3 ms·

I don't understand why police aren't legally restricted from firing their weapon unless they are fired upon or witness a suspect firing upon others. Soldiers ar

I don't understand why police aren't legally restricted from firing their weapon unless they are fired upon or witness a suspect firing upon others. Soldiers are required to not fire unless fired upon. Yes, that means we may be putting officers in more danger, but they signed up for the job and killing innocent people is unforgivable.

stevew20 8y ago
"Soldiers are required to not fire unless fired upon" Not necessarily true; it depends on the rules of engagement (ROE). I've been under orders to not fire back unless I receive accurate enemy fire; I've also had a kill zone ROE, where it was open season on anything that "appears non-friendly". That said, I completely agree with the rest Police in the US are: - Sloppy: they don't follow procedures and policies, because they know they won't be punished - Above the Law: they aren't punished proportionally to their mistakes (See the UCMJ for proper recriminations) - Have a toxic "Alpha" culture: respond to anything but subservience with escalation, especially if you point out a mistake they made - Overly aggressive: I've worked with Navy SEALS, AF Combat Controllers, and MARSOC Marines; US Cops try harder than all the rest to assert their dominance through aggressiveness - Communicatively delusional: they hear what they want to hear, forget anything that doesn't align with their view of "Everyone is a lawbreaker"
foxyv 8y ago
There are clear rules about using lethal force in the United States which are the same for police as anyone else. The major difference is police are required to engage in situations that necessitate it rather than required to retreat from them. Unfortunately the SWATer knew exactly what to say to provide the requirements for lethal force. Jeopardy, (I will kill you), capability (I have a gun), and Imminence (I will shoot them when they come out.) The police had reasonable cause to believe the call was legitimate. Any reasonable person would have believed the same, given the information they were given and training they have gone through. Just because the guy wasn't pointing a gun at them didn't mean he couldn't do so before they can react. If you have time you can see demos and videos of situations exactly like this one that end with police and innocent bystanders being killed. The blame lies with the SWATer himself and the systems that failed to recognize that the call was bogus. We can't blame police for failing to recognize that this situation wasn't like the ten others that they or their coworkers responded to where the man was armed and the kids were dead.

stevew20 8y ago

"Soldiers are required to not fire unless fired upon" Not necessarily true; it depends on the rules of engagement (ROE). I've been under orders to not fire back unless I receive accurate enemy fire; I've also had a kill zone ROE, where it was open season on anything that "appears non-friendly". That said, I completely agree with the rest Police in the US are: - Sloppy: they don't follow procedures and policies, because they know they won't be punished - Above the Law: they aren't punished proportionally to their mistakes (See the UCMJ for proper recriminations) - Have a toxic "Alpha" culture: respond to anything but subservience with escalation, especially if you point out a mistake they made - Overly aggressive: I've worked with Navy SEALS, AF Combat Controllers, and MARSOC Marines; US Cops try harder than all the rest to assert their dominance through aggressiveness - Communicatively delusional: they hear what they want to hear, forget anything that doesn't align with their view of "Everyone is a lawbreaker"

foxyv 8y ago

There are clear rules about using lethal force in the United States which are the same for police as anyone else. The major difference is police are required to engage in situations that necessitate it rather than required to retreat from them. Unfortunately the SWATer knew exactly what to say to provide the requirements for lethal force. Jeopardy, (I will kill you), capability (I have a gun), and Imminence (I will shoot them when they come out.) The police had reasonable cause to believe the call was legitimate. Any reasonable person would have believed the same, given the information they were given and training they have gone through. Just because the guy wasn't pointing a gun at them didn't mean he couldn't do so before they can react. If you have time you can see demos and videos of situations exactly like this one that end with police and innocent bystanders being killed. The blame lies with the SWATer himself and the systems that failed to recognize that the call was bogus. We can't blame police for failing to recognize that this situation wasn't like the ten others that they or their coworkers responded to where the man was armed and the kids were dead.