4 ms·

I remember reading an article by a former military guy who was deployed in the middle east. Back home he had to deal with the police and basically said: "they

by dudul 11y ago

I remember reading an article by a former military guy who was deployed in the middle east. Back home he had to deal with the police and basically said: "they reminded me of myself when I was deployed and operating in enemy controlled areas". The guy goes on to explain on, according to him, the problem is that there is a narrative that cops should be allowed to do anything to protect their life, as opposed to protect the public. This is always the excuse when a cop kills a civilian by mistake - "he feared for his life". Guess what? You're a freaking cop! Not a plumber, or an accountant. Cops should not be allowed to kill someone on suspicion that maybe there is a possibility that they will start shooting at them.

krapp 11y ago
>Cops should not be allowed to kill someone on suspicion that maybe there is a possibility that they will start shooting at them. Civilians in the US often have this right, so why shouldn't the police?
- dudul 11y ago
  For one, civilians don't have the role of "protecting and serving" :) Cops are trained, and are supposed to learn how to handle a situation without pulling out their gun []. I don't necessarily disagree with you though. It would be good for people to be able to walk at night with a bag of candies without getting gunned down. I don't think that 2 problems should cancel each other. [] And I know I'm wrong when I say that. I remember another paper showing how American cops spend a disproportionate amount of time practicing with their gun as opposed to cops in other countries where they mostly learn how to handle situations without their arms.
  - krapp 11y ago
    Police should certainly be held to a higher standard - and when they shoot someone, they should be treated the same as anyone else, if not put under greater scrutiny, because of the greater responsibility their position entails. But the fact remains that, for better or worse, every American by default has the right to shoot people with guns under certain circumstances. I am not a lawyer but I don't see a legal justification for limiting the ability of the police to defend themselves, without treating police officers like felons.
    - dudul 11y ago
      I don't necessarily disagree, but the problem is you could say the opposite. If you claim that police officers should have the same rights as a civilian, couldn't you argue that civilians should have the same rights as police officers? I believe that the role of "police officer" comes with the idea that before defending yourself you should be prepared to defend other first.
      - krapp 11y ago
        As far as I know, civilians and police officers in the US do have the same rights, as far as firearms are concerned.
unit91 11y ago
Taking this rationale to its logical conclusion, a police officer would be required to wait for violence to actually occur before responding. Imagine the scenario in which a civilian points a gun at a police officer's head. What course of action would you recommend? Wait for the civilian to fire? If the officer were to fire, would you say "I feared for my life" is reasonable? Second, you've got a straw man argument here. Police can't shoot (de jure) when there's a suspicion that maybe there's a possibility. In Texas (I imagine others are similar), deadly force is authorized [1]: (A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. and, (1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm; (2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct. There's a clear line here, and "reasonable" is decided by a jury of one's peers, not the responding officer. Reference: 1. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.h...

by dudul 11y ago

krapp 11y ago

>Cops should not be allowed to kill someone on suspicion that maybe there is a possibility that they will start shooting at them. Civilians in the US often have this right, so why shouldn't the police?

dudul 11y ago
For one, civilians don't have the role of "protecting and serving" :) Cops are trained, and are supposed to learn how to handle a situation without pulling out their gun []. I don't necessarily disagree with you though. It would be good for people to be able to walk at night with a bag of candies without getting gunned down. I don't think that 2 problems should cancel each other. [] And I know I'm wrong when I say that. I remember another paper showing how American cops spend a disproportionate amount of time practicing with their gun as opposed to cops in other countries where they mostly learn how to handle situations without their arms.
- krapp 11y ago
  Police should certainly be held to a higher standard - and when they shoot someone, they should be treated the same as anyone else, if not put under greater scrutiny, because of the greater responsibility their position entails. But the fact remains that, for better or worse, every American by default has the right to shoot people with guns under certain circumstances. I am not a lawyer but I don't see a legal justification for limiting the ability of the police to defend themselves, without treating police officers like felons.
  - dudul 11y ago
    I don't necessarily disagree, but the problem is you could say the opposite. If you claim that police officers should have the same rights as a civilian, couldn't you argue that civilians should have the same rights as police officers? I believe that the role of "police officer" comes with the idea that before defending yourself you should be prepared to defend other first.
    - krapp 11y ago
      As far as I know, civilians and police officers in the US do have the same rights, as far as firearms are concerned.

unit91 11y ago

Taking this rationale to its logical conclusion, a police officer would be required to wait for violence to actually occur before responding. Imagine the scenario in which a civilian points a gun at a police officer's head. What course of action would you recommend? Wait for the civilian to fire? If the officer were to fire, would you say "I feared for my life" is reasonable? Second, you've got a straw man argument here. Police can't shoot (de jure) when there's a suspicion that maybe there's a possibility. In Texas (I imagine others are similar), deadly force is authorized [1]: (A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. and, (1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm; (2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct. There's a clear line here, and "reasonable" is decided by a jury of one's peers, not the responding officer. Reference: 1. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.h...