5 ms·

Yes, but sadly in America police need to assume a gun could be present in the home. It is a lot easier to not shoot your gun if you aren't worried about being s

Yes, but sadly in America police need to assume a gun could be present in the home. It is a lot easier to not shoot your gun if you aren't worried about being shot yourself.

HarryHirsch 8y ago
In the US, police shoot dead about 1000 civilians every year, and 40 or so police officers are shot in the line of duty. Consider that there are 325 million people living in the US, and 1 million are police officers. It's completely out of control.
- tprnz 8y ago
  Of those 1000 civilians who were shot dead, how many of them were in immediate risk of harming others? Just saying "1000 civilians every year" as if policemen had simply assassinated them is dishonest to say the least.
  - rhizome 8y ago
    The police will tell you that 100% of the killed were about to harm others.
    - HarryHirsch 8y ago
      Like those two women doing the newspaper delivery during the Dorner manhunt: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-no-charges-lapd-shooting-newspaper-delivery-women-dorner-manhunt-20160127-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-no-charges-lapd-...
      - rhizome 8y ago
        And here we see the famous "we didn't know they weren't dangerous" excuse: "There is no evidence to suggest that the officers did not honestly believe that Dorner was in the vehicle, nor is there evidence to suggest that the officers did not honestly believe they were being fired upon."
  - alphabettsy 8y ago
    Where are the adjudicated results of these incidents available where there are reasonable and transparent investigatory and evidentiary standards in place? Otherwise we’re relying on a biased parties description of events alone. What would be an acceptable figure of those that aren’t immediately at risk of harming others being killed? What about injured? The media rightly tends to focus on killings, but what about unnecessary shootings or use of force that don’t result in death. Currently that’s a non-zero number and we know that the man killed in this case was not a threat as well.
    - tprnz 8y ago
      We should strive to make it a non-zero number, but saying "policemen should not be able to use deadly force against aggressors" just because the number is >0 is profoundly retarded.
      - tprnz 8y ago
        We should strive to make it zero* now I can't edit :P
talltimtom 8y ago
Criminals have guns in the UK just the same. Unless the US police is worried about being shot by innoscent civilians that is no justification. And if they are then why on earth aren’t they doing a better job of verifying credible threat in these situations before they enter?

Yes, but sadly in America police need to assume a gun could be present in the home. It is a lot easier to not shoot your gun if you aren't worried about being shot yourself.

HarryHirsch 8y ago

In the US, police shoot dead about 1000 civilians every year, and 40 or so police officers are shot in the line of duty. Consider that there are 325 million people living in the US, and 1 million are police officers. It's completely out of control.

tprnz 8y ago
Of those 1000 civilians who were shot dead, how many of them were in immediate risk of harming others? Just saying "1000 civilians every year" as if policemen had simply assassinated them is dishonest to say the least.
- rhizome 8y ago
  The police will tell you that 100% of the killed were about to harm others.
  - HarryHirsch 8y ago
    Like those two women doing the newspaper delivery during the Dorner manhunt: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-no-charges-lapd-shooting-newspaper-delivery-women-dorner-manhunt-20160127-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-no-charges-lapd-...
    - rhizome 8y ago
      And here we see the famous "we didn't know they weren't dangerous" excuse: "There is no evidence to suggest that the officers did not honestly believe that Dorner was in the vehicle, nor is there evidence to suggest that the officers did not honestly believe they were being fired upon."
- alphabettsy 8y ago
  Where are the adjudicated results of these incidents available where there are reasonable and transparent investigatory and evidentiary standards in place? Otherwise we’re relying on a biased parties description of events alone. What would be an acceptable figure of those that aren’t immediately at risk of harming others being killed? What about injured? The media rightly tends to focus on killings, but what about unnecessary shootings or use of force that don’t result in death. Currently that’s a non-zero number and we know that the man killed in this case was not a threat as well.
  - tprnz 8y ago
    We should strive to make it a non-zero number, but saying "policemen should not be able to use deadly force against aggressors" just because the number is >0 is profoundly retarded.
    - tprnz 8y ago
      We should strive to make it zero* now I can't edit :P

talltimtom 8y ago

Criminals have guns in the UK just the same. Unless the US police is worried about being shot by innoscent civilians that is no justification. And if they are then why on earth aren’t they doing a better job of verifying credible threat in these situations before they enter?