- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 119,717
- Reaction score
- 75,667
- Location
- Outside Seattle
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
then what exactly is your point...you took my post, twisted it and then argued a point I had not made
of course I have high expectations of the police force as should we all...they carry weapons, have power and the authority to blow you away.... and in MY particular geographic area, they are well rewarded
yes, these are the first clear points that you have made, and I agree with this part of your postUm, you claimed you thought cops were paid just fine (impled: for the risks they take) and also implied that I was ignorant of police by questioning by background.
I don't like my words twisted, it's that simpleI have done nothing but answer your questions since. And you have gotten increasingly defensive for no reason
yes, these are the first clear points that you have made, and I agree with this part of your post
I don't like my words twisted, it's that simple
Lursa, I'm interested in what you feel might constitute a borderline case for lethal response by police. Clearly this particular situation is a slam dunk in your opionion. Can you give an example of something which isn't cut and dried or is solidly cut-and-dried the other way? Hypothetical, or real (e.g., Amadou Diallo) if you prefer.
.
Okay, my mistake.I never said this was a slam dunk.
Given I said this, it's a little odd to reply with the link I must be familiar with. TLDR?... a sufficiently motivated person could breach the 21ft distance and kill an officer with their bare hands before it would be possible to react with their weapon.
Given I said this, it's a little odd to reply with the link I must be familiar with. TLDR?
That you dont see the relevance speaks to a lack of knowledge of violence and police encounters.
Lursa, I'm interested in what you feel might constitute a borderline case for lethal response by police.
Thanks for a very specific reply. Is it safe to say, then, that if the suspect took one step towards the officer you feel lethal force would be justified? Is it necessary that the suspect actually have a knife, or is it sufficient that the officer believes it?Hostile suspect with a knife 35 feet from a single police officer. The actions of the suspect determine the actions of the cop.
Thanks for a very specific reply. Is it safe to say, then, that if the suspect took one step towards the officer you feel lethal force would be justified? Is it necessary that the suspect actually have a knife, or is it sufficient that the officer believes it?
I think we should leave that up to the officer and not policy. If the officer wants to take the risk of being stabbed to save the life of the person with the knife, that should be his choice. We should not force anyone to take unnecessary risks. It only takes one well placed stab, accidental, lucky or not, to kill someone quickly.Would a stun gun have subdued the man with a knife?
Stun Gun, Flashlight Stun Gun, Rechargeable Stun Gun, Mini Stun Gun, Pink Stun Gun & More, Boise ID
PETALUMA, Calif. (AP) - Authorities say a naked man who was running on a Northern California freeway resisted an officer's attempt to arrest him and had to be subdued with a stun gun.
The California Highway Patrol said 25-year-old Alexander Leonard of Hawthorne, California was taken into custody Sunday morning on suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs and resisting arrest.
Sgt. Ross Ingels told the San Francisco Chronicle (Naked suspect blocking Hwy 101 in Petaluma gets Tasered, arrested - SFGate ) that Leonard was driving erratically in northbound lanes of Highway 101 in Petaluma before crashing into a guardrail. He said Leonard then got out of a rented pickup truck, took off his clothes and ran on the freeway.
Ingels said when Leonard refused an officer's demand to stop, the officer used a stun gun on him.
CHP use stun gun to subdue naked man running on freeway
The problem may be the police training. Police are not taught to use non-lethal means of subduing upset or belligerent individuals.
//
If I'm to take your question literally, it is certainly possible that others in the vicinity might be in a better position to see the full context, and/or might not be affected by elevated stress since they aren't under threat, are directing their attention solely to observation and not real-time tactics, etc. Just as an umpire is in better standing than the batter to deliver not only an objective but highly accurate account of whether a pitch was a strike or ball. A third party may theoretically be much better suited to assess threats than ones involved in engagement. Reconaissance is provided to support troop actions for obvious reasons. No, the fighter is not always the best eyes. Even cops have spotters and recon for this very reason. And incidental witnesses may be able to provide a more accurate and detailed account than the officer(s) involved up to and including a more credible threat assessment.Do you think that anyone not immediately involved would be able to evaluate the threat *per foot*?
If the person being threatened is a cop, or if the cop is acting on behalf of others who are perceived as being threatened, then it is the cop's call.If no, who do you think would be the best people to effectively evaluate that threat.
I think it's disingenuous to stack something like the Tueller Drill against any real world situation without proper contextual qualification. The drill establishes a bounding case for expectation of survivability. Any given case may deviate greatly and the typical case is unlike it altogether. It presumes the officer(s) must unholster as opposed to being already drawn and trained on the target. It doesn't account for instances where the officer has deliberately engaged the subject at distances under the bounding threshold, nor cases where the officer advances rapidly as opposed to the subject.
