3 ms·

I support your unpopular proposal. The idea that a cop can ever (yes, ever) get away with shooting an unarmed person is beyond comprehension. The very notion of

by ademup 9y ago

I support your unpopular proposal. The idea that a cop can ever (yes, ever) get away with shooting an unarmed person is beyond comprehension. The very notion of pulling a gun on an unarmed person should be considered repulsive.

cgriswald 9y ago
...So, if a guy the size of Ving Rhames is charging a petite female law enforcement officer after shouting that he is going to kill her, she should not be allowed to fire. ...So if a guy shouts, "I have a bomb!" and starts running towards a crowd of people, police should stand idly by. ...So if a guy, with a gun, walks up to a cop and points it at his head, no one should do anything, because he hasn't fired yet, so, hey... maybe it's fake and per the GP, he can't be "100% sure" the guy is armed if he hasn't fired a shot. The problem with these absurd absolutist ideals: 1. They don't mesh at all with the reality of how bad guys work. 2. They expect police to not be human beings. I'm all for incorruptible robot police who always use non-lethal force, but as long as we have humans, let's be real about it. Things will not change if your only point-of-view is that police are expendable, and that they "signed up for" death. They didn't. They signed up for a job which puts their lives in danger. Asking them to extend that danger to absurdity is...absurd. There are plenty of other ways to fix this, including body cams and proper prosecution (which includes, by the way, the presumption of innocence for the cop...).
- braythwayt 9y ago
  TL;DR: Here are three strawmen we can argue about instead of the actual case in front of us, which had nothing to do with Ving Rhames or guns or bomb threats. Oh, and as a bonus, I'll start my three with a story about a big, menacing black man and a poor little petite white woman. This line of conversation is unworthy of humanity, much less Hacker News.
  - cgriswald 9y ago
    The case in front of us wasn't the topic I was discussing. The topic was the GP's absolutist view in response to that topic. Just because these scenarios are fictitious does not make them strawmen arguments. In the first scenario, I was pointing out that even unarmed people can be dangerous. In the second, I was pointing out that often innocent lives are in danger. In the third, I was pointing out just how absurd it is to expect police to shoot "only after at least one shot has been fired by the suspect, period." Obviously these scenarios fall apart in the real world and that's the point. It was your decision to bring race into the discussion. I chose Ving Rhames because he's big and I had recently seen him in a movie. Apparently to have a valid point I need to pretend he doesn't exist and go with John Cena instead (as if specifically excluding a black actor would somehow not be racist). I didn't specify the race of the female officer at all.
    - dudul 9y ago
      And I was talking about a situation where somebody walks out of a front door. For your 1st scenario, yes the police officer should be able to handle it without a gun. That's what training is for. US cops need to spend less time at the shooting range and more time studying close combat technics, like in every other civilized country. For the other 2 scenarios, sure the cop can shoot, even if for the last one there are probably ways to avoid it upstream.
      - cgriswald 9y ago
        The vast majority of officers never fire their weapon in the line of duty. US cops do study close combat techniques. Talking about the training generally is impossible, since the quality, type, and upkeep of that training varies a lot by department. Usually it depends on what is needed in their area and what funds are available. That said, all departments put office safety first. They will not generally take unnecessary risks, so a charging behemoth who has specified his intent to kill will probably be shot, regardless of close combat training.
        llukas 9y ago
        Please compare how long it takes to train US cop vs other first world countries. Length of training is woefully inadequate.
- dudul 9y ago
  I started answering your examples, but why bother? They are clearly not representative of the case. I'll just highlight: "There are plenty of other ways to fix this, including body cams and proper prosecution" So you're saying that if cops were more afraid of being prosecuted and punished after using their guns they would be more careful before killing a citizen. As in "well, now they're almost never punished, so yeah, they can just shoot first and ask questions later, otherwise they would first make sure the guy is actually armed and hostile". This is mind-blowing to me either it is the actual state of mind of police officers or if you believe it is and think it's ok.
  - cgriswald 9y ago
    You weren't speaking about the case. You spoke in absolutes for all cases. In this case? I suspect the officer was completely in the wrong, but I'll reserve judgment until I have all the facts. >So you're saying that if cops were more afraid of being prosecuted and punished after using their guns they would be more careful before killing a citizen. No. I am saying that body cams, prosecution, and other tools will help protect bystanders, police officers, and suspects. It will help make better policies, protect innocent officers, prosecute guilty officers, and inform the public (because the police are sometimes wrong, but also sometimes not, in shooting people). Expecting police officers and any bystanders/hostages to be target practice before they can shoot back just makes for a lot of dead officers and bystanders. It doesn't solve the problem. And it probably exacerbates it by increasing tension in an already stressful situation, limiting officer control of the situation, and encouraging corruption (since a system so unfair to police will necessarily cause them to close ranks further).
    - y_u_no_rust 9y ago
      We should just get rid of the fucking police. We've got guns DIY. The american way! it's a country of mindless self indulgent entertainment obsessed wacko.. i say let them embrace it

