6 ms·

This might be a decent justification if he had shot the man. (Which, sadly, other officers arriving on the scene did.) But firing an officer for not killing him

This might be a decent justification if he had shot the man. (Which, sadly, other officers arriving on the scene did.) But firing an officer for not killing him? That seems nuts. Can it really be police policy that an officer must kill any armed suspect that he or she encounters? I'm not sure I'd want to live in a place where that was the rule.

sp527 10y ago
I would have thought this was obvious but the down votes suggest otherwise. Yes: hesitation to act once you see a gun in the hands of someone who presents him/herself as unstable places your life and (perhaps more relevant to this situation) the lives of your fellow officers in jeopardy. The chief made the tough but ultimately correct call in this case. Once an officer has proven himself incapable of acting with deadly force in a threatening situation, you don't keep him around to endanger the lives of the officers he works with. Civilians can't empathize with the context, but what the officer did, in failing to act, is tantamount to a cardinal sin in police work.
- imagist 10y ago
  > Yes: hesitation to act once you see a gun in the hands of someone who presents him/herself as unstable is a credible threat that places your life and (perhaps more relevant to this situation) the lives of your fellow officers in jeopardy. I'm going to have to disagree with you here. If shooting someone is the only solution you have to a dangerous situation, then you have the emotional maturity of a neanderthal and you are the unstable person with a gun. > Civilians can't empathize with this context but what the officer did, in failing to act, is tantamount to a cardinal sin in police work. Like hell civilians can't empathize. Cops don't have the monopoly on dangerous situations. If this is a cardinal sin in police work, then police work is fundamentally broken.
  - sp527 10y ago
    You sound like the perfect candidate for police work since you clearly place a low value on your own life. Asking people to endanger themselves on the off chance a person with a gun isn't going to shoot is nothing short of insane.
    - mildbow 10y ago
      Well, if cops want to be lauded as heroes, maybe they need to act like it? I respect EMTs. I respect firefighters. Interactions with any of them has been a warm and human one. They truly are heroes. They save lives with little regard for personal sacrifice. Interactions with cops? Dehumanizing: a glaring symptom of the imbalance of power. We have forgotten, to our own peril, an old adage: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.
      - sp527 10y ago
        I think resorting to our own anecdata coupled with what the media presents us is a tempting fallacy. It's likely that most cops are good people trying to do the right thing. You might be hard-pressed to find even staunch BLM supporters who would disagree with that assertion. Where I think policing could stand to be improved is in the realm of situations involving obviously non-threatening individuals (particularly unarmed Black males). In general, our focus should be drawn to cases at the margin and not those in which decisionmaking is straightforward (e.g. armed and unstable people).
        mildbow 10y ago
        Of course. Whenever one relates personal experience in a public fora, esp. one with pretentions of logical thinking, the default reaction's to relegate it to an anecdote. The self reported intellectuals cry: "It's an anecdote so it doesn't count!" Ok. But I'm not writing a paper. I'm merely relating my experiences and subsequent thoughts. Surely many black people went through the same experience when talking about their "anomalous" and "anecdotal" interactions. Having a cop threaten me with a gun because I had the effrontery to claim a headache is an anecdote. But, it's one that indubitably influences how I approach subsequent interactions and -- moreover -- my whole stance on exactly how the power-balance in any citizen-to-cop interaction works. Yeah, plural of anecdote isn't data, but I'm not waiting for a scientific paper before I start forming my own opinions of the world.
