5 ms·

> Police training demands they shoot to kill. Something that is incredibly fucking stupid, and there are plenty of countries who do very well without this misg

by yoo1I 11y ago

> Police training demands they shoot to kill. Something that is incredibly fucking stupid, and there are plenty of countries who do very well without this misguided use of of lethal weapons.

tptacek 11y ago
If you are saying that it's incredibly stupid to routinely put police into situations where they have less than 5 seconds to decide whether or not they are required to kill someone to protect themselves or their partners, I agree. I think we should disarm most police.
- yoo1I 11y ago
  Well, obviously the less police and the general public are put in this position the better, and when there is a gunman running around the neighborhood, there better be police to subdue, and yes, if it's required to save other lives, kill him. The point here, though is not to deny police their right to self defense, the point is to train them in a way that their first action to exercise that right is not with as much force as possible, but with as much force as is necessary. Clearly emptying multiple magazines into someone speaks of fear, rather than necessity, and I do not wish to be policed and protected by the fearful. But to your larger point, I agree: building a society in which there is little to none violence is a desirable goal.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    That's actually not my point. My preferred solution to this problem isn't utopian. We could do it tomorrow: Step 1: Ensure every police patrol vehicle has a shotgun locked in the trunk. Step 2: Take away handguns from all patrol officers.
    - yoo1I 11y ago
      I think that's an entirely reasonable policy.
    - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
      Let me expand on that: when discovering a violent, armed offender, 1 Policeman dies. Then their partner fetches the locked-up shotgun. Hopefully before they die too. Gonna need a lot more Policemen. Because, attrition.
    - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
      That's an excellent idea, especially considering that in my very limited time in California, their cops were the most heavily-armed human beings I'd ever seen in-person. And these were policemen and sheriffs in Redwood City. And I've seen on-duty soldiers. California cops honestly had me wondering why anyone would ever really need to walk around looking like they'd stepped out of a Hollywood shoot-em-up movie, with two handguns, a rifle, and another larger weapon strapped to their back. Maybe they were there for a cartel bust or some shit I didn't know about, but that simply was not appropriate for ordinary beat policing. Luckily, I was white enough that they didn't give me crap for staring at them.
  - debacle 11y ago
    Most police are not the kind of police you see on COPS. If COPS imitated real life, most of the episode would be spent filling out paperwork or giving citations.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
>Something that is incredibly fucking stupid Any evidence of this point? >and there are plenty of countries who do very well without this misguided use of of lethal weapons. Many countries choose to not use guns. There is a vast difference between not using guns and trying to shoot to wound. If you want to protest against the police using guns, speak directly to that.
- yoo1I 11y ago
  You ask of evidence in a thread about a man being killed by police emptying multiple magazines into and the area around him. That doesn't even sound like shoot-to-kill that sounds like they were afraid to death. There's plenty of more stories of where that one came from. Were you unaware of that? It ultimately comes down to the relationship that you want the populace to have with their police force. A policy of shoot-to-kill tells the populace, that ultimately the lives of police are more valuable than that of any other citizen, and you better be terrified to be caught in any situation with the police where stress-levels are elevated. A policy of shoot-to-disable, where killing an offender is a possibility, but it's a policy of using this lethal force as as a last resort, sends a message that the police actually care about the people they are trying to protect. I'm not protesting police using guns, clearly there are situations where it's necessary to match and up the force of a threat. And clearly there are situations where police are justified in killing a human being. I take issue to the police being justified in using lethal force as a first resort. Surely we can train them better than "just try to hit the general area of where the suspect is, it's fine if you hit them in the head".
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    >You ask of evidence in a thread about a man being killed by police emptying multiple magazines into and the area around him. This is a question of accuracy and situation awareness, not of intention when shooting. >That doesn't even sound like shoot-to-kill that sounds like they were afraid to death. My question was directly related to the comment made about shooting to kill, not about when to shoot. >There's plenty of more stories of where that one came from. Were you unaware of that? Stories about shooting when you shouldn't, not about shooting to kill. >A policy of shoot-to-kill tells the populace No, the policy of shooting too soon, without assessing the situation, is the cause of the problem. There is a distinction between when to shoot and how one shoots once they have made the decision. My question was focused on a comment made about the latter. >I take issue to the police being justified in using lethal force as a first resort. And I agree they are too quick to shoot. But my question was directed to a comment made about how they shoot once they shoot, now about when they shoot. Where is the evidence (or argument) that shooting to kill is, and I paraphrase, something that is incredibly stupid? Arguments supporting knowing when to shoot, knowing what is around the target you are shooting, knowing how to shoot such that you hit the target do not answer this question.

