3 ms·

But you don't get to kill someone just because they have barricaded themselves somewhere and threaten kill anyone who enters. They have to actually pose an ong

But you don't get to kill someone just because they have barricaded themselves somewhere and threaten kill anyone who enters. They have to actually pose an ongoing uncontainable threat, i.e., a reasonable chance of escaping and going on to kill others. Otherwise, the police are obliged to wait things out, perhaps for several days, for the suspect to give up because of hunger/thirst. I have no idea what the actual situation was, but it worries me that neither the reporters nor the police seem concerned with whether the suspect could have been contained. The rules governing the use of force are important.

koenigdavidmj 10y ago
Uncontainable is not part of their standards anywhere to my knowledge, and shutting down downtown for a week is not acceptable.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  Deadly force is only allowed when it is the only reasonable way to prevent grave danger to others, and a contained lunatic is not such a threat. And the idea that police could or should execute people for obstructing downtown is bizarre. EDIT: Even in the wake of the Columbine shooting, when police departments who had trained conservatively for hostage situations realized they needed to be more aggressive when dealing with active shooters (e.g., terrorists and suicidal killers), the Police Executive Research Forum emphasizes this isn't an excuse to go killing contained threats: > Many [police department] policies note that Active Shooter protocols should not be used as a response to “barricaded gunman” situations. And some policies note that active shooter incidents are dynamic, and that an incident may go in and out of active shooter status in ways that could alter the police response. For example, a situation may begin as an active shooter incident, but if the shooter barricades himself in a room where he no longer has access to potential victims, and the police can secure that room and contain the shooter, the police response should shift accordingly. http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Critical_Issues_Series/the%20police%20response%20to%20active%20shooter%20incidents%202014.pdf http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Critical_Issues_Serie...
  - ant6n 10y ago
    I'd go further, it's only reasonably to prevent grave and _imminent_ danger to others. The situation is kind of ironic, because it was vaguely associated with the protest against how police tends to kill people because they can't be bothered to find non-lethal ways to solve problems.
    - afarrell 10y ago
      > Can't be bothered Part of the problem in this broader conversation is a lack of knowledge by laypersons about what less-lethal options are available and their potential lethality. The most egregious example of this is when people (not on HN) suggest that cops should shoot suspects in the legs as a less-lethal option, as if the femoral artery doesn't exist.
      - jessriedel 10y ago
        I agree on the common misunderstanding about what less lethal options exist, but the justification is often misunderstood. Rather, any potentially lethal force can only be used if there is a grave, immediate threat, and in this case the shooter ought to be compelled to take the most reliable action: shooting for the center of mass and attempting to fully disable the target. Shooting limbs is often not immediately disabling, and therefore wouldn't be an effective way of dealing with a life-or-death threat. Likewise, shooting for the head is rarely done by nonspecialists simply because it decreases the chance for success (not because the shooter wants to "give the target a chance to survive"). So you're right that if someone thought shooting limbs never resulted in death, they might mistakenly think it was an appropriate non-lethal option. But I think, in fact, most people are aware death is possible. It's just that they mistakenly reason that if limbs shots are less likely to kill then they ought to be a preferable method for disabling a target.

koenigdavidmj 10y ago

Uncontainable is not part of their standards anywhere to my knowledge, and shutting down downtown for a week is not acceptable.

jessriedel 10y ago
Deadly force is only allowed when it is the only reasonable way to prevent grave danger to others, and a contained lunatic is not such a threat. And the idea that police could or should execute people for obstructing downtown is bizarre. EDIT: Even in the wake of the Columbine shooting, when police departments who had trained conservatively for hostage situations realized they needed to be more aggressive when dealing with active shooters (e.g., terrorists and suicidal killers), the Police Executive Research Forum emphasizes this isn't an excuse to go killing contained threats: > Many [police department] policies note that Active Shooter protocols should not be used as a response to “barricaded gunman” situations. And some policies note that active shooter incidents are dynamic, and that an incident may go in and out of active shooter status in ways that could alter the police response. For example, a situation may begin as an active shooter incident, but if the shooter barricades himself in a room where he no longer has access to potential victims, and the police can secure that room and contain the shooter, the police response should shift accordingly. http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Critical_Issues_Series/the%20police%20response%20to%20active%20shooter%20incidents%202014.pdf http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Critical_Issues_Serie...
- ant6n 10y ago
  I'd go further, it's only reasonably to prevent grave and _imminent_ danger to others. The situation is kind of ironic, because it was vaguely associated with the protest against how police tends to kill people because they can't be bothered to find non-lethal ways to solve problems.
  - afarrell 10y ago
    > Can't be bothered Part of the problem in this broader conversation is a lack of knowledge by laypersons about what less-lethal options are available and their potential lethality. The most egregious example of this is when people (not on HN) suggest that cops should shoot suspects in the legs as a less-lethal option, as if the femoral artery doesn't exist.
    - jessriedel 10y ago
      I agree on the common misunderstanding about what less lethal options exist, but the justification is often misunderstood. Rather, any potentially lethal force can only be used if there is a grave, immediate threat, and in this case the shooter ought to be compelled to take the most reliable action: shooting for the center of mass and attempting to fully disable the target. Shooting limbs is often not immediately disabling, and therefore wouldn't be an effective way of dealing with a life-or-death threat. Likewise, shooting for the head is rarely done by nonspecialists simply because it decreases the chance for success (not because the shooter wants to "give the target a chance to survive"). So you're right that if someone thought shooting limbs never resulted in death, they might mistakenly think it was an appropriate non-lethal option. But I think, in fact, most people are aware death is possible. It's just that they mistakenly reason that if limbs shots are less likely to kill then they ought to be a preferable method for disabling a target.