5 ms·

> 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

by 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.
      - DanBC 10y ago
        Indeed, an officer who manages to subdue a suspect without shooting them faces repercussions. Police officer sacked for not shooting black man holding an unloaded gun: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/police-officer-sacked-not-shooting-black-man-virginia-stephen-mader-ronald-williams-a7245681.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/police-officer-sacked-not-... > “I told him, ‘Put down the gun,’ and he’s like, ‘Just shoot me.’ And I told him, ‘I’m not going to shoot you brother.’ Then he starts flicking his wrist to get me to react to it,” he said. > “I thought I was going to be able to talk to him and de-escalate it. I knew it was a 'suicide-by-cop' situation.” I'd be interested to know if that's common, or if it's a one off.
        Digit-Al 10y ago
        I don't have the source to hand, but I seem to recall reading that it is becoming more and more common. People who are suicidal know that all they have to do is wave a weapon (even an unloaded one) in the vicinity of a cop and they'll be shot dead. Here's a Wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop
- imagist 10y ago
  > Asking people to endanger themselves on the off chance a person with a gun isn't going to shoot is nothing short of insane. This is a straw man argument. I never asked anyone to endanger themselves. I don't criticize the officers who shot the man--it was a tough call and while it turns out they made the wrong call, I believe they made the best call they could given the information they had. I'm saying that the officer who didn't shoot, should be lauded for his actions, not fired. Further, people who apply for police work do so of their own accord. No one forces anyone to become a police officer. If you want to be safe, you should get a desk job instead of becoming a police officer. If you put yourself in danger and use that as an excuse to shoot people unequivocally, you're just a murderer. Part of an officer's job is assessing a situation and deciding whether lethal force is warranted. I don't blame an officer for making the decision to use lethal force, but it should be a decision. And if you aren't willing to make that decision, you should find another career.
  - sp527 10y ago
    Here's where you're mistaken: cops are at the end of the day mostly just normal people like us. There isn't some secret reservoir of especially heroic people to draw on. They are not expected to place their lives at unnecessary risk (like trying to negotiate with an armed, unstable person) on behalf of the public. They in particular must avoid these risks because they deal with large sample sizes. Attempting to negotiate with armed, unstable people is a great way to ensure you will eventually be shot dead by one of them. I didn't say this wasn't a case of an 'innocent' man getting killed. Law enforcement has a playbook for situations involving armed opponents that favors protecting the life of the cop, his fellow officers, and any potential innocent bystanders. There's nothing irrational about that in my view or in the view of countless researchers and policymakers who have designed that system (and who by the way have a lot more experience with the reality of law enforcement than random internet commentators). Bottom line: If you display a gun and emotional instability in the presence of a cop, you have forfeited your right to necessarily walk away alive. If you think that's unreasonable, then I suppose that's your opinion.
    - imagist 10y ago
      > There isn't some secret reservoir of especially heroic people to draw on. This is true, but irrelevant. The conversation at hand is about the fact that we are actively firing heroes for taking heroic actions. > They are not expected to place their lives at unnecessary risk (like trying to negotiate with an armed, unstable person) on behalf of the public. Again, this is a straw man argument. This is not what I am proposing. Please read the posts you are responding to before you respond to them. > Bottom line: If you display a gun and emotional instability in the presence of a cop, you have forfeited your right to necessarily walk away alive. If you think that's unreasonable, then I suppose that's your opinion. That's not my opinion, it's the straw man you're presenting. Please respond to what I actually said, not to straw men. My actual opinion, which you have completely ignored, is that when police make the correct call and correctly identify that a suspect is not dangerous despite the fact that the suspect is holding a gun, police should not be punished for doing the right thing.

by imagist 10y ago

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.
    - DanBC 10y ago
      Indeed, an officer who manages to subdue a suspect without shooting them faces repercussions. Police officer sacked for not shooting black man holding an unloaded gun: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/police-officer-sacked-not-shooting-black-man-virginia-stephen-mader-ronald-williams-a7245681.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/police-officer-sacked-not-... > “I told him, ‘Put down the gun,’ and he’s like, ‘Just shoot me.’ And I told him, ‘I’m not going to shoot you brother.’ Then he starts flicking his wrist to get me to react to it,” he said. > “I thought I was going to be able to talk to him and de-escalate it. I knew it was a 'suicide-by-cop' situation.” I'd be interested to know if that's common, or if it's a one off.
      - Digit-Al 10y ago
        I don't have the source to hand, but I seem to recall reading that it is becoming more and more common. People who are suicidal know that all they have to do is wave a weapon (even an unloaded one) in the vicinity of a cop and they'll be shot dead. Here's a Wikipedia article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop
imagist 10y ago
> Asking people to endanger themselves on the off chance a person with a gun isn't going to shoot is nothing short of insane. This is a straw man argument. I never asked anyone to endanger themselves. I don't criticize the officers who shot the man--it was a tough call and while it turns out they made the wrong call, I believe they made the best call they could given the information they had. I'm saying that the officer who didn't shoot, should be lauded for his actions, not fired. Further, people who apply for police work do so of their own accord. No one forces anyone to become a police officer. If you want to be safe, you should get a desk job instead of becoming a police officer. If you put yourself in danger and use that as an excuse to shoot people unequivocally, you're just a murderer. Part of an officer's job is assessing a situation and deciding whether lethal force is warranted. I don't blame an officer for making the decision to use lethal force, but it should be a decision. And if you aren't willing to make that decision, you should find another career.
- sp527 10y ago
  Here's where you're mistaken: cops are at the end of the day mostly just normal people like us. There isn't some secret reservoir of especially heroic people to draw on. They are not expected to place their lives at unnecessary risk (like trying to negotiate with an armed, unstable person) on behalf of the public. They in particular must avoid these risks because they deal with large sample sizes. Attempting to negotiate with armed, unstable people is a great way to ensure you will eventually be shot dead by one of them. I didn't say this wasn't a case of an 'innocent' man getting killed. Law enforcement has a playbook for situations involving armed opponents that favors protecting the life of the cop, his fellow officers, and any potential innocent bystanders. There's nothing irrational about that in my view or in the view of countless researchers and policymakers who have designed that system (and who by the way have a lot more experience with the reality of law enforcement than random internet commentators). Bottom line: If you display a gun and emotional instability in the presence of a cop, you have forfeited your right to necessarily walk away alive. If you think that's unreasonable, then I suppose that's your opinion.
  - imagist 10y ago
    > There isn't some secret reservoir of especially heroic people to draw on. This is true, but irrelevant. The conversation at hand is about the fact that we are actively firing heroes for taking heroic actions. > They are not expected to place their lives at unnecessary risk (like trying to negotiate with an armed, unstable person) on behalf of the public. Again, this is a straw man argument. This is not what I am proposing. Please read the posts you are responding to before you respond to them. > Bottom line: If you display a gun and emotional instability in the presence of a cop, you have forfeited your right to necessarily walk away alive. If you think that's unreasonable, then I suppose that's your opinion. That's not my opinion, it's the straw man you're presenting. Please respond to what I actually said, not to straw men. My actual opinion, which you have completely ignored, is that when police make the correct call and correctly identify that a suspect is not dangerous despite the fact that the suspect is holding a gun, police should not be punished for doing the right thing.