by yoo1I 11y ago

> Police training demands they shoot to kill. Something that is incredibly fucking stupid, and there are plenty of countries who do very well without this misguided use of of lethal weapons.

tptacek 11y ago

If you are saying that it's incredibly stupid to routinely put police into situations where they have less than 5 seconds to decide whether or not they are required to kill someone to protect themselves or their partners, I agree. I think we should disarm most police.

yoo1I 11y ago
Well, obviously the less police and the general public are put in this position the better, and when there is a gunman running around the neighborhood, there better be police to subdue, and yes, if it's required to save other lives, kill him. The point here, though is not to deny police their right to self defense, the point is to train them in a way that their first action to exercise that right is not with as much force as possible, but with as much force as is necessary. Clearly emptying multiple magazines into someone speaks of fear, rather than necessity, and I do not wish to be policed and protected by the fearful. But to your larger point, I agree: building a society in which there is little to none violence is a desirable goal.
- tptacek 11y ago
  That's actually not my point. My preferred solution to this problem isn't utopian. We could do it tomorrow: Step 1: Ensure every police patrol vehicle has a shotgun locked in the trunk. Step 2: Take away handguns from all patrol officers.
  - yoo1I 11y ago
    I think that's an entirely reasonable policy.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Let me expand on that: when discovering a violent, armed offender, 1 Policeman dies. Then their partner fetches the locked-up shotgun. Hopefully before they die too. Gonna need a lot more Policemen. Because, attrition.
  - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
    That's an excellent idea, especially considering that in my very limited time in California, their cops were the most heavily-armed human beings I'd ever seen in-person. And these were policemen and sheriffs in Redwood City. And I've seen on-duty soldiers. California cops honestly had me wondering why anyone would ever really need to walk around looking like they'd stepped out of a Hollywood shoot-em-up movie, with two handguns, a rifle, and another larger weapon strapped to their back. Maybe they were there for a cartel bust or some shit I didn't know about, but that simply was not appropriate for ordinary beat policing. Luckily, I was white enough that they didn't give me crap for staring at them.
- debacle 11y ago
  Most police are not the kind of police you see on COPS. If COPS imitated real life, most of the episode would be spent filling out paperwork or giving citations.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

>Something that is incredibly fucking stupid Any evidence of this point? >and there are plenty of countries who do very well without this misguided use of of lethal weapons. Many countries choose to not use guns. There is a vast difference between not using guns and trying to shoot to wound. If you want to protest against the police using guns, speak directly to that.

yoo1I 11y ago
You ask of evidence in a thread about a man being killed by police emptying multiple magazines into and the area around him. That doesn't even sound like shoot-to-kill that sounds like they were afraid to death. There's plenty of more stories of where that one came from. Were you unaware of that? It ultimately comes down to the relationship that you want the populace to have with their police force. A policy of shoot-to-kill tells the populace, that ultimately the lives of police are more valuable than that of any other citizen, and you better be terrified to be caught in any situation with the police where stress-levels are elevated. A policy of shoot-to-disable, where killing an offender is a possibility, but it's a policy of using this lethal force as as a last resort, sends a message that the police actually care about the people they are trying to protect. I'm not protesting police using guns, clearly there are situations where it's necessary to match and up the force of a threat. And clearly there are situations where police are justified in killing a human being. I take issue to the police being justified in using lethal force as a first resort. Surely we can train them better than "just try to hit the general area of where the suspect is, it's fine if you hit them in the head".
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  >You ask of evidence in a thread about a man being killed by police emptying multiple magazines into and the area around him. This is a question of accuracy and situation awareness, not of intention when shooting. >That doesn't even sound like shoot-to-kill that sounds like they were afraid to death. My question was directly related to the comment made about shooting to kill, not about when to shoot. >There's plenty of more stories of where that one came from. Were you unaware of that? Stories about shooting when you shouldn't, not about shooting to kill. >A policy of shoot-to-kill tells the populace No, the policy of shooting too soon, without assessing the situation, is the cause of the problem. There is a distinction between when to shoot and how one shoots once they have made the decision. My question was focused on a comment made about the latter. >I take issue to the police being justified in using lethal force as a first resort. And I agree they are too quick to shoot. But my question was directed to a comment made about how they shoot once they shoot, now about when they shoot. Where is the evidence (or argument) that shooting to kill is, and I paraphrase, something that is incredibly stupid? Arguments supporting knowing when to shoot, knowing what is around the target you are shooting, knowing how to shoot such that you hit the target do not answer this question.