7 ms·

> This process is designed to have a weapon be discharged. Unfortunately, as a US civilian you need to be smart about de-escalating encounters with underpaid r

> This process is designed to have a weapon be discharged. Unfortunately, as a US civilian you need to be smart about de-escalating encounters with underpaid rage-monster cops with something close to legal immunity. Your goal should be to avoid injury or death until you can get to a lawyer.

r00fus 9y ago
This was a mistaken address SWAT ing. How was the person supposed to know? Police officers that shoot ppl should be held liable as well as the SWAT caller.
- bonzini 9y ago
  Or is it whoever (edit: in the Wichita police) dispatched them without checking the details of the call, or adequately briefing them that the details were not clear? Because the guy who shot made a huge and deadly mistake, but the fact that you can call 911 and have someone SWATted is a big problem on its own.
  - matt-attack 9y ago
    SWATing should just lead to a bit of wasted time, and a “sorry to bother you sir”. With proper response procedure it should be a complete non-issue. Placing blame on anyone but the cops is completely discounting the problem.
    - bonzini 9y ago
      I am saying it should be placed on the cops' boss. I agree with you that those should have been the consequences---i.e., none. Though, in a country where SWATting is a thing, whoever placed the call is very much responsible too, because he must have known the possible effect of his prank. All in all, the cops (while responsible) don't have the largest slice of responsibility.
CalChris 9y ago
I agree with the rest but underpaid, no. For the Oakland Police Department, where I live, the starting salary is $69,912 to $98,088. Retirement starts at 50. This job requires a GED.
- rahimnathwani 9y ago
  Don't forget overtime pay.
  - trophycase 9y ago
    And pension.
    - Bud 9y ago
      Whatever. Also don't forget, then, the cost of living in the Bay Area (astronomical) and the difficulties of policing in Oakland (formidable). Pension is something we should all expect. Not resent.
      - CalChris 9y ago
        Pension is something we should all expect at 50? Really?
        Bud 9y ago
        If you want to go work a few decades as an Oakland cop? Yes. That's my opinion. You are welcome to yours, sir.
      - rahimnathwani 9y ago
        Many people have difficult jobs in Oakland. Not all of them have lobbying power or unions to extract higher than market pay.
        Bud 9y ago
TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
The police, particularly in the US, seem to be quite fond of shooting people who are laying face down on the ground, or otherwise clearly not a threat. It isn't so clear how we are expected to act in an effort to reach the goal of avoiding death during a police encounter.
- isostatic 9y ago
  Move to one of the other 190ish countries?
cwbrandsma 9y ago
If you are a cop in this situation, not the lead officer, a grunt among other grunts. You are told the basic situation is that shots have been fired and women and children are in danger...as are you and your team. There is an ARMED individual in the house. Your police training also tells you there is a split second between you and one of your team getting killed as well. Your team members are also husbands and fathers. Your version of deescalating the situation is to remove the suspect as quickly as possible before anything REALLY bad happens (wife gets killed, kid gets killed, you get killed). These aren't "rage-monsters", they are afraid of what could happen. Also, it is good to remember, the worst case situation, is what cops often have to deal with. But those cases often don't make the news. Even in my small city, these worst case situations happen.
- scarface74 9y ago
  They signed up to put themselves in danger. I as a civilian never signed up for it. If anyone should accept an increased risk, it's not me or my family that were peacefully minding our own business.
- lostlogin 9y ago
  > often have to deal with. Really? A growing portion of total gun deaths are police shootings. ‘Serve and protect’ doesn’t seem to extend much further than themselves.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  But there isn't an armed individual in the house. You've just been told that there might be. Don't you see how you've fallen into the epistemological error here of not only assuming the truth of a claim without further evidence, but also shifting all your attention tot he possibility of someone being armed. That sounds very hand-wavey and you might say well it's a lot different in the real world, but I've been in a bunch of high-danger real-world situations. Survival is about more than having great reflexes, it's also about having a cool head and knowing when not to act. And look, while it's legitimate to have some fears/stress, rage monsters are absolutely a problem in policing. Cops are just as likely, or more, to take steroids or be assholes as people in the general population. Let's not forget that nobody is forced to be a cop. If you want to help people and like excitement you could always be an EMT or a firefighter. Your version of deescalating the situation is to remove the suspect as quickly as possible See, that's not de-escalation, it's catharsis through crisis - literally the exact opposite of de-escalation. By abdicating your own decision-making power you've ended up arguing for counterfactuals. I realize that you're attempting to model the thought process of police in high pressure situations, but counterfactuals + weapons = deadly errors. The thought process is, however, something we could change.

