What Would You Ban from Cops?

[WSUwarrior]

The goal should be removing deadly force as a first option, hell as a second option as well. Deadly force, if allowed at all, should be a LAST option.

Deadly force is whatever option the situation dictates. Do you really expect a cop to attempt soft dialogue with someone who pulls a weapon on him?

 

[Ikari]

Deadly force is whatever option the situation dictates. Do you really expect a cop to attempt soft dialogue with someone who pulls a weapon on him?

Not all the time. But I want there to be a reliable, first option non-lethal tool to use to take down offenders if necessary.

 

[Caine]

They should be given:

X-Ray Vision Goggles.

So they can be damned sure that the person they are being confronted by isn't carrying a concealed deadly weapon when that person acts in a manner that suggests they have one and they get their stupid asses shot for it.

Because the hindsight analysis used by the public to crucify officers is getting pathetic.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Deadly force is whatever option the situation dictates. Do you really expect a cop to attempt soft dialogue with someone who pulls a weapon on him?

How do you think police forces that don't routinely arm their officers cope? Yeah we have some armed response units here but the guy on the ground doesn't usually have to face down a criminal with a gun - they call in local armed response units. That doesn't mean it always goes well - but more situations are defused by unarmed officers here than you would expect.

My response to the OP is not a ban - but how about using some of the money spent on all that weaponry to send US officers to train and work a year or two in the UK with unarmed officers?

 

[blackjack50]

How do you think police forces that don't routinely arm their officers cope? Yeah we have some armed response units here but the guy on the ground doesn't usually have to face down a criminal with a gun - they call in local armed response units. That doesn't mean it always goes well - but more situations are defused by unarmed officers here than you would expect.

My response to the OP is not a ban - but how about using some of the money spent on all that weaponry to send US officers to train and work a year or two in the UK with unarmed officers?

The UK has a huge advantage in that they don't have to deal with a pesky 4th amendment (arrest on suspicion instead of probable cause). I would also argue that it is easier for the UK to field unarmed officers because of distance. There are times where an officers jurisdiction of zone puts them alone. There is no "calling for backup."And some of their problems will be on 4 legs and not 2.

I don't think the U.S. Should follow the UK. I think the smaller areas should follow the Alaskan state troopers as a model. Each officer has to be completely self reliant. That is the only realistic way they can do their job. And that is a reality for many small town departments in the U.S., which outnumbers the big metro departments significantly.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- I don't think the U.S. Should follow the UK --

Oh I wasn't suggesting the US police should copy what happens in the UK, more that learning to police without having firearms immediately available may change some of the behaviours. We have police brutality stories here in the UK but it largely stops very short of the kind of incidents that make their way into the news where citizens can die because of a traffic violation or because of a routine stop and search.

The case of Ian Tomlinson was rare whereas I read very often of such stories in the US.

 

[blackjack50]

Oh I wasn't suggesting the US police should copy what happens in the UK, more that learning to police without having firearms immediately available may change some of the behaviours. We have police brutality stories here in the UK but it largely stops very short of the kind of incidents that make their way into the news where citizens can die because of a traffic violation or because of a routine stop and search.

The case of Ian Tomlinson was rare whereas I read very often of such stories in the US.

Well my issue that I was saying is that if you take away immediate access...you just prevented most officers from being able to do their job. They don't have b

 

[WSUwarrior]

Not all the time. But I want there to be a reliable, first option non-lethal tool to use to take down offenders if necessary.

No such device exists in reality. Sometimes shooting the poor bastard is the first choice and the only choice....and guess what, the criminal CHOOSE the death penalty in these instances. I dont see why people have such a problem with free will.

 

[WSUwarrior]

How do you think police forces that don't routinely arm their officers cope? Yeah we have some armed response units here but the guy on the ground doesn't usually have to face down a criminal with a gun - they call in local armed response units. That doesn't mean it always goes well - but more situations are defused by unarmed officers here than you would expect.

My response to the OP is not a ban - but how about using some of the money spent on all that weaponry to send US officers to train and work a year or two in the UK with unarmed officers?