        mildbow 10y ago
        The perception of threat by a random police officer shouldn't equate to judge+jury+executioner. However, due to the lack of consistent repercussions, it's much better for a cop to shoot first and ask questions later. Ergo, if you aren't a cop and support this situation, maybe you need to think again.
- jellicle 10y ago
  And yet, the police forces of every other advanced nation on earth manage to deal with armed people every day without shooting nearly as many of them as the United States does. How do you think they manage that?
  - sp527 10y ago
    It would be very hard to get apples to apples numbers to make that determination. Let me be clear that the recent spate of high profile executions (and believe me when I say that's how I feel about many of these cases) of various unarmed black men at the hands of cops across the country constitutes an altogether different problem. This particular case, involving an armed suicidal man who was presumably affecting an unstable demeanor, is comparatively cut and dry.
- polotics 10y ago
  Do you realize how much time it would have taken for the suicidal dude to put himself and his lowered gun in any kind of stance that would have been a danger to the cop behind him if his gun had actually been loaded? At least half a second I'd say. How much time would it have taken for the cop to squeeze his trigger in that worst case scenario? What cardinal sin do you refer to, the one that says you shall not kill?
  - sp527 10y ago
    Oh you're ignoring a lot of essential practical aspects of using a gun, the most relevant of which are (1) you can miss and (2) the target may not be immediately incapacitated. Guns don't work in real life like they do in the movies.
    - polotics 10y ago
      oh I am sorry, my military training was like in 1994 and I stopped shooting guns a very long time ago, I agree to disagree.
- joesmo 10y ago
  I'm not sure you realize you're defending a murder here.
  - sp527 10y ago
    I'm defending statistics. If a cop has say a 10% chance of being shot by an armed opponent, then this will occur within 10 such encounters, in expectation. This is ultimately why cops are trained not to gamble. I didn't say 'innocent' people don't get killed. I am saying cops aren't martyrs.
    - erelde 10y ago
      Does "trained not to gamble" means "SHOOT ON SIGHT" in your mind? Because that's what it sounds like. If in every situation the cop has to not gamble, that means he has to shoot everytime. That doesn't sound right to me. It _shouldn't_ sound right to you.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    - joesmo 10y ago
      They could and should be trained otherwise and better. It's definitely done in many places throughout the world. This does not excuse murder. Murder is murder. Especially when they knew the guy was suicidal. But then they wouldn't have such stupid excuses for murdering innocent people, I suppose.
- erelde 10y ago
  Ideally police should be about helping old ladies cross the road. As the name implies. If someone hesitates to kill doesn't that prove they're a better person than someone who James Bond his way through? James Bond is fun but he doesn't really kill people, it's actors. Killing a real person should be the absolute last resort used by military officers or if your jurisdiction still allows for it (for some barbaric rhetoric reason), a court of law. Not police officers in the heat of the moment. Another argument that might be only truish in France: police officers are not qualified, I'm sorry to say that, but the foot soldiers do not have the education, they didn't go to college, some didn't finish high school, it's fine as long they only regulate the city/polis, but once it gets philosophically tricky... They're not qualified. I've seen many police officers who just can't read without mouthing silently or even aloud. I don't trust the quick judgement of someone who can't read. Maybe I'm an elitist libertarian. I'm ok with that if it means I'm against killing people.
simbalion 10y ago
You are right. It's wrong. Those responsible are completely insane.

