8 ms·

How much risk do you expect police to take on? This man threatened them with lethal force, in the face of drawn weapons. Even if they were to attempt to subdue,

How much risk do you expect police to take on? This man threatened them with lethal force, in the face of drawn weapons. Even if they were to attempt to subdue, they would be risking severe bodily harm. At some point I believe a human being momentarily forfeits their right to life when they show reckless, deliberate disdain for the life of others. Deadly force was met with deadly force. The power imbalance is irrelevant, considering how much damage a man can do with a pipe, and the fact that he was fully aware of the situation.

eropple 8y ago
> How much risk do you expect police to take on? All of it. I will trade a hundred dead police officers for one citizen who would have been unjustly harmed and sleep soundly for it. Police receive power from the state and significant social plaudits. In exchange, they place the well-being of every citizen over their own. That's the deal. It is being abrogated regularly. That needs to change.
- ThrowawayR2 8y ago
  > All of it. I will trade a hundred dead police officers for one citizen who would have been unjustly harmed and sleep soundly for it. And where are you going to find people self-sacrificing enough to take that job?
  - eropple 8y ago
    I would rather have trouble finding police officers than find places to bury the citizens who bad police victimize.
    - throwaway080383 8y ago
      Do you actually think there would be fewer dead bodies if there were significantly fewer police?
  - SuoDuanDao 8y ago
    You could institute some kind of a draft. And I imagine fewer people would break the law if they had to enforce it for two years.
- techsupporter 8y ago
  > In exchange, they place the well-being of every citizen over their own. That's the deal. Sadly, this hasn't been the deal in my lifetime and, to hear my parents--both of whom were police officers--tell it, for longer than that. Every person I've ever interacted with who is or has been a police officer has said that the message is that your first duty is to "go home to your family." The "bad guys" aren't worthy of self-sacrifice and heroics. Now if you, as an officer, happen to die because you selflessly saved "a civilian" (notice how that's different from "a bad guy"), then you are seen as deserving of all of the heroic writings ever to be written about a human. But if you die as a result of a supposedly-preventable outcome of a confrontation with "a bad guy", meaning that you didn't fire soon enough or you tried non-lethal methods in a situation such as described here, then you're just an idiot. So you've not so much sacrificed as a hero but simply failed. I genuinely don't think that any police officer, or at least any significant number of them, sees themselves as having placed the well-being of every citizen-including-"perps" over their own. I kind of get it; when it comes to me versus the other guy, of course I want to be the one still alive at the end. I guess that means there's something fundamentally broken with how we parcel out state-backed forced.
  - eropple 8y ago
    > I genuinely don't think that any police officer, or at least any significant number of them, sees themselves as having placed the well-being of every citizen-including-"perps" over their own. I agree with this depiction of the current state of affairs. I am saying that it is bonkers and wrong, because it is bonkers and wrong. You can't have a free society that fears its police.
    - throwaway080383 8y ago
      I can simultaneously be okay with the police shooting a man coming at them aggressively with a pipe and not fear the police, because I have no intention of going after the police with a pipe.
      - orf 8y ago
        Or aggressively pulling his trousers up whilst lying in a hallway begging for his life. Warning, this is terrible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBUUx0jUKxc&has_verified=1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBUUx0jUKxc&has_verified=1
- gspetr 8y ago
  http://www.frfrogspad.com/fantasy.htm http://www.frfrogspad.com/fantasy.htm "The question that is frequently asked is Under what circumstances does the state or municipal entities have a constitutional duty to protect citizens from violence at the hands of private actors? The general answer to this question is that there is no constitutional duty to protect free citizens. The only clear case of a duty to protect is when a citizen is in the custody of a state or municipality."
  - eropple 8y ago
    Respectfully: you are assuming, with this answer, that I do not understand what the currently-held jurisprudence is. And not that I assert that that jurisprudence is horseshit. Because I do understand it, and it is horseshit.
    - gspetr 8y ago
      No, I respect you as an HN contributor and wouldn't offend your intelligence with that. Since comments are public I don't necessarily address the parent poster with them, I also speak to the broader reader/commenter base. I should have made myself clear on that, sorry.
mikeash 8y ago
Are police not able to run away? How much risk are they really in from a blunt melee weapon?
- adamtj 8y ago
  Are the police not able to run away? No, not really. To threaten somebody with deadly force is a felony. You or I would have a duty to run away if possible. A police officer has a duty to apprehend the suspect. What if the officers ran away and their assailant went on to assault and kill others? As for how much risk a blunt weapon poses, a pipe can easily cave in a person's skull with a single blow. Successfully blocking the strike could result in a compound fracture of the forearm ... and then a caved-in skull. Broken ribs can cause punctured lungs and death from a pneumothorax. And it can all happen in a fraction of a second. Real life violence is not a dance, like those long drawn-out fight scenes in movies. It's not about throwing punches and inflicting pain until somebody gives up. It's about breaking bodies so thoroughly that it's irrelevant whether the other person wants to give up or not. It's sudden, fast, confusing, brutal, and often horrific. The survivors of real world violence often come away knowing the smell of brains or freshly spilled bowels. Before second guessing the police, it's important to know just what they really face. Read some books on real life violence. It's sobering. Rory Miller is a good place to start.
  - mikeash 8y ago
    You say they can’t run because they have a duty to apprehend the suspect. Why, then, is it ok to kill the suspect?
    - adamtj 8y ago
      I believe you are under a mistaken assumption. It's never ok to kill the suspect. Still, one can be justified in using lethal force. It's a very subtle distinction. You never shoot to kill. That's simply murder. You shoot to stop the attack -- even if that's very likely to result in the death of the person you're shooting at. It can be justifiable to shoot somebody running at you with a deadly weapon. Shutting down the circulation is a fairly quick and reliable way to stop somebody from taking actions that threaten your life. But, once they stop running at you and crumple to the ground, you have to stop shooting. If you continue shooting, that's murder. If somebody turns to run, a civilian must stop shooting or it's murder. (In certain circumstances, the police can and should continue shooting.) Again, it's subtle. So, it's not ok to intentionally kill the suspect, but it can be ok to use deadly force. I'll assume you're really asking why deadly force might be acceptable. A pipe in the hand is a lethal weapon. If a police officer is duty-bound to apprehend a person who is using lethal force against him, it would be insane to use anything less than lethal force in response. If an officer attempts to use less effective non-lethal means, but fails and is killed, then he is not only dead, but also has failed in his duty to protect the public just as if he had run away. It's important to remember that these situations can happen extremely fast, under enormous stress. A routine encounter can turn deadly serious in a fraction of a second. The whole thing can be over in under three seconds. There is no time to think or reason. To think is to hesitate, and to hesitate is to die. You must have a trained reflex: if they use deadly force, then I shoot at center-of-mass. Seeing a pipe in the hand of an approaching person might be the trigger for that reflex. It's not quite so simple, though. It's best to prime the reflex by thinking it through before-hand. Police officers must constantly maintain situational awareness, thinking through possible scenarios and priming their reflexes based on who is around and how they're acting. It's a very difficult and dangerous job.
contras1970 8y ago
meanwhile, in europe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mzPj_IaMzY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mzPj_IaMzY

