4 ms·

When I read stories like the one you linked I wonder how a normal person won't get shot because they make some weird movement. Having a bunch of armed guys yell

When I read stories like the one you linked I wonder how a normal person won't get shot because they make some weird movement. Having a bunch of armed guys yell at you is a pretty stressful situation and a lot of people simply will not comprehend what's going on and not "comply" in some way. Sometimes I wonder if cops have watched too many action movies and try to emulate these movies. How about first waiting and assess the situation? Why that rush and aggressiveness?

artificial 8y ago
There are rules of engagement that are stricter in a war zone. Also one of the incentives is the pay increases when geared up.
- gammateam 8y ago
  The Federal Government is more humane than the independent states' well armed militias. The Federal Government exists in a cohesive world that requires cooperation. The States are exempt from that, exempt from actual challenges to their sovereignty because the Federal Government will protect them, and they are also exempt from oversight from the Federal Government as long as they pass their own laws to justify their egregious behavior.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    > The Federal Government is more humane than the independent states' well armed militias. Only if you somehow manage to ignore everything the federal government is doing internationally (15 & 17yr wars [with no end], ignoring ethnic cleansing in Myanmar, etc). > and they are also exempt from oversight from the Federal Government That's not true at all. For a very recent (today) example: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-net-neutrality-lawsuit-against-state-california-0 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-net-...
    - gammateam 8y ago
      I was very particular with my words. The outcome may not be agreeable but the Federal Government's military and rules of engagement are much more humane and nuanced than anything any of the state's have ever legislated. I don't agree with the ideology supporting the wars, or processes behind the drone strikes. That doesn't undermine my argument. Secondly, you decided to link something completely out of context to the discussion of the state's well armed militias, which is the only thing I am referring to in the whole post.
      - pritambaral 8y ago
        > Secondly, you decided to link something completely out of context to the discussion of the state's well armed militias, which is the only thing I am referring to in the whole post. You claimed "The States are exempt ... from oversight from the Federal Government as long as they pass their own laws to justify their egregious behavior" as an explanation for why the US Federal Government does not (or chooses to not) interfere with State militia. The lawsuit by the US DoJ against California's NN law demonstrates that your claim doesn't hold.
        gammateam 8y ago
        We're talking about the state's police departments, I just don't understand how you would expect recurring adjectives every single time just to avoid your "AHA I found a hole in his theory" filter. The Federal Government won't assume oversight of police departments if there is some form of due process.
        Reelin 8y ago
        > exempt from oversight from the Federal Government as long as they pass their own laws to justify their egregious behavior > won't assume oversight of police departments if there is some form of due process Those two statements (by you) are quite different. I'm inclined to agree with the second one, as I've never heard of a federal agency taking over a local police department before. However, I'm inclined to disagree with the first (depending on the precise definition of oversight, of course). As just one example, consider the DoJ investigation of the SPD a few years ago. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/12/16/spd_findletter_12-16-11.pdf https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/...
- Balgair 8y ago
  I think you've hit on something there: Incentives. What are the incentives for the PD in an armed situation? To stay alive, yes, of course. But are there other incentives? The guns blazing approach indicates there are other incentives. If they wanted to 'just' stay alive, they'd put a lot of distance between themselves and the suspect, get a lot of back-up, etc. But there is another possible incentive too: glory/honor. For many male-centric groups, dis/honor is a VERY powerful incentive. Taking down the 'bad-guy' and earning honor/glory through that act can be quite motivating. But can you replace that incentive with another one that is less 'thrill seeking'? How about 'hazard pay', payed by the number of hours that an officer is in a life-threatening situation, escalating with the time spent on scene? Like, you corner a suspect, but the longer the standoff lasts, the more pay the officer gets, and the more officers there are on the scene, the more the pay increases? That'll incentivize the officers to wait things out, get back-up, give time for media to get on site, and probably decrease fatalities. Or, you know, less guns on the streets too.
khazhou 8y ago
Exactly what happened here: https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/prank-swat-call-leads-to-innocent-mans-death-following-call-of-duty-game-gone-wrong https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/prank-swat-call-...
user111233 8y ago
> wonder how a normal person won't get shot because they make some weird movement. They do all the time. I saw a video where American police were yelling confusing instructions at a drunk guy clearly trying to do what they ask but unable to work out what they want and when he fell over they opened fire at him because he made a quick movement. But its almost justified. I have seen videos where someone moves their arm just a bit and the police start shooting instantly before I even know what has happened and a gun falls out of the dead targets pocket. Thats just what happens when any random stranger could be carrying a gun. Its almost unheard of for someone to be wrongly shot by police in Australia (Probably has happened but its no where near like America)
- Reelin 8y ago
  > Thats just what happens when any random stranger could be carrying a gun. I'm not so sure about that. Admittedly I haven't spent the time to do reliable research, but I get the distinct impression that fewer people here are actively carrying weapons today than in, say, the 1950s. Yet over time the police seem to have an increasing amount of military gear, generally seem more on edge when I encounter them in public, and it feels much more like an "Us vs Them" thing is going on. It also concerns me that I can't seem to identify a clear root cause for why that would be happening.
- jazoom 8y ago
  Can confirm. I've never felt in danger around an Australian police officer, despite the fact they're packing. I reckon even if I did something stupid around them I'd probably get pepper sprayed rather than shot.
  - angry_octet 8y ago
    You wouldn't want to be mentally ill though. Two cases spring to mind where (young, inexperienced) police shot people without cause. In one case, at a large park, shot a youth, with no one nearby, because he had a $2 steak knife. In another case, in the person's home, where the police had forcefully entered because of a report they might have been suicidal.
pas 8y ago
> I wonder how a normal person won't get shot because they make some weird movement. Yes, that seems to be the key. If armed people point rifles toward you, lay flat on the ground, extend your arms away from your core, and wait. Eventually they will calm down and search you.

