6 ms·

> When approaching Philando Castile's car to inquire about the broken tail light, the officer was by default no more than 20-30 seconds away from being able to

by knz 10y ago

> When approaching Philando Castile's car to inquire about the broken tail light, the officer was by default no more than 20-30 seconds away from being able to fire a bullet into Castile. Smarter public policy can increase that delay from 20 seconds to something far greater. For instance: general-purpose patrolling assault officers can be (are, in fact, today) issued rifles and shotguns stored in their trunk. Those officers can remain armed; just, not with handguns, and not wielded by default. The problem with this is that in some occasions the police are required to respond much more quickly. There are numerous videos on youtube/reddit/liveleak of routine traffic stops that go from normal to the driver shooting in seconds. I have no issue with the police being armed, that is just the world "we" live in. I do however have an issue with why a routine traffic stop involved even having a firearm unholstered.

modoc 10y ago
If I'm not mistaken "routine" traffic stops are the single most (maybe fell to #2 this year?) dangerous thing for a LEO to do (i.e. the highest number of officer fatalities occur during a traffic stop). So asking officers to go do the most dangerous part of their job without a weapon is unreasonable (IMHO).
- knz 10y ago
  I don't disagree. I'm not sure that the firearm should be out of it's holster by default though? Even if the shooting in MN was just a tragic accident, there needs to be some reform that addresses why people are pulled over and why the officer had the firearm up and ready to shoot. I've been pulled over by the police in MN for similar reasons and they didn't even have a hand on their holstered firearm.
- learc83 10y ago
  I don't know how disarming traffic cops would alter this statistic, but there were 42 officers shot and killed in the line of duty in 2015 and over 13 million traffic stops. That puts the risk of death in a traffic stop at 0.0003%.
  - FireBeyond 10y ago
    _At the most_. How many of those 42 officer deaths occurred _during_ traffic stops?
    - dragonwriter 10y ago
      7
- tptacek 10y ago
  The odds that a police officer will be attacked in a traffic stop are spectacularly low. Further, it's important to remember that traffic stops are the primary way that police officers confront strangers in their day to day work. Assaults at traffic stops are probably a reasonable proxy for all police encounters. From that perspective, the dangers of these stops seems mythologized. Equally important: armed confrontations at parking stops occur in large part because subjects are cornered. Reactions to the situation on both sides are fueled by cortisol and adrenaline. An armed subject confronted by unarmed traffic enforcement officers (specially marked, and with different uniforms) isn't cornered, and can in fact just drive away --- or, for that matter, brandish a firearm. My public policy suggestion is not that we do away with assault officers altogether! There are currently 13,000 assault officers in the Chicago Police Department. A force constituted of 20% assault officers would still have ~2,500 assault officers available to handle escalations.
learc83 10y ago
You have to do a cost benefit analysis. Yes, sometimes police are shot at when they perform a traffic stop. But it's very rare. I can't find statistics on the number of times police were shot at during a traffic stop, but only 42 officers where shot and killed in the line of duty last year, and there were 13 million traffic stops.
tptacek 10y ago
Why doesn't that happen when suspects confront parking enforcement? Because it's pointless: parking enforcers aren't armed. If stopped by clearly marked traffic compliance officers who aren't armed, how likely is it that a suspect will fire a weapon at them? Even when faced with self-preservation concern, suspects are already extremely unlikely to fire on police.
- knz 10y ago
  Two infants were just shot in a mini van not far from where the shooting in Minnesota occurred. There were also multiple shootings overnight in Minneapolis that resulted in at least one fatality. The Police aren't armed just for traffic enforcement.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I don't know who you're arguing with, but it's not me. I'm not advocating for total disarmament.
prmph 10y ago
It seems to me there are all kinds of ways to make these encounters much safer. Maybe I am missing something, but why can't the police, at a distance, ask the driver to come out of the car with his hands in the air? To me the crux of the matters with these confrontations, which few seem to recognize, is that it is all about power and the perception of power relations between the police supposed "criminals" elements, such that these quake in fear whenever they interact with police. The police imagine "criminals (especially of the minority type) taunting them and mocking them, and cannot stand the thought; the larger society must see police to be more powerful than criminals. So their idea of effective law enforcement is of an overwhelming force that subdues all opposition, ostensibly for the larger good of society. Whether this perspective is good or bad is up for debate, but I it explains a lot of what has been happening.

