- Joined
- Jun 9, 2012
- Messages
- 5,146
- Reaction score
- 1,700
- Location
- York, Pennsylvania
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I didn't say that you said that, that's what the '?' was for. From what you post though, you are suggesting that.
Yeah, somehow I don't think I ever said that.
I didn't say that you said that, that's what the '?' was for. From what you post though, you are suggesting that.
I have always said that instead of all cops pulling their guns first and as the only options at least one should attempt to use a non-lethal weapon. This kid with the knife had two cops... both did not need to draw pistols and open fire... one should have, not could have but SHOULD HAVE attempted to use a taser first.
Nobody forces a cop to be a cop either... they chose the job and the job should demand non-lethal force to be attempted prior to lethal force.
...........Note: the law and police procedure already demand that lethal force can only be used to stop a lethal threat...or gross bodily harm/prevention of a forcible felony. For some depts, they can also use it to stop a fleeing suspect if they believe he is a threat to public safety.
How much more restrictive does it need to be?
If they made tasers with more than one round, perhaps. Or that were guaranteed to work every time. Unfortunately, physics is much more reliable.Wrong, I clearly stated they should have neutralised him with their tasers. IMO.
...........
^ This is fact.They can also be lethal.
Can you provides some articles or Police training materials for utilizing non-lethal options?
Sometimes police are faced with clear aggression, like when shots are fired at them.
The instant case of a man brandishing a knife, might present a possibility of non-lethal options.
What was the training of these officers in using non-lethal options first, backed up with adequate self-defense options?
Did the officers have the 35 Foot cartridges? The 100 foot range tasers?
Did the officers have the knife resistant vests?
Perhaps the officers truly had no time for non-lethal options. I cannot look through their eyes, at that time.
The video seems to indicate there was no planning or effort for non-lethal options.
The police have to make the on the spot decisions, but the Police Chiefs and city councils look like they are not giving as much non-lethal training and equipment as possible.
"In this video, a man with a large machete is standing outside Buckingham Palace. The police carefully gage their distance, then shoot him with a Taser gun. The confrontation ends almost instantaneously as the man drops the knife when his body begins to convulse:
Read more at This Is How UK Police Stop Someone With A Knife | The Daily Banter
'Sure, it’s not the most effective way of dealing with the situation, but it’s infinitely better than blasting someone away who clearly needs psychiatric help.
The officers who shot Powell did have a choice. They could have moved away from him. They could have gotten back into their car to protect themselves. They could have run away. All of those options are preferable to killing someone, and those tactics are used in other countries where human life is deemed more valuable than the need to assert authority.
Police protocol in America allows police officers to apply lethal force when there is “probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm … to the officer or to others.” So a police officer can basically say, “I thought the guy was a threat, so I killed him”. It’s incredibly subjective, and the broad definition and has lead to the death of around 400 people a year in America, a massively disproportionate number being black. That is..."
Read more at This Is How UK Police Stop Someone With A Knife | The Daily Banter
This Is How UK Police Stop Someone With A Knife | The Daily Banter
Note: the law and police procedure already demand that lethal force can only be used to stop a lethal threat...or gross bodily harm/prevention of a forcible felony. For some depts, they can also use it to stop a fleeing suspect if they believe he is a threat to public safety.
How much more restrictive does it need to be?
Yeah, I'm aware of the warnings. Warnings that you and I would have heeded. But this fella had mental issues.
Four or five cops with guns, guns drawn and tasers. Sure, a real sticky situation. I'm with those questioning police training anyway.
That ignores so much that it makes the argument a joke because anything, literally, can be a "lethal threat". A jump rope. A fork. My hands... guess we just give cops free reign to blast away anytime there is a construed "lethal threat". :roll:
All he has to do is charge one of them. If he's within 21 feet he can reach and kill someone in 1.5 seconds.
Even single gunshots do not stop instantly, that's rare. Multiple gun shots often do not kill instantly.
But hey, it's more important to try to save the criminal...nuts or not... than the cop out there putting his life on the line.
Police are not like "everyone" else... they have night sticks, batons, pepper spray and tazers... I feel that they are obligated to use non-lethal measures first in the instances of knives and such and I don't care if they are not paid enough... it is still their job. Don't be a cop if you don't like the risk. A life guard at a busy beach risks their lives, so do fire fighters and other jobs that don't make much. I did both of those by the way and when I went into a burning house, literally, or into huge surf to rescue a person I risked my life. Cops have a gun and seem to feel that they are special and that they are at more risk then "everybody"... they are not.