You are clearly speaking from a position of ignorance due to media brainwashing.

 

[Caine]

You are clearly speaking from a position of ignorance due to media brainwashing.

The threats in the UK are significantly different than those faced by officers in the United States.

I just realized I quoted the wrong person, oh well.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

You are clearly speaking from a position of ignorance due to media brainwashing.

The onus would be to explain your position with examples rather than just engage in a drive by ad hominem.

To demonstrate, we have had nine fatalities from UK police shooting of a criminal/ citizen in the last 8 years . Now, tell me how media brainwashing shows that is a false position when you relate it to the number of police shootings in the US for the same time period?

That's not to say firearms officers are not authorised - the decision to allow firearms officers to open fire happens quite often but they don't open fire that often.

 

[WSUwarrior]

The onus would be to explain your position with examples rather than just engage in a drive by ad hominem.

To demonstrate, we have had nine fatalities from UK police shooting of a criminal/ citizen in the last 8 years . Now, tell me how media brainwashing shows that is a false position when you relate it to the number of police shootings in the US for the same time period?

That's not to say firearms officers are not authorised - the decision to allow firearms officers to open fire happens quite often but they don't open fire that often.

Im saying that you are speaking from a position of ignorance because all you know about American policing is the cherry picked examples of police shootings, 99% of which have been found to have been justified (but everyone forgets that).

 

[Caine]

The onus would be to explain your position with examples rather than just engage in a drive by ad hominem.

To demonstrate, we have had nine fatalities from UK police shooting of a criminal/ citizen in the last 8 years . Now, tell me how media brainwashing shows that is a false position when you relate it to the number of police shootings in the US for the same time period?

That's not to say firearms officers are not authorised - the decision to allow firearms officers to open fire happens quite often but they don't open fire that often.

How many neighbors do you know that own handguns there in the UK?

Do you see where I am going with this?

The prevalence of firearms in the United States increases the chance that US Police will have to "fight fire with fire". The amount of police getting shot unexpectedly via concealed weapons over the decades and led to a higher feeling of "unknown threats" to police in the US..... which is to account for the reason why police don't assume someone is unarmed just because they don't see it. It doesn't mean police should just shoot someone as soon as they see them..... but it does mean that particular suspicious activity might be met with increased force from police, especially when a subject reaches to known hiding spots for weapons on their person, or fails to comply with commands to keep visible their hands (the things that people need to use in order to do harm with a projectile weapon).

 

[Infinite Chaos]

How many neighbors do you know that own handguns there in the UK?

Do you see where I am going with this?

Yes but if you compare police shooting rates with other countries with high gun ownership then this argument falls away. By the way, my partner's father has 15 handguns and rifles. He makes up for the rest of us here in my town. (Joke)

The prevalence of firearms in the United States increases the chance that US Police will have to "fight fire with fire". The amount of police getting shot unexpectedly via concealed weapons over the decades and led to a higher feeling of "unknown threats" to police in the US..... which is to account for the reason why police don't assume someone is unarmed just because they don't see it. It doesn't mean police should just shoot someone as soon as they see them..... but it does mean that particular suspicious activity might be met with increased force from police, especially when a subject reaches to known hiding spots for weapons on their person, or fails to comply with commands to keep visible their hands (the things that people need to use in order to do harm with a projectile weapon).

I'll go back to my example in my last post - 10,000+ situations where UK armed police were authorised to shoot but they only opened fire less than a 50 times in a 5 year period. My point is about police trained to defuse a situation rather than react to it. The way a policeman approaches a potential danger point has huge repercussions on what happens afterwards.

Im saying that you are speaking from a position of ignorance because all you know about American policing is the cherry picked examples of police shootings, 99% of which have been found to have been justified (but everyone forgets that).

I'm speaking from comparative statistics by country...

 

[WSUwarrior]

I'm speaking from comparative statistics by country...

Its intellectually dishonest to compare the US to any other country, or any other country to the US. There are so many factors that make us incomparable its not even funny.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Its intellectually dishonest to compare the US to any other country, or any other country to the US. There are so many factors that make us incomparable its not even funny.