sp527 10y ago

I would have thought this was obvious but the down votes suggest otherwise. Yes: hesitation to act once you see a gun in the hands of someone who presents him/herself as unstable places your life and (perhaps more relevant to this situation) the lives of your fellow officers in jeopardy. The chief made the tough but ultimately correct call in this case. Once an officer has proven himself incapable of acting with deadly force in a threatening situation, you don't keep him around to endanger the lives of the officers he works with. Civilians can't empathize with the context, but what the officer did, in failing to act, is tantamount to a cardinal sin in police work.

imagist 10y ago
> Yes: hesitation to act once you see a gun in the hands of someone who presents him/herself as unstable is a credible threat that places your life and (perhaps more relevant to this situation) the lives of your fellow officers in jeopardy. I'm going to have to disagree with you here. If shooting someone is the only solution you have to a dangerous situation, then you have the emotional maturity of a neanderthal and you are the unstable person with a gun. > Civilians can't empathize with this context but what the officer did, in failing to act, is tantamount to a cardinal sin in police work. Like hell civilians can't empathize. Cops don't have the monopoly on dangerous situations. If this is a cardinal sin in police work, then police work is fundamentally broken.
- sp527 10y ago
  You sound like the perfect candidate for police work since you clearly place a low value on your own life. Asking people to endanger themselves on the off chance a person with a gun isn't going to shoot is nothing short of insane.
  - mildbow 10y ago
    Well, if cops want to be lauded as heroes, maybe they need to act like it? I respect EMTs. I respect firefighters. Interactions with any of them has been a warm and human one. They truly are heroes. They save lives with little regard for personal sacrifice. Interactions with cops? Dehumanizing: a glaring symptom of the imbalance of power. We have forgotten, to our own peril, an old adage: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.
    - sp527 10y ago
      I think resorting to our own anecdata coupled with what the media presents us is a tempting fallacy. It's likely that most cops are good people trying to do the right thing. You might be hard-pressed to find even staunch BLM supporters who would disagree with that assertion. Where I think policing could stand to be improved is in the realm of situations involving obviously non-threatening individuals (particularly unarmed Black males). In general, our focus should be drawn to cases at the margin and not those in which decisionmaking is straightforward (e.g. armed and unstable people).
      - mildbow 10y ago
        Of course. Whenever one relates personal experience in a public fora, esp. one with pretentions of logical thinking, the default reaction's to relegate it to an anecdote. The self reported intellectuals cry: "It's an anecdote so it doesn't count!" Ok. But I'm not writing a paper. I'm merely relating my experiences and subsequent thoughts. Surely many black people went through the same experience when talking about their "anomalous" and "anecdotal" interactions. Having a cop threaten me with a gun because I had the effrontery to claim a headache is an anecdote. But, it's one that indubitably influences how I approach subsequent interactions and -- moreover -- my whole stance on exactly how the power-balance in any citizen-to-cop interaction works. Yeah, plural of anecdote isn't data, but I'm not waiting for a scientific paper before I start forming my own opinions of the world.
      - mildbow 10y ago
        The perception of threat by a random police officer shouldn't equate to judge+jury+executioner. However, due to the lack of consistent repercussions, it's much better for a cop to shoot first and ask questions later. Ergo, if you aren't a cop and support this situation, maybe you need to think again.
jellicle 10y ago
And yet, the police forces of every other advanced nation on earth manage to deal with armed people every day without shooting nearly as many of them as the United States does. How do you think they manage that?
- sp527 10y ago
  It would be very hard to get apples to apples numbers to make that determination. Let me be clear that the recent spate of high profile executions (and believe me when I say that's how I feel about many of these cases) of various unarmed black men at the hands of cops across the country constitutes an altogether different problem. This particular case, involving an armed suicidal man who was presumably affecting an unstable demeanor, is comparatively cut and dry.
polotics 10y ago
Do you realize how much time it would have taken for the suicidal dude to put himself and his lowered gun in any kind of stance that would have been a danger to the cop behind him if his gun had actually been loaded? At least half a second I'd say. How much time would it have taken for the cop to squeeze his trigger in that worst case scenario? What cardinal sin do you refer to, the one that says you shall not kill?
- sp527 10y ago
  Oh you're ignoring a lot of essential practical aspects of using a gun, the most relevant of which are (1) you can miss and (2) the target may not be immediately incapacitated. Guns don't work in real life like they do in the movies.
  - polotics 10y ago
    oh I am sorry, my military training was like in 1994 and I stopped shooting guns a very long time ago, I agree to disagree.
joesmo 10y ago
I'm not sure you realize you're defending a murder here.
- sp527 10y ago
  I'm defending statistics. If a cop has say a 10% chance of being shot by an armed opponent, then this will occur within 10 such encounters, in expectation. This is ultimately why cops are trained not to gamble. I didn't say 'innocent' people don't get killed. I am saying cops aren't martyrs.
  - erelde 10y ago
    Does "trained not to gamble" means "SHOOT ON SIGHT" in your mind? Because that's what it sounds like. If in every situation the cop has to not gamble, that means he has to shoot everytime. That doesn't sound right to me. It _shouldn't_ sound right to you.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - joesmo 10y ago
    They could and should be trained otherwise and better. It's definitely done in many places throughout the world. This does not excuse murder. Murder is murder. Especially when they knew the guy was suicidal. But then they wouldn't have such stupid excuses for murdering innocent people, I suppose.
erelde 10y ago
Ideally police should be about helping old ladies cross the road. As the name implies. If someone hesitates to kill doesn't that prove they're a better person than someone who James Bond his way through? James Bond is fun but he doesn't really kill people, it's actors. Killing a real person should be the absolute last resort used by military officers or if your jurisdiction still allows for it (for some barbaric rhetoric reason), a court of law. Not police officers in the heat of the moment. Another argument that might be only truish in France: police officers are not qualified, I'm sorry to say that, but the foot soldiers do not have the education, they didn't go to college, some didn't finish high school, it's fine as long they only regulate the city/polis, but once it gets philosophically tricky... They're not qualified. I've seen many police officers who just can't read without mouthing silently or even aloud. I don't trust the quick judgement of someone who can't read. Maybe I'm an elitist libertarian. I'm ok with that if it means I'm against killing people.

simbalion 10y ago

You are right. It's wrong. Those responsible are completely insane.