6 ms·

Justifying lethal force against people running away astounds me. It’s one thing if you’re running away with nuclear launch codes, but I’m skeptical that was th

Justifying lethal force against people running away astounds me. It’s one thing if you’re running away with nuclear launch codes, but I’m skeptical that was the case here.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mmm_grayons 6y ago
He was running away with a weapon, though. It's not an easy choice, but better a criminal get shot than he go hurt an innocent civilian.
- lostlogin 6y ago
  The third option was to have no one die or get shot.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  People have access to actual, lethal weapons all the time! (This is especially true in the US.) That doesn't mean you can just go around shooting people on the off chance that they might go using them against others.
  - mmm_grayons 6y ago
    Sure, regular, normal citizens. That guy posed a clear threat to other: he was out of his head and had stolen the taser; the odds were decent he might have used it on someone. If some drunk was running away with a firearm, I'd expect an officer to use the means at his disposal to stop him. Again, while it's a grim calculus, better the drunk is hurt than an innocent.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      I'd rather officers not use lethal force to stop someone who was was not in possession of a deadly weapon.
      - mmm_grayons 6y ago
        That's a fair opinion, but he was sufficiently out of his head I could see how he might have tased someone else. If it's between him getting shot and him tasing someone else, it's not a happy choice, but better the guy gets shot than some innocent bystander gets hurt. It's pretty hard to predict what that person would do next. He did try non-lethal force several times. At this point I'm figuring I'll wait until the results of the investigation come in, but I can definitely see the policeman's point of view.
  - salawat 6y ago
    Those citizens didn't just enter a violent confrontation with a police officer or anyone else for that matter, steal a weapon from who they were struggling with, then book it. He didn't get shot for having a weapon in his possession; he got shot because of how the weapon ended up in his possession. I'm not saying it should be endorsed as standard operating procedure mind. However, the reaction is far from unreasonable. There seems to be a belief that there is the luxury of extensive time during which one can reason in these types of encounters, and the fact is there isn't. You react and operate on training and protocol. It is the very reason why protocol does exist; you rehearse it ahead of time so it comes naturally without thinking. When your training involves an effective level of operant conditioning to save your life in the event you have to resort to lethal force, protocol isn't just there for the Officer's protection, but also the suspect's. If it is a mistake, it can be (or should be) resolvable afterward. If the Justice system weren't such a bureaucratic nightmare, it may not even be that big a deal. Once you depart from that protocol though, that cop is going to do exactly what they are trained to do. A) (Hopefully) Protect the Public B)Protect themselves C)Neutalize the threat as quickly as possible. Not necessarily in that order, and not necessarily in a way you and I like or approve of, but IF they follow the book, we tend to grant them the benefit of a doubt. That happened. The officer's tried a peaceful arrest, the suspect escalated, stole the Tazer, Officers realized the suspect was now armed, public nearby, suspect is unresponsive and was hostile. It isn't an unreasonable escalation path at all. You're mad if you think it's at all reasonable to give an armed, violent assailant the chance to retreat and prepare an ambush, or take a hostage. As I stated earlier, Isympathizewith the suspect for running or being afraid in the current environment. But after he lifted that Tazer, he shifted the operational calculus of the situation, knowingly or (most likely), not. Further, based on previous decisions by the DA, the precedent of a Tazerbeing a lethal weapon was well on it's way to being enshrined, so you really can't even fall back on the whole non-lethal aspect.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      I'm unsure if you think the cop followed protocol. If they did, I think the point I am trying to make is that the protocol is flawed if it involves "escalate a situation that is no longer violent". If the officer wasn't following protocol: perhaps it should include this case?

Justifying lethal force against people running away astounds me. It’s one thing if you’re running away with nuclear launch codes, but I’m skeptical that was the case here.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mmm_grayons 6y ago

He was running away with a weapon, though. It's not an easy choice, but better a criminal get shot than he go hurt an innocent civilian.

lostlogin 6y ago
The third option was to have no one die or get shot.
saagarjha 6y ago
People have access to actual, lethal weapons all the time! (This is especially true in the US.) That doesn't mean you can just go around shooting people on the off chance that they might go using them against others.
- mmm_grayons 6y ago
  Sure, regular, normal citizens. That guy posed a clear threat to other: he was out of his head and had stolen the taser; the odds were decent he might have used it on someone. If some drunk was running away with a firearm, I'd expect an officer to use the means at his disposal to stop him. Again, while it's a grim calculus, better the drunk is hurt than an innocent.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    I'd rather officers not use lethal force to stop someone who was was not in possession of a deadly weapon.
    - mmm_grayons 6y ago
      That's a fair opinion, but he was sufficiently out of his head I could see how he might have tased someone else. If it's between him getting shot and him tasing someone else, it's not a happy choice, but better the guy gets shot than some innocent bystander gets hurt. It's pretty hard to predict what that person would do next. He did try non-lethal force several times. At this point I'm figuring I'll wait until the results of the investigation come in, but I can definitely see the policeman's point of view.
- salawat 6y ago
  Those citizens didn't just enter a violent confrontation with a police officer or anyone else for that matter, steal a weapon from who they were struggling with, then book it. He didn't get shot for having a weapon in his possession; he got shot because of how the weapon ended up in his possession. I'm not saying it should be endorsed as standard operating procedure mind. However, the reaction is far from unreasonable. There seems to be a belief that there is the luxury of extensive time during which one can reason in these types of encounters, and the fact is there isn't. You react and operate on training and protocol. It is the very reason why protocol does exist; you rehearse it ahead of time so it comes naturally without thinking. When your training involves an effective level of operant conditioning to save your life in the event you have to resort to lethal force, protocol isn't just there for the Officer's protection, but also the suspect's. If it is a mistake, it can be (or should be) resolvable afterward. If the Justice system weren't such a bureaucratic nightmare, it may not even be that big a deal. Once you depart from that protocol though, that cop is going to do exactly what they are trained to do. A) (Hopefully) Protect the Public B)Protect themselves C)Neutalize the threat as quickly as possible. Not necessarily in that order, and not necessarily in a way you and I like or approve of, but IF they follow the book, we tend to grant them the benefit of a doubt. That happened. The officer's tried a peaceful arrest, the suspect escalated, stole the Tazer, Officers realized the suspect was now armed, public nearby, suspect is unresponsive and was hostile. It isn't an unreasonable escalation path at all. You're mad if you think it's at all reasonable to give an armed, violent assailant the chance to retreat and prepare an ambush, or take a hostage. As I stated earlier, Isympathizewith the suspect for running or being afraid in the current environment. But after he lifted that Tazer, he shifted the operational calculus of the situation, knowingly or (most likely), not. Further, based on previous decisions by the DA, the precedent of a Tazerbeing a lethal weapon was well on it's way to being enshrined, so you really can't even fall back on the whole non-lethal aspect.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    I'm unsure if you think the cop followed protocol. If they did, I think the point I am trying to make is that the protocol is flawed if it involves "escalate a situation that is no longer violent". If the officer wasn't following protocol: perhaps it should include this case?