I'll remember that quote when someone compares the US to other nations.

 

[WSUwarrior]

I'll remember that quote when someone compares the US to other nations.

Well its about ****ing time.

 

[Caine]

I'll go back to my example in my last post - 10,000+ situations where UK armed police were authorised to shoot but they only opened fire less than a 50 times in a 5 year period. My point is about police trained to defuse a situation rather than react to it. The way a policeman approaches a potential danger point has huge repercussions on what happens afterwards.

Okay.... Now can you show me the statistics of the number of situations in which US Police were authorized to shoot compared to how many times they did?

You can't... because that type of data isn't kept in the USA. Your example means nothing if you don't have a comparative from the US to put next to it.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Okay.... Now can you show me the statistics of the number of situations in which US Police were authorized to shoot compared to how many times they did?

You can't... because that type of data isn't kept in the USA. Your example means nothing if you don't have a comparative from the US to put next to it.

True but there is other data which shows that you should be concerned: data on police homicides by Western Country (ignoring pitholes like South Africa, Colombia etc) there is also data which shows gun ownership per capita vs gun deaths which shows that the rate is still higher than comparable countries (ignoring my reluctant-to-debate-properly / we can't-be-compared-to-anyone-else colleague) which shows that something is wrong.

Heck, even Americans recognise there is a problem - I'm not even being nationalist or saying we are better - just pointing to relevant facts.

 

[blackjack50]

Something to ADD to police is fire or ems training. Rural departments need that bad.

 

[Caine]

True but there is other data which shows that you should be concerned: data on police homicides by Western Country (ignoring pitholes like South Africa, Colombia etc) there is also data which shows gun ownership per capita vs gun deaths which shows that the rate is still higher than comparable countries (ignoring my reluctant-to-debate-properly / we can't-be-compared-to-anyone-else colleague) which shows that something is wrong.

Heck, even Americans recognise there is a problem - I'm not even being nationalist or saying we are better - just pointing to relevant facts.

Yes, something is wrong.
Why are you assuming it is with police rather than with a violent subculture in America????


And as for the news saying that Americans recognize a problem....... Americans recognize what the news tells them to.

 

[radcen]

Yes, something is wrong.
Why are you assuming it is with police rather than with a violent subculture in America????

And as for the news saying that Americans recognize a problem....... Americans recognize what the news tells them to.

Maybe the police suffer from the same violent subculture. You know, being Americans, and all.

 

[Caine]

Maybe the police suffer from the same violent subculture. You know, being Americans, and all.

More Than 40 People Shot In Chicago Over Memorial Day Weekend, Including A 4-Year-Old Girl | ThinkProgress

As killings continue, May becomes city's deadliest month since 1999 - Baltimore Sun

Yes..... its totally the police, not the citizenry, that are the problem.

:roll:

 

[radcen]

More Than 40 People Shot In Chicago Over Memorial Day Weekend, Including A 4-Year-Old Girl | ThinkProgress

As killings continue, May becomes city's deadliest month since 1999 - Baltimore Sun

Yes..... its totally the police, not the citizenry, that are the problem.

:roll:

Why are you so thin-skinned to the point of becoming obtuse? Where did I say... or even imply... that it was "...totally the police, not the citizenry..."?

Do I really need to spell it out for you? Did you really not get that my point was that police are American citizens as well, hence they may be *included* in the problem? There was not even an inference that police may solely be the problem.

:roll:, indeed.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Yes, something is wrong.
Why are you assuming it is with police rather than with a violent subculture in America????

Could you elaborate on this violent subculture for me then? The only story I found was of from FBI statistics showing that there is a violent subculture in the South.

FBI — Latest Crime Stats Released

More Than 40 People Shot In Chicago Over Memorial Day Weekend, Including A 4-Year-Old Girl | ThinkProgress

As killings continue, May becomes city's deadliest month since 1999 - Baltimore Sun

Yes..... its totally the police, not the citizenry, that are the problem.

:roll:

Americans recognize what the news tells them to.

Why is it OK for you to post news stories about violence in America and when I do, "Americans recognize what the news tells them to?"