It doesn't have to be an either or.
Tell that to the dead cops.
No one else can make those split decisions for anyone in those situations. It's easy for you to not worry about the consequences for other people when you toss around 'feel good' regulations.
Regulations? The focus on police excess is a good thing. Did you note the UN's urging today?
Well then maybe the public better pay them for that too. It's not like cops get rich being cops.
And the law and their procedures are only to kill as a last resort.
do you have any cops that are friends/relatives...you are sounding very naive.It's a shame....but it's not the cops' fault that they had to defend themselves and the public. That's very disrespectful of their lives to claim they could have 'thought of something else' to save a criminal threatening them with a knife.
are your cops not well paid...ours certainly are?
my area cops are paid about $40.00 an hour plus O/T plus benefits...I think that's an okay wage for someone with a two year college education
do you have any cops that are friends/relatives...you are sounding very naive.
Lucky you.I sit at a desk and make that...and more. OK, not the same bennies.
However consider the risk to life and limb....and the fact that their families can lose their father/mother/breadwinner? That's not a recognized issue with alot of other jobs.
Worked in law enforcement as a park ranger for 13 years and worked closely with 3 police depts: Seattle, St. Louis, NYPD. Dated them, continue to hike and ride and compete with them (several friends).
I also trained with St. Louis PD on the gun range and carry a firearm and am very well versed in the laws and use of force continuum....in my own self interest, to protect myself if I ever need to use *any* weapon to save my life.
Lucky you.
Unless people are well educated and in very stressful positions generating good profit for their companies, I do not know office workers paid like that. I'd be hanging onto that job tightly if I were you.
Well then you are well aware, that it is not even in the top ten list of dangerous jobs. You are also well aware that when your life depends upon your partner, you want someone well trained, with an IQ well above 100. You are also well aware that not all cops are created equal. You are also well aware that working with some of the morons on staff is not a choice and not well liked by some who work hard and do their job well.
I think for over $40.00 an hour we deserve someone who is equal to the job.
Public safety is critical, I agree.
If you don't want to be shot by the police, don't do that, I agree.
Here's the addition to that though, if you are going to arm a group of people with big guns and ask them to protect the public, they had best be mentally and physically capable of that job with a higher than average IQ, fully trained, know how to negotiate and kill only as a last resort. And they have to be accountable for those deaths. And throw a camera on them so we know how each and every kill goes down. That protects the public and the cops.
I said I sit at a desk. DIdnt say I was in an office, and I know of many many jobs in offices that pay alot more than $40/hr.
What I'm aware of is cops do legitimately risk their lives. I'm sorry you feel the need to try and quantify those risks against their actual lives when there is no denying that they have job where they work daily with criminals and walk into dangerous situations. Seems like it's 'just not dangerous enough.' I'm sure their families disagree.
I wasnt aware that cops have IQs below 100. I dont even know what mine is....I've never needed it for a job application. Are you also assuming that they are poorly trained too? Stupid and untrained? THere are always a few poor workers in any job. Yeah...police are no different.
That's not how people are discussing this topic...they are demanding they all are forced to take more risks to their lives without any foundation to support it (as I already pointed out that the laws and police policies demand a lethal threat or gross bodily harm before the use of lethal force.)
to me you come across as pro cop regardless of how stupid the behavior...to me that equals anti-cop
you are blinded for some reason and thus lump them all together, and the ones who suffer due to your attitude are the cops that perform well, are well trained, and put their lives on the line
you think $40.00 an hour is a poor salary because you sit behind a desk and make more...that is naive in the extreme, how much do you want to pay these people? I mean that as a legit question, what are you proposing?
as for your twisting of my posts...try harder, someone at your earning level should have better analytical skills and understanding of what I posted and why
Then you have not read the overall comments I've made regarding this issue. I"m not real sure about your reading comprehension at all at the moment, since I never suggested that $40/hr was a poor salary. It was a statement about risk/reward. You are the one with higher expectations of behavior, training, IQ, and risk for that wage.
I also never lumped them all together, commenting that of course there were bad in with the good...explicitly.
Edit: and yes, analyzing information is indeed one of the aspects of my job.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?