3 ms·

I always grew up thinking that police had to wait until somebody shot at them to shoot back. It seems like "we thought he had a gun and he motioned towards his

by blhack 9y ago

I always grew up thinking that police had to wait until somebody shot at them to shoot back. It seems like "we thought he had a gun and he motioned towards his waist" has now replaced "he shot at us". I really wish that the police had to adhere to the same laws as anybody else does. They are civilians after all. If had a gun (I don't) and pointed it at somebody to intimidate them, even if they were trying to break into my house, I could get in trouble for "brandishing". Yet civilian police pull their guns out and point them at people all the time. The can't believe that we allow these people can put themselves into a position where they're deciding if they're going to kill you or not, and the mere press of a small lever on their hand KILLS YOU and that this is just considered okay... It's just absolutely ridiculous to me.

wl 9y ago
When it comes to the use of deadly force, the same laws apply to police as everyone else. There has to be a reasonable belief that there is an imminent threat of death or gross bodily injury. If someone is pointing a gun at you, you don't have to let them shoot you first before you can defend yourself.
meri_dian 9y ago
Police are not you or I in the context of social roles. They fulfill a particular function in society while on duty that you and I don't. They tend to deal with dangerous people. People must do exactly as they're told when dealing with the police to minimize uncertainty and confusion. An officer pulling a gun on someone is not equivalent in any way to a civilian doing the same thing. Officers are empowered by society to enforce the law so we don't have to. That necessitates displaying - and sometimes using - force. If it's clear that someone presents an immediate mortal danger to others and refuses to comply with orders given to them then the police are justified in acting with force.
- FireBeyond 9y ago
  > If it's clear that someone presents an immediate mortal danger to others Yeah, and that's where your argument hits a brick wall. Yes, if someone presents an immediate mortal danger, then force can be justified. If you see that video, he is reaching for the waistband of his pajamas and following directions. Even in the event that he had a pistol stashed in the elastic of his pajamas, you have multiple officers who already are in the drawn position, ready to fire, whereas he has to pull it out, aim, etc. You have a far lower bar for "clear presentation of immediate mortal danger" than most people here - and you seem to believe that's our failing, not yours. > People must do exactly as they're told when dealing with the police to minimize uncertainty and confusion. You mean like the multiple incidents where we see two police officers yelling contradictory statements? "Hands behind your head, turn around!" "Get on your stomach!" and one of the officers believes he is in mortal danger because the suspect is, in effect, obeying the other officers instruction, and not his?

by blhack 9y ago

wl 9y ago

When it comes to the use of deadly force, the same laws apply to police as everyone else. There has to be a reasonable belief that there is an imminent threat of death or gross bodily injury. If someone is pointing a gun at you, you don't have to let them shoot you first before you can defend yourself.

meri_dian 9y ago

Police are not you or I in the context of social roles. They fulfill a particular function in society while on duty that you and I don't. They tend to deal with dangerous people. People must do exactly as they're told when dealing with the police to minimize uncertainty and confusion. An officer pulling a gun on someone is not equivalent in any way to a civilian doing the same thing. Officers are empowered by society to enforce the law so we don't have to. That necessitates displaying - and sometimes using - force. If it's clear that someone presents an immediate mortal danger to others and refuses to comply with orders given to them then the police are justified in acting with force.

FireBeyond 9y ago
> If it's clear that someone presents an immediate mortal danger to others Yeah, and that's where your argument hits a brick wall. Yes, if someone presents an immediate mortal danger, then force can be justified. If you see that video, he is reaching for the waistband of his pajamas and following directions. Even in the event that he had a pistol stashed in the elastic of his pajamas, you have multiple officers who already are in the drawn position, ready to fire, whereas he has to pull it out, aim, etc. You have a far lower bar for "clear presentation of immediate mortal danger" than most people here - and you seem to believe that's our failing, not yours. > People must do exactly as they're told when dealing with the police to minimize uncertainty and confusion. You mean like the multiple incidents where we see two police officers yelling contradictory statements? "Hands behind your head, turn around!" "Get on your stomach!" and one of the officers believes he is in mortal danger because the suspect is, in effect, obeying the other officers instruction, and not his?