eropple 8y ago

> How much risk do you expect police to take on? All of it. I will trade a hundred dead police officers for one citizen who would have been unjustly harmed and sleep soundly for it. Police receive power from the state and significant social plaudits. In exchange, they place the well-being of every citizen over their own. That's the deal. It is being abrogated regularly. That needs to change.

ThrowawayR2 8y ago
> All of it. I will trade a hundred dead police officers for one citizen who would have been unjustly harmed and sleep soundly for it. And where are you going to find people self-sacrificing enough to take that job?
- eropple 8y ago
  I would rather have trouble finding police officers than find places to bury the citizens who bad police victimize.
  - throwaway080383 8y ago
    Do you actually think there would be fewer dead bodies if there were significantly fewer police?
- SuoDuanDao 8y ago
  You could institute some kind of a draft. And I imagine fewer people would break the law if they had to enforce it for two years.
techsupporter 8y ago
> In exchange, they place the well-being of every citizen over their own. That's the deal. Sadly, this hasn't been the deal in my lifetime and, to hear my parents--both of whom were police officers--tell it, for longer than that. Every person I've ever interacted with who is or has been a police officer has said that the message is that your first duty is to "go home to your family." The "bad guys" aren't worthy of self-sacrifice and heroics. Now if you, as an officer, happen to die because you selflessly saved "a civilian" (notice how that's different from "a bad guy"), then you are seen as deserving of all of the heroic writings ever to be written about a human. But if you die as a result of a supposedly-preventable outcome of a confrontation with "a bad guy", meaning that you didn't fire soon enough or you tried non-lethal methods in a situation such as described here, then you're just an idiot. So you've not so much sacrificed as a hero but simply failed. I genuinely don't think that any police officer, or at least any significant number of them, sees themselves as having placed the well-being of every citizen-including-"perps" over their own. I kind of get it; when it comes to me versus the other guy, of course I want to be the one still alive at the end. I guess that means there's something fundamentally broken with how we parcel out state-backed forced.
- eropple 8y ago
  > I genuinely don't think that any police officer, or at least any significant number of them, sees themselves as having placed the well-being of every citizen-including-"perps" over their own. I agree with this depiction of the current state of affairs. I am saying that it is bonkers and wrong, because it is bonkers and wrong. You can't have a free society that fears its police.
  - throwaway080383 8y ago
    I can simultaneously be okay with the police shooting a man coming at them aggressively with a pipe and not fear the police, because I have no intention of going after the police with a pipe.
    - orf 8y ago
      Or aggressively pulling his trousers up whilst lying in a hallway begging for his life. Warning, this is terrible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBUUx0jUKxc&has_verified=1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBUUx0jUKxc&has_verified=1
gspetr 8y ago
http://www.frfrogspad.com/fantasy.htm http://www.frfrogspad.com/fantasy.htm "The question that is frequently asked is Under what circumstances does the state or municipal entities have a constitutional duty to protect citizens from violence at the hands of private actors? The general answer to this question is that there is no constitutional duty to protect free citizens. The only clear case of a duty to protect is when a citizen is in the custody of a state or municipality."
- eropple 8y ago
  Respectfully: you are assuming, with this answer, that I do not understand what the currently-held jurisprudence is. And not that I assert that that jurisprudence is horseshit. Because I do understand it, and it is horseshit.
  - gspetr 8y ago
    No, I respect you as an HN contributor and wouldn't offend your intelligence with that. Since comments are public I don't necessarily address the parent poster with them, I also speak to the broader reader/commenter base. I should have made myself clear on that, sorry.

