4 ms·

No there's something really important to see here. When a cop shoots a suspect, there's often little investigation or transparency. The argument against these

by imagist 10y ago

No there's something really important to see here. When a cop shoots a suspect, there's often little investigation or transparency. The argument against these things is that cops are putting their lives at risk to do their jobs, and can't do their jobs effectively if they have the public always looking over their shoulder. But this incident shows that the arguments against investigation and transparency are bankrupt. This officer bravely put his life at risk to do his job. Investigation and transparency show him to be worthy of our respect. It isn't the public looking over his shoulder preventing him from doing his job, it's the aggressively militarized culture of the profession in which he serves.

sp527 10y ago
No actually the logic here is really simple. Any rational system of law enforcement has to operate with extreme prejudice in a threatening situation. The reason is obvious: 9 times you might survive trying to do the right thing and then get shot dead on the tenth. These are often split second decisions made with paltry situational context (you know next to nothing about the person with the gun and how they might behave). If you have a gun and encounter law enforcement and don't IMMEDIATLY rid yourself of it and drop to the ground, what happens next is simply a consequence of statistics. Statistically, some nonzero percentage of people with a gun are nutjob cop killers. That's the end of the argument right there. There's nothing else to be done because cops aren't trained to gamble on the situation (and keep in mind that cops are dealing with a large sample size, though these look like isolated incidents to us). It's super weird to me that this isn't obvious to people. Maybe armchair theorizing about situations involving guns simply has too much allure.
- thatcat 10y ago
  I think you're mistaking the police for the military.
- stestagg 10y ago
  To take this to its conclusion, statistically there's a non-zero chance that the next thing you eat could poison you, therefore you should never eat anything ever again. It's always a case of trade offs and, in the case of using force, morality. The real issue is the level of uncertainty a police officer should accept. In most European countries, the balance is legally set much more in favour of protecting the public in these situations compadres to the US
- stillsut 10y ago
  Not sure why you're getting downvoted. Actually I am, but it's worrisome to see how far certain groups' expectation have diverged from reality. Presumably the cops should have just shot the gun out of his hand or shot some nearby grocery stand which would have caused an avalanche of fresh fruit to envelope the suspect. Book 'im, Danno!
- imagist 10y ago
  > The reason is obvious: 9 times you might survive trying to do the right thing and then get shot dead on the tenth. If police aren't trying to do the right thing, then absolutely nothing differentiates them from a gang. I have no objections to officers erring on the side of self-preservation, but that's not what we're discussing here. What we are discussing here is a cop who did the right thing and is being punished for it.
  - sp527 10y ago
    We're also discussing a cop who failed to 'err on the side of self-preservation', which is an obviously relevant detail. The officer was facing a man who was emotionally unstable and had a gun. The cop certainly did the morally correct thing, but it was also logically stupid. Again, it's necessary to think in the aggregate about encounters with armed opponents. It's a logical misstep to treat this incident in isolation.
    - imagist 10y ago
      I'm not treating this event in isolation--I'm actually considering more than you, as I'm considering the lives of suspects across the officer's career in addition to the officer's own life. I can only imagine that the reason you don't care about the suspect's life is an us-or-them mentality, but this is inherently the wrong mentality for police work, and it's exactly why cops kill so many unarmed black men in the US. Police need to keep in mind the lives of the people they serve.

by imagist 10y ago

sp527 10y ago

No actually the logic here is really simple. Any rational system of law enforcement has to operate with extreme prejudice in a threatening situation. The reason is obvious: 9 times you might survive trying to do the right thing and then get shot dead on the tenth. These are often split second decisions made with paltry situational context (you know next to nothing about the person with the gun and how they might behave). If you have a gun and encounter law enforcement and don't IMMEDIATLY rid yourself of it and drop to the ground, what happens next is simply a consequence of statistics. Statistically, some nonzero percentage of people with a gun are nutjob cop killers. That's the end of the argument right there. There's nothing else to be done because cops aren't trained to gamble on the situation (and keep in mind that cops are dealing with a large sample size, though these look like isolated incidents to us). It's super weird to me that this isn't obvious to people. Maybe armchair theorizing about situations involving guns simply has too much allure.

thatcat 10y ago
I think you're mistaking the police for the military.
stestagg 10y ago
To take this to its conclusion, statistically there's a non-zero chance that the next thing you eat could poison you, therefore you should never eat anything ever again. It's always a case of trade offs and, in the case of using force, morality. The real issue is the level of uncertainty a police officer should accept. In most European countries, the balance is legally set much more in favour of protecting the public in these situations compadres to the US
stillsut 10y ago
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. Actually I am, but it's worrisome to see how far certain groups' expectation have diverged from reality. Presumably the cops should have just shot the gun out of his hand or shot some nearby grocery stand which would have caused an avalanche of fresh fruit to envelope the suspect. Book 'im, Danno!
imagist 10y ago
> The reason is obvious: 9 times you might survive trying to do the right thing and then get shot dead on the tenth. If police aren't trying to do the right thing, then absolutely nothing differentiates them from a gang. I have no objections to officers erring on the side of self-preservation, but that's not what we're discussing here. What we are discussing here is a cop who did the right thing and is being punished for it.
- sp527 10y ago
  We're also discussing a cop who failed to 'err on the side of self-preservation', which is an obviously relevant detail. The officer was facing a man who was emotionally unstable and had a gun. The cop certainly did the morally correct thing, but it was also logically stupid. Again, it's necessary to think in the aggregate about encounters with armed opponents. It's a logical misstep to treat this incident in isolation.
  - imagist 10y ago
    I'm not treating this event in isolation--I'm actually considering more than you, as I'm considering the lives of suspects across the officer's career in addition to the officer's own life. I can only imagine that the reason you don't care about the suspect's life is an us-or-them mentality, but this is inherently the wrong mentality for police work, and it's exactly why cops kill so many unarmed black men in the US. Police need to keep in mind the lives of the people they serve.