3 ms·

Should cops have to wait until they are actually being gunned down before they can use force to protect themselves? What happened was an absolute tragedy, and e

Should cops have to wait until they are actually being gunned down before they can use force to protect themselves? What happened was an absolute tragedy, and every measure should be taken to avoid anything like that ever happening again. The shooting was not justified, and cops need better training, non-lethal options must be expanded, penalties for this kind of "prank" must be made harsher. Everyone agrees on that. But to call the cop a murderer, as if he had executed someone he knew was innocent, just for fun, that's not right either. Cops face actual murdering psychos on a daily basis, and must be able to respond to how the situation looks at the time. Again, not trying to justify the shooting, but trying to encourage a more nuanced perspective.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
watwut 9y ago
Statistically, policing is nowhere near top dangerous occupations in USA. And most causalities are from traffic accidents. It is safer and safer every year. So maybe they could give some of that safety to public too. There is such a thing as exaggerating risks and you are doing that now. Non trained members of public are expected to keep perfect calm and control. It makes Bo sense that expectations on random Johny are higher then those on trained cops.
nazgob 9y ago
Isn't it like that in many countries? Do not fire unless fired upon? It's also a common rule of engagement for many militaries deployed in Afganistan, Iraq or other 'dangerous places'.
Miner49er 9y ago
Did you watch the video? There is no way a cop should have felt threatened.
stordoff 9y ago
> Should cops have to wait until they are actually being gunned down before they can use force to protect themselves? If the only information you are operating off is an unconfirmed civilian report, I don't think that's entirely unreasonable. At the very least, they should be 100% certain that the suspect has a weapon - the police should act at a far higher standard than "feared the male pulled a weapon from his waistband". IMO, the police should be there for the protection of society as a whole, but _sometimes_ (far from all of the time) act as if they are just protecting themselves over and above that/at all costs.
throwaway2048 9y ago
this is the standard most millitary forces follow IN ACTUAL WARZONES, so no, I think it is 100% reasonable to ask the police to follow the same standard.
justaaron 9y ago
yes, they should see a weapon produced and in the process of being aimed for firing. they are already pointing their arms at the "suspect" and all that is required to complete the firing process is to pull the trigger. In America, due a culture of police impunity, (the cop rarely goes to jail or even faces trial, and is often even acquitted in cut-n-dried cases like Shaver.) the police officer has been trained to value their lives as higher than the lives of civilians. this is wrong. yes, i completely expect to see an actual weapon produced before a shooter commences.
likeclockwork 9y ago
Better a thousand cops shot than one innocent harmed.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

watwut 9y ago

Statistically, policing is nowhere near top dangerous occupations in USA. And most causalities are from traffic accidents. It is safer and safer every year. So maybe they could give some of that safety to public too. There is such a thing as exaggerating risks and you are doing that now. Non trained members of public are expected to keep perfect calm and control. It makes Bo sense that expectations on random Johny are higher then those on trained cops.

nazgob 9y ago

Isn't it like that in many countries? Do not fire unless fired upon? It's also a common rule of engagement for many militaries deployed in Afganistan, Iraq or other 'dangerous places'.

Miner49er 9y ago

Did you watch the video? There is no way a cop should have felt threatened.

stordoff 9y ago

> Should cops have to wait until they are actually being gunned down before they can use force to protect themselves? If the only information you are operating off is an unconfirmed civilian report, I don't think that's entirely unreasonable. At the very least, they should be 100% certain that the suspect has a weapon - the police should act at a far higher standard than "feared the male pulled a weapon from his waistband". IMO, the police should be there for the protection of society as a whole, but _sometimes_ (far from all of the time) act as if they are just protecting themselves over and above that/at all costs.

throwaway2048 9y ago

this is the standard most millitary forces follow IN ACTUAL WARZONES, so no, I think it is 100% reasonable to ask the police to follow the same standard.

justaaron 9y ago

yes, they should see a weapon produced and in the process of being aimed for firing. they are already pointing their arms at the "suspect" and all that is required to complete the firing process is to pull the trigger. In America, due a culture of police impunity, (the cop rarely goes to jail or even faces trial, and is often even acquitted in cut-n-dried cases like Shaver.) the police officer has been trained to value their lives as higher than the lives of civilians. this is wrong. yes, i completely expect to see an actual weapon produced before a shooter commences.

likeclockwork 9y ago

Better a thousand cops shot than one innocent harmed.