artificial 8y ago

There are rules of engagement that are stricter in a war zone. Also one of the incentives is the pay increases when geared up.

gammateam 8y ago
The Federal Government is more humane than the independent states' well armed militias. The Federal Government exists in a cohesive world that requires cooperation. The States are exempt from that, exempt from actual challenges to their sovereignty because the Federal Government will protect them, and they are also exempt from oversight from the Federal Government as long as they pass their own laws to justify their egregious behavior.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  > The Federal Government is more humane than the independent states' well armed militias. Only if you somehow manage to ignore everything the federal government is doing internationally (15 & 17yr wars [with no end], ignoring ethnic cleansing in Myanmar, etc). > and they are also exempt from oversight from the Federal Government That's not true at all. For a very recent (today) example: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-net-neutrality-lawsuit-against-state-california-0 https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-net-...
  - gammateam 8y ago
    I was very particular with my words. The outcome may not be agreeable but the Federal Government's military and rules of engagement are much more humane and nuanced than anything any of the state's have ever legislated. I don't agree with the ideology supporting the wars, or processes behind the drone strikes. That doesn't undermine my argument. Secondly, you decided to link something completely out of context to the discussion of the state's well armed militias, which is the only thing I am referring to in the whole post.
    - pritambaral 8y ago
      > Secondly, you decided to link something completely out of context to the discussion of the state's well armed militias, which is the only thing I am referring to in the whole post. You claimed "The States are exempt ... from oversight from the Federal Government as long as they pass their own laws to justify their egregious behavior" as an explanation for why the US Federal Government does not (or chooses to not) interfere with State militia. The lawsuit by the US DoJ against California's NN law demonstrates that your claim doesn't hold.
      - gammateam 8y ago
        We're talking about the state's police departments, I just don't understand how you would expect recurring adjectives every single time just to avoid your "AHA I found a hole in his theory" filter. The Federal Government won't assume oversight of police departments if there is some form of due process.
        Reelin 8y ago
        > exempt from oversight from the Federal Government as long as they pass their own laws to justify their egregious behavior > won't assume oversight of police departments if there is some form of due process Those two statements (by you) are quite different. I'm inclined to agree with the second one, as I've never heard of a federal agency taking over a local police department before. However, I'm inclined to disagree with the first (depending on the precise definition of oversight, of course). As just one example, consider the DoJ investigation of the SPD a few years ago. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/12/16/spd_findletter_12-16-11.pdf https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2011/...
Balgair 8y ago
I think you've hit on something there: Incentives. What are the incentives for the PD in an armed situation? To stay alive, yes, of course. But are there other incentives? The guns blazing approach indicates there are other incentives. If they wanted to 'just' stay alive, they'd put a lot of distance between themselves and the suspect, get a lot of back-up, etc. But there is another possible incentive too: glory/honor. For many male-centric groups, dis/honor is a VERY powerful incentive. Taking down the 'bad-guy' and earning honor/glory through that act can be quite motivating. But can you replace that incentive with another one that is less 'thrill seeking'? How about 'hazard pay', payed by the number of hours that an officer is in a life-threatening situation, escalating with the time spent on scene? Like, you corner a suspect, but the longer the standoff lasts, the more pay the officer gets, and the more officers there are on the scene, the more the pay increases? That'll incentivize the officers to wait things out, get back-up, give time for media to get on site, and probably decrease fatalities. Or, you know, less guns on the streets too.

khazhou 8y ago

Exactly what happened here: https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/prank-swat-call-leads-to-innocent-mans-death-following-call-of-duty-game-gone-wrong https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/national/prank-swat-call-...

user111233 8y ago

> wonder how a normal person won't get shot because they make some weird movement. They do all the time. I saw a video where American police were yelling confusing instructions at a drunk guy clearly trying to do what they ask but unable to work out what they want and when he fell over they opened fire at him because he made a quick movement. But its almost justified. I have seen videos where someone moves their arm just a bit and the police start shooting instantly before I even know what has happened and a gun falls out of the dead targets pocket. Thats just what happens when any random stranger could be carrying a gun. Its almost unheard of for someone to be wrongly shot by police in Australia (Probably has happened but its no where near like America)

Reelin 8y ago
> Thats just what happens when any random stranger could be carrying a gun. I'm not so sure about that. Admittedly I haven't spent the time to do reliable research, but I get the distinct impression that fewer people here are actively carrying weapons today than in, say, the 1950s. Yet over time the police seem to have an increasing amount of military gear, generally seem more on edge when I encounter them in public, and it feels much more like an "Us vs Them" thing is going on. It also concerns me that I can't seem to identify a clear root cause for why that would be happening.
jazoom 8y ago
Can confirm. I've never felt in danger around an Australian police officer, despite the fact they're packing. I reckon even if I did something stupid around them I'd probably get pepper sprayed rather than shot.
- angry_octet 8y ago
  You wouldn't want to be mentally ill though. Two cases spring to mind where (young, inexperienced) police shot people without cause. In one case, at a large park, shot a youth, with no one nearby, because he had a $2 steak knife. In another case, in the person's home, where the police had forcefully entered because of a report they might have been suicidal.

pas 8y ago

> I wonder how a normal person won't get shot because they make some weird movement. Yes, that seems to be the key. If armed people point rifles toward you, lay flat on the ground, extend your arms away from your core, and wait. Eventually they will calm down and search you.