r00fus 9y ago

This was a mistaken address SWAT ing. How was the person supposed to know? Police officers that shoot ppl should be held liable as well as the SWAT caller.

bonzini 9y ago
Or is it whoever (edit: in the Wichita police) dispatched them without checking the details of the call, or adequately briefing them that the details were not clear? Because the guy who shot made a huge and deadly mistake, but the fact that you can call 911 and have someone SWATted is a big problem on its own.
- matt-attack 9y ago
  SWATing should just lead to a bit of wasted time, and a “sorry to bother you sir”. With proper response procedure it should be a complete non-issue. Placing blame on anyone but the cops is completely discounting the problem.
  - bonzini 9y ago
    I am saying it should be placed on the cops' boss. I agree with you that those should have been the consequences---i.e., none. Though, in a country where SWATting is a thing, whoever placed the call is very much responsible too, because he must have known the possible effect of his prank. All in all, the cops (while responsible) don't have the largest slice of responsibility.

CalChris 9y ago

I agree with the rest but underpaid, no. For the Oakland Police Department, where I live, the starting salary is $69,912 to $98,088. Retirement starts at 50. This job requires a GED.

rahimnathwani 9y ago
Don't forget overtime pay.
- trophycase 9y ago
  And pension.
  - Bud 9y ago
    Whatever. Also don't forget, then, the cost of living in the Bay Area (astronomical) and the difficulties of policing in Oakland (formidable). Pension is something we should all expect. Not resent.
    - CalChris 9y ago
      Pension is something we should all expect at 50? Really?
      - Bud 9y ago
        If you want to go work a few decades as an Oakland cop? Yes. That's my opinion. You are welcome to yours, sir.
    - rahimnathwani 9y ago
      Many people have difficult jobs in Oakland. Not all of them have lobbying power or unions to extract higher than market pay.
      - Bud 9y ago

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago

The police, particularly in the US, seem to be quite fond of shooting people who are laying face down on the ground, or otherwise clearly not a threat. It isn't so clear how we are expected to act in an effort to reach the goal of avoiding death during a police encounter.

isostatic 9y ago
Move to one of the other 190ish countries?

cwbrandsma 9y ago

If you are a cop in this situation, not the lead officer, a grunt among other grunts. You are told the basic situation is that shots have been fired and women and children are in danger...as are you and your team. There is an ARMED individual in the house. Your police training also tells you there is a split second between you and one of your team getting killed as well. Your team members are also husbands and fathers. Your version of deescalating the situation is to remove the suspect as quickly as possible before anything REALLY bad happens (wife gets killed, kid gets killed, you get killed). These aren't "rage-monsters", they are afraid of what could happen. Also, it is good to remember, the worst case situation, is what cops often have to deal with. But those cases often don't make the news. Even in my small city, these worst case situations happen.

scarface74 9y ago
They signed up to put themselves in danger. I as a civilian never signed up for it. If anyone should accept an increased risk, it's not me or my family that were peacefully minding our own business.
lostlogin 9y ago
> often have to deal with. Really? A growing portion of total gun deaths are police shootings. ‘Serve and protect’ doesn’t seem to extend much further than themselves.
anigbrowl 9y ago
But there isn't an armed individual in the house. You've just been told that there might be. Don't you see how you've fallen into the epistemological error here of not only assuming the truth of a claim without further evidence, but also shifting all your attention tot he possibility of someone being armed. That sounds very hand-wavey and you might say well it's a lot different in the real world, but I've been in a bunch of high-danger real-world situations. Survival is about more than having great reflexes, it's also about having a cool head and knowing when not to act. And look, while it's legitimate to have some fears/stress, rage monsters are absolutely a problem in policing. Cops are just as likely, or more, to take steroids or be assholes as people in the general population. Let's not forget that nobody is forced to be a cop. If you want to help people and like excitement you could always be an EMT or a firefighter. Your version of deescalating the situation is to remove the suspect as quickly as possible See, that's not de-escalation, it's catharsis through crisis - literally the exact opposite of de-escalation. By abdicating your own decision-making power you've ended up arguing for counterfactuals. I realize that you're attempting to model the thought process of police in high pressure situations, but counterfactuals + weapons = deadly errors. The thought process is, however, something we could change.