3 ms·
The problem you are trying to underline is that these are meant to be an alternative when force is absolutely necessary, whereas a lot of users pretend they are
by throw1234651234 6y ago
The problem you are trying to underline is that these are meant to be an alternative when force is absolutely necessary, whereas a lot of users pretend they are "safe" options to be used in any situation without harm.
- Pfhreak 6y agoYeah. Maybe the root cause here is how to interpret 'absolutely necessary'. It's clear, however, that the police interpretation is overly broad, and they cannot be trusted to deploy these in the emergencies that might warrant them.
- Zak 6y agoIt can be made easy: these are alternatives to use of a firearm. They should only be allowed where deadly force is legally justified, though policies could call for using them before firearms when possible, e.g. to incapacitate a person who is brandishing a weapon, but not actively hurting people with it.
- MaxBarraclough 6y ago> They should only be allowed where deadly force is legally justified, though policies could call for using them before firearms when possible, e.g. to incapacitate a person who is brandishing These two proposed policies are contradictory.
- Zak 6y agoThey're not, because legal justification and department policy are different. If, for example, someone is threatening people with a knife and is close enough to use it, the law usually allows a police officer to shoot that person without taking any other actions. Department policy can require the use of specific tactics to maximize opportunities to resolve situations with minimal force. An example policy would be to attempt to separate the subject from bystanders, delay until backup arrives, negotiate verbally, then use less lethal weapons, only resorting to firearms if someone is about to be stabbed.
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoI see what you're saying now, I'd misread you.
- closeparen 6y ago“When force is absolutely necessary” generally means a life-and-death situation, where police are going to use deadly force anyway.
- User23 6y agoThe potential use of force is absolutely necessary for the enforcement of any law, otherwise it's just a polite suggestion that can and often will ultimately be ignored by antisocial individuals. Now, personally, I would love to live in a society populated solely by considerate, thoughtful, and polite people who always follow polite suggestions and don't need to be forcefully coerced. However we don't live in that society and the claim that we don't because of law enforcement using force is very much an example of wet streets causing rain.