4 ms·

I had a friend whose dad took a shotgun blast to the face entering a home serving a search warrant. It's not uncommon. The officer is acting on the facts that a

I had a friend whose dad took a shotgun blast to the face entering a home serving a search warrant. It's not uncommon. The officer is acting on the facts that are presented to them. This isn't a domestic violence call or an assault call. It's a call instructing the police that someone is armed and a threat to those around them.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
The fact that it's a "serious call" doesn't excuse shooting him on sight. Shooting people on sight is totally inappropriate ROE for a civilian police force in any situation.
Miner49er 7y ago
Was it a no knock raid? Context matters. If you break into someones home then it's perfect legal for them to shoot you in most states. It doesn't matter if you're a police officer or not.
webkike 7y ago
Sure, but it seems weird to prioritize the life of the police officer over the people they are sworn to protect. Policing is inherently dangerous. Sitting at home playing video games should not
- happytoexplain 7y ago
  This is one of the most important points to me, and I rarely see it discussed. Defenders of killings by police usually point to the officer's feelings of safety and right to defend themselves using what seem to be the same standards as any average civilian. If you gave me a gun and put me in a dangerous situation I might pull the trigger when I didn't absolutely need to out of fear, and it might be totally reasonable for me to do that. That's why I'm not a police officer. We have a profession where part of the job description involves the possibility of shooting civilians to death, and we are somehow unable or unwilling to get tough and establish a bar of professionalism commensurate with such an extraordinary job description.
- almost_usual 7y ago
  >Sure, but it seems weird to prioritize the life of the police officer over the people they are sworn to protect. If the officer doesn't engage out of caution and an innocent person in the residence (non officer) dies is that still ok?
  - webkike 7y ago
    How often does that happen? I can make the same argument about killing literally anyone because they might kill other people.
    - almost_usual 7y ago
      >I can make the same argument about killing literally anyone because they might kill other people. This feels like a slippery slope fallacy.
      - webkike 7y ago
        That’s my point
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
weego 7y ago
It's actually far less common than the various narratives would lead you to assume.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
fucking_tragedy 7y ago
If soldiers in an active war zone can follow their rules of engagement and resist shooting civilians even though they're scared, so can cops.
- rmrfrmrf 7y ago
  is there evidence that soldiers follow their rules of engagement?
  - jacobush 7y ago
    This is what I've always heard. I am sure the amount of violations is higher in absolute numbers, given that it's war and a lot of things. Anecdotally I've also heard former military police officers are the best de-escalators.
    - jacobush 7y ago
      ... and thinking about it, I think the difference is this: "At home", the police already has control over the land. They have "won" almost by default. No opponent can challenge them, or have any interest in seriously taking them on. The military, on the other hand often operates where they are instructed to "win the hearts and minds" and if they don't get local support, things can go very badly for them. Which gives, it's unfortunate police not more often tries to "win hearts and minds".
dependenttypes 7y ago
To me it seems that the police who killed the civilian is not any better than the one who killed the father of your friend. (In fact, he seems worse because at least the dude that killed your friend's father could use the "castle doctrine" defence)
inscionent 7y ago
Knowing a situation is dangerous is not an excuse for opening fire on an unidentified target.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago

The fact that it's a "serious call" doesn't excuse shooting him on sight. Shooting people on sight is totally inappropriate ROE for a civilian police force in any situation.

Miner49er 7y ago

Was it a no knock raid? Context matters. If you break into someones home then it's perfect legal for them to shoot you in most states. It doesn't matter if you're a police officer or not.

webkike 7y ago

Sure, but it seems weird to prioritize the life of the police officer over the people they are sworn to protect. Policing is inherently dangerous. Sitting at home playing video games should not

happytoexplain 7y ago
This is one of the most important points to me, and I rarely see it discussed. Defenders of killings by police usually point to the officer's feelings of safety and right to defend themselves using what seem to be the same standards as any average civilian. If you gave me a gun and put me in a dangerous situation I might pull the trigger when I didn't absolutely need to out of fear, and it might be totally reasonable for me to do that. That's why I'm not a police officer. We have a profession where part of the job description involves the possibility of shooting civilians to death, and we are somehow unable or unwilling to get tough and establish a bar of professionalism commensurate with such an extraordinary job description.
almost_usual 7y ago
>Sure, but it seems weird to prioritize the life of the police officer over the people they are sworn to protect. If the officer doesn't engage out of caution and an innocent person in the residence (non officer) dies is that still ok?
- webkike 7y ago
  How often does that happen? I can make the same argument about killing literally anyone because they might kill other people.
  - almost_usual 7y ago
    >I can make the same argument about killing literally anyone because they might kill other people. This feels like a slippery slope fallacy.
    - webkike 7y ago
      That’s my point
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]

weego 7y ago

It's actually far less common than the various narratives would lead you to assume.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

fucking_tragedy 7y ago

If soldiers in an active war zone can follow their rules of engagement and resist shooting civilians even though they're scared, so can cops.

rmrfrmrf 7y ago
is there evidence that soldiers follow their rules of engagement?
- jacobush 7y ago
  This is what I've always heard. I am sure the amount of violations is higher in absolute numbers, given that it's war and a lot of things. Anecdotally I've also heard former military police officers are the best de-escalators.
  - jacobush 7y ago
    ... and thinking about it, I think the difference is this: "At home", the police already has control over the land. They have "won" almost by default. No opponent can challenge them, or have any interest in seriously taking them on. The military, on the other hand often operates where they are instructed to "win the hearts and minds" and if they don't get local support, things can go very badly for them. Which gives, it's unfortunate police not more often tries to "win hearts and minds".

dependenttypes 7y ago

To me it seems that the police who killed the civilian is not any better than the one who killed the father of your friend. (In fact, he seems worse because at least the dude that killed your friend's father could use the "castle doctrine" defence)

inscionent 7y ago

Knowing a situation is dangerous is not an excuse for opening fire on an unidentified target.