by knz 10y ago

modoc 10y ago

If I'm not mistaken "routine" traffic stops are the single most (maybe fell to #2 this year?) dangerous thing for a LEO to do (i.e. the highest number of officer fatalities occur during a traffic stop). So asking officers to go do the most dangerous part of their job without a weapon is unreasonable (IMHO).

knz 10y ago
I don't disagree. I'm not sure that the firearm should be out of it's holster by default though? Even if the shooting in MN was just a tragic accident, there needs to be some reform that addresses why people are pulled over and why the officer had the firearm up and ready to shoot. I've been pulled over by the police in MN for similar reasons and they didn't even have a hand on their holstered firearm.
learc83 10y ago
I don't know how disarming traffic cops would alter this statistic, but there were 42 officers shot and killed in the line of duty in 2015 and over 13 million traffic stops. That puts the risk of death in a traffic stop at 0.0003%.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  _At the most_. How many of those 42 officer deaths occurred _during_ traffic stops?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    7
tptacek 10y ago
The odds that a police officer will be attacked in a traffic stop are spectacularly low. Further, it's important to remember that traffic stops are the primary way that police officers confront strangers in their day to day work. Assaults at traffic stops are probably a reasonable proxy for all police encounters. From that perspective, the dangers of these stops seems mythologized. Equally important: armed confrontations at parking stops occur in large part because subjects are cornered. Reactions to the situation on both sides are fueled by cortisol and adrenaline. An armed subject confronted by unarmed traffic enforcement officers (specially marked, and with different uniforms) isn't cornered, and can in fact just drive away --- or, for that matter, brandish a firearm. My public policy suggestion is not that we do away with assault officers altogether! There are currently 13,000 assault officers in the Chicago Police Department. A force constituted of 20% assault officers would still have ~2,500 assault officers available to handle escalations.

learc83 10y ago

You have to do a cost benefit analysis. Yes, sometimes police are shot at when they perform a traffic stop. But it's very rare. I can't find statistics on the number of times police were shot at during a traffic stop, but only 42 officers where shot and killed in the line of duty last year, and there were 13 million traffic stops.

tptacek 10y ago

Why doesn't that happen when suspects confront parking enforcement? Because it's pointless: parking enforcers aren't armed. If stopped by clearly marked traffic compliance officers who aren't armed, how likely is it that a suspect will fire a weapon at them? Even when faced with self-preservation concern, suspects are already extremely unlikely to fire on police.

knz 10y ago
Two infants were just shot in a mini van not far from where the shooting in Minnesota occurred. There were also multiple shootings overnight in Minneapolis that resulted in at least one fatality. The Police aren't armed just for traffic enforcement.
- tptacek 10y ago
  I don't know who you're arguing with, but it's not me. I'm not advocating for total disarmament.

prmph 10y ago

It seems to me there are all kinds of ways to make these encounters much safer. Maybe I am missing something, but why can't the police, at a distance, ask the driver to come out of the car with his hands in the air? To me the crux of the matters with these confrontations, which few seem to recognize, is that it is all about power and the perception of power relations between the police supposed "criminals" elements, such that these quake in fear whenever they interact with police. The police imagine "criminals (especially of the minority type) taunting them and mocking them, and cannot stand the thought; the larger society must see police to be more powerful than criminals. So their idea of effective law enforcement is of an overwhelming force that subdues all opposition, ostensibly for the larger good of society. Whether this perspective is good or bad is up for debate, but I it explains a lot of what has been happening.