3 ms·
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
by 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?