as a probationer. You can be an apprentice that's 3 years, if you have a degree in policing time is shortened because the three year degree course includes on the job training.
It takes at least two years to become a substantive police officer.

 

[Darksoul]

A former co-worker of mine who lived in Germany for years noted that Corrections Officers there had a minimum 3 years of training before being employed at a prison. I think law enforcement here could probably do well with more training for the average officer/deputy. I assume that training time depends of departments/locale requirements.

-As to the OP, "An apple a day..."...but does it really? I do enjoy a granny smith every now and then.