by ademup 9y ago

cgriswald 9y ago

...So, if a guy the size of Ving Rhames is charging a petite female law enforcement officer after shouting that he is going to kill her, she should not be allowed to fire. ...So if a guy shouts, "I have a bomb!" and starts running towards a crowd of people, police should stand idly by. ...So if a guy, with a gun, walks up to a cop and points it at his head, no one should do anything, because he hasn't fired yet, so, hey... maybe it's fake and per the GP, he can't be "100% sure" the guy is armed if he hasn't fired a shot. The problem with these absurd absolutist ideals: 1. They don't mesh at all with the reality of how bad guys work. 2. They expect police to not be human beings. I'm all for incorruptible robot police who always use non-lethal force, but as long as we have humans, let's be real about it. Things will not change if your only point-of-view is that police are expendable, and that they "signed up for" death. They didn't. They signed up for a job which puts their lives in danger. Asking them to extend that danger to absurdity is...absurd. There are plenty of other ways to fix this, including body cams and proper prosecution (which includes, by the way, the presumption of innocence for the cop...).

braythwayt 9y ago
TL;DR: Here are three strawmen we can argue about instead of the actual case in front of us, which had nothing to do with Ving Rhames or guns or bomb threats. Oh, and as a bonus, I'll start my three with a story about a big, menacing black man and a poor little petite white woman. This line of conversation is unworthy of humanity, much less Hacker News.
- cgriswald 9y ago
  The case in front of us wasn't the topic I was discussing. The topic was the GP's absolutist view in response to that topic. Just because these scenarios are fictitious does not make them strawmen arguments. In the first scenario, I was pointing out that even unarmed people can be dangerous. In the second, I was pointing out that often innocent lives are in danger. In the third, I was pointing out just how absurd it is to expect police to shoot "only after at least one shot has been fired by the suspect, period." Obviously these scenarios fall apart in the real world and that's the point. It was your decision to bring race into the discussion. I chose Ving Rhames because he's big and I had recently seen him in a movie. Apparently to have a valid point I need to pretend he doesn't exist and go with John Cena instead (as if specifically excluding a black actor would somehow not be racist). I didn't specify the race of the female officer at all.
  - dudul 9y ago
    And I was talking about a situation where somebody walks out of a front door. For your 1st scenario, yes the police officer should be able to handle it without a gun. That's what training is for. US cops need to spend less time at the shooting range and more time studying close combat technics, like in every other civilized country. For the other 2 scenarios, sure the cop can shoot, even if for the last one there are probably ways to avoid it upstream.
    - cgriswald 9y ago
      The vast majority of officers never fire their weapon in the line of duty. US cops do study close combat techniques. Talking about the training generally is impossible, since the quality, type, and upkeep of that training varies a lot by department. Usually it depends on what is needed in their area and what funds are available. That said, all departments put office safety first. They will not generally take unnecessary risks, so a charging behemoth who has specified his intent to kill will probably be shot, regardless of close combat training.
      - llukas 9y ago
        Please compare how long it takes to train US cop vs other first world countries. Length of training is woefully inadequate.
dudul 9y ago
I started answering your examples, but why bother? They are clearly not representative of the case. I'll just highlight: "There are plenty of other ways to fix this, including body cams and proper prosecution" So you're saying that if cops were more afraid of being prosecuted and punished after using their guns they would be more careful before killing a citizen. As in "well, now they're almost never punished, so yeah, they can just shoot first and ask questions later, otherwise they would first make sure the guy is actually armed and hostile". This is mind-blowing to me either it is the actual state of mind of police officers or if you believe it is and think it's ok.
- cgriswald 9y ago
  You weren't speaking about the case. You spoke in absolutes for all cases. In this case? I suspect the officer was completely in the wrong, but I'll reserve judgment until I have all the facts. >So you're saying that if cops were more afraid of being prosecuted and punished after using their guns they would be more careful before killing a citizen. No. I am saying that body cams, prosecution, and other tools will help protect bystanders, police officers, and suspects. It will help make better policies, protect innocent officers, prosecute guilty officers, and inform the public (because the police are sometimes wrong, but also sometimes not, in shooting people). Expecting police officers and any bystanders/hostages to be target practice before they can shoot back just makes for a lot of dead officers and bystanders. It doesn't solve the problem. And it probably exacerbates it by increasing tension in an already stressful situation, limiting officer control of the situation, and encouraging corruption (since a system so unfair to police will necessarily cause them to close ranks further).
  - y_u_no_rust 9y ago
    We should just get rid of the fucking police. We've got guns DIY. The american way! it's a country of mindless self indulgent entertainment obsessed wacko.. i say let them embrace it