A real world threat need not be anything like this drill, so this survivability measure is an inadequate basis in itself on which to judge merits of use of force. Merely stating the final position of the subject relative to the threatened party, for example, ignores all dynamics leading up to that point. I don't like the idea of a "line of death" within which an officer's discretion is supreme, it's too simplistic.
In this situation, I see the closest officer does back up while shooting and does not advance on the subject past the initial contact. All aggression leading up to the shooting is displayed by the subject who had ample opportunity to comply. Shooting commenced at relatively close range. I originally characterized this as borderline where I don't now after closer examination. An unfortunate outcome, yes, but spurred by the subject.
Do you think that anyone not immediately involved would be able to evaluate the threat *per foot*?
If no, who do you think would be the best people to effectively evaluate that threat.
If yes, since you have no immediate insight into the threat, how do you justify determining a course of action for a person who's life is at risk?
I think it's disingenuous to stack something like the Tueller Drill against any real world situation without proper contextual qualification. The drill establishes a bounding case for expectation of survivability. Any given case may deviate greatly and the typical case is unlike it altogether. It presumes the officer(s) must unholster as opposed to being already drawn and trained on the target. It doesn't account for instances where the officer has deliberately engaged the subject at distances under the bounding threshold, nor cases where the officer advances rapidly as opposed to the subject.
A real world threat need not be anything like this drill, so this survivability measure is an inadequate basis in itself on which to judge merits of use of force. Merely stating the final position of the subject relative to the threatened party, for example, ignores all dynamics leading up to that point. I don't like the idea of a "line of death" within which an officer's discretion is supreme, it's too simplistic.
In this situation, I see the closest officer does back up while shooting and does not advance on the subject past the initial contact. All aggression leading up to the shooting is displayed by the subject who had ample opportunity to comply. Shooting commenced at relatively close range. I originally characterized this as borderline where I don't now after closer examination. An unfortunate outcome, yes, but spurred by the subject.
What is the training officers have for using non-lethal force, when working with a partner, out of a squad car? What further training might be helpful, so that Tasers were used more frequently, before an aggravated suspect is shot and killed?
Would police prefer to carry a 17 Foot Taser, or a 35 Foot Taser? Would police prefer the option of having a shot-gun type taser cartridge, in the cruiser for 100 foot range?
//
If I'm to take your question literally, it is certainly possible that others in the vicinity might be in a better position to see the full context, and/or might not be affected by elevated stress since they aren't under threat, are directing their attention solely to observation and not real-time tactics, etc. Just as an umpire is in better standing than the batter to deliver not only an objective but highly accurate account of whether a pitch was a strike or ball. A third party may theoretically be much better suited to assess threats than ones involved in engagement. Reconaissance is provided to support troop actions for obvious reasons. No, the fighter is not always the best eyes. Even cops have spotters and recon for this very reason. And incidental witnesses may be able to provide a more accurate and detailed account than the officer(s) involved up to and including a more credible threat assessment.
In light of my reinterpretation of your first question, I'll answer the appropriate follow-on question:
If the person being threatened is a cop, or if the cop is acting on behalf of others who are perceived as being threatened, then it is the cop's call.
I realize it's beyond yiou.And I'm not even interested in reading the rest of the wall of text you wrote.
Bull****.They cant kill just to kill...
I realize it's beyond yiou.
But NO ONE else can make the split second decisions needed to save their own life except the cop.
The rules, the laws are there. No one else has the right to tell the cop how he should judge those split seconds, but he still has the burden of proof on him to demonstrate that threat.
Not everything can 'literally be a lethal threat.' There is distance, timing, ability to take cover, retreat, multiple reinforcements, etc.
Did you even read the link for the Tueller Drill that I posted? Where multiple tests show that an attacker can reach and kill within 21 feet in 1.5 seconds? That is faster than someone can draw, aim, and shoot. Not to mention that it is uncommon for a single shot to stop an attacker instantly.
This information is so verified and accepted that it is admissable in court.
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.
We are not talking about excess. Using lethal force to protect yourself from lethal threats is not excessive force.
Firefighters don't enter derelict structures and don't go after interior attacks when the fire has reached certain levels. Lifeguards don't have to enter the water when conditions risk their lives as well.
Why do you expect something different from police?
To be fair. Police should try all means. But sometimes the circumstance just doesn't work that way.
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?