mikeash 8y ago

Are police not able to run away? How much risk are they really in from a blunt melee weapon?

adamtj 8y ago
Are the police not able to run away? No, not really. To threaten somebody with deadly force is a felony. You or I would have a duty to run away if possible. A police officer has a duty to apprehend the suspect. What if the officers ran away and their assailant went on to assault and kill others? As for how much risk a blunt weapon poses, a pipe can easily cave in a person's skull with a single blow. Successfully blocking the strike could result in a compound fracture of the forearm ... and then a caved-in skull. Broken ribs can cause punctured lungs and death from a pneumothorax. And it can all happen in a fraction of a second. Real life violence is not a dance, like those long drawn-out fight scenes in movies. It's not about throwing punches and inflicting pain until somebody gives up. It's about breaking bodies so thoroughly that it's irrelevant whether the other person wants to give up or not. It's sudden, fast, confusing, brutal, and often horrific. The survivors of real world violence often come away knowing the smell of brains or freshly spilled bowels. Before second guessing the police, it's important to know just what they really face. Read some books on real life violence. It's sobering. Rory Miller is a good place to start.
- mikeash 8y ago
  You say they can’t run because they have a duty to apprehend the suspect. Why, then, is it ok to kill the suspect?
  - adamtj 8y ago
    I believe you are under a mistaken assumption. It's never ok to kill the suspect. Still, one can be justified in using lethal force. It's a very subtle distinction. You never shoot to kill. That's simply murder. You shoot to stop the attack -- even if that's very likely to result in the death of the person you're shooting at. It can be justifiable to shoot somebody running at you with a deadly weapon. Shutting down the circulation is a fairly quick and reliable way to stop somebody from taking actions that threaten your life. But, once they stop running at you and crumple to the ground, you have to stop shooting. If you continue shooting, that's murder. If somebody turns to run, a civilian must stop shooting or it's murder. (In certain circumstances, the police can and should continue shooting.) Again, it's subtle. So, it's not ok to intentionally kill the suspect, but it can be ok to use deadly force. I'll assume you're really asking why deadly force might be acceptable. A pipe in the hand is a lethal weapon. If a police officer is duty-bound to apprehend a person who is using lethal force against him, it would be insane to use anything less than lethal force in response. If an officer attempts to use less effective non-lethal means, but fails and is killed, then he is not only dead, but also has failed in his duty to protect the public just as if he had run away. It's important to remember that these situations can happen extremely fast, under enormous stress. A routine encounter can turn deadly serious in a fraction of a second. The whole thing can be over in under three seconds. There is no time to think or reason. To think is to hesitate, and to hesitate is to die. You must have a trained reflex: if they use deadly force, then I shoot at center-of-mass. Seeing a pipe in the hand of an approaching person might be the trigger for that reflex. It's not quite so simple, though. It's best to prime the reflex by thinking it through before-hand. Police officers must constantly maintain situational awareness, thinking through possible scenarios and priming their reflexes based on who is around and how they're acting. It's a very difficult and dangerous job.

contras1970 8y ago

meanwhile, in europe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mzPj_IaMzY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mzPj_IaMzY