5 ms·

I'm not amazed, because police are put in completely unknown situations with people they've never met, and know absolutely nothing about. People's public perso

I'm not amazed, because police are put in completely unknown situations with people they've never met, and know absolutely nothing about. People's public personas really aren't a guarantee that they'll act a certain way on their property, especially when they are not doing something voluntarily. Combine that with the fact being that gun ownership is a Constitutional right--that means the chance that anyone can have a gun is above 0. And various attributes of anyone that might determine whether or not someone is about to retaliate are extremely unknowable without long observation times. There's no possible way to quickly ascertain someone's proclivity to violence, agitation level, emotional state, number of guns they really have on hand, willingness to use them, etc. People will act differently outside of a public setting like work, on a TV show, etc. So as long as guns are as easily available as they are currently, it's not unreasonable to expect a law officer to start the interaction in this way which is a manner that protects the officer the most.

thinkloop 6y ago
> a manner that protects the officer the most I doubt this is true. To me it is clear that their demeanor and behavior increases the liklihood of escalation and an incident.
maxerickson 6y ago
The chance that anyone can have a gun is above 0 everywhere, it's a meaningless statement. Sure, the chances are higher in the US than just about everywhere else, so why not just say that. It's totally unreasonable for the officers to act this way, and I don't think it's particularly obvious that escalating to guns drawn makes them any safer. Maybe it does, but maybe it turns them into a threat in the minds of the people they think they are protecting themselves from.
godelski 6y ago
> So as long as guns are as easily available as they are currently, it's not unreasonable to expect a law officer to start the interaction in this way which is a manner that protects the officer the most. I don't think it is as simple as this. While one should train for the worst possible scenarios one also has to be aware what to reasonably expect. Like the source in my original comment notes, being a police officer is relatively safe. Given those statistics an officer should not view every situation as deadly. Though it is fine for them to be on high alert. It is still something that is often drilled into people during gun training that you should not point a weapon at something you do not intend to destroy. That is rule #1. Officers need to understand that by erring on the side of weapons drawn is equivalent to escalating any given interaction. Is that the mode of failure we want to have in police?
- tenebrisalietum 6y ago
  > While one should train for the worst possible scenarios one also has to be aware what to reasonably expect Sometimes (I'm actually going to say most of time) giving the suspect warnings or time isn't a good idea. In the case of collecting evidence that is on computers, this evidence is easily destroyed if someone knows what they are doing and giving the suspect a warning could ultimately result in loss of justice. Therefore, coming in unexpectedly, and performing actions to make sure the suspect does not do anything until the evidence is collected makes sense. Yes, coming in with guns drawn is scary, etc. But would knocking on the door and asking for the computers have worked? It might eventually, after many opportunities for evidence destruction occurred... but which way has a higher chance of working? It's useful to note here that I think if you work for the state, you should be held to a higher standard--this is different than working at a private company and embezzlement, stealing, etc. If you have violated the trust of the citizens of Florida via doing something wrong at your state job, and a judge agrees there is enough probable cause that evidence is on your home computer, isn't better that a method of evidence collection is done that is swift and not likely to result in destruction of evidence? If someone more or less commits a crime against the state of Florida, isn't that more important than the fear/mental health of the individual suspect?
Voloskaya 6y ago
> it's not unreasonable to expect a law officer to start the interaction in this way which is a manner that protects the officer the most This mentality is so wrong to me. Yes there is danger associated with entering a home, but if you are not willing to take any risk, don't try to be a cop. Sure, if cops can reduce risk for themselves without increasing it for others, then by all mean they should, I'm not saying they should be daredevils. But this is different, this is just offloading all the risks from their side onto the citizens. A situation that could be minimal risk to everyone (because let's not pretend that people shooting at cops entering a home is a usual thing), is now high risk (and traumatic in all cases) for the citizen. I would even wager that the risk for themselves is getting increased over time because of people freaking out more and more seeing a cop with a gun in the US. And let's not pretend that cops in the US are well trained, they are so afraid and completly unable to de-escalate a situation that I would have 0 confidence in a cop pulling a gun on me in the US (not saying I would like it anywhere, but I would sure be less freaked out in Europe). This is just plain stupid, it's not a necessity of life like you paint it.
- 35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago
  > And let's not pretend that cops in the US are well trained, they are so afraid and completly unable to de-escalate a situation that they I would have 0 confidence in a cop pulling a gun on me in the US (not saying I would like it anywhere, but I would sure be less freaked out in Europe). > The officer who shot and killed Philando Castile during a 2016 traffic stop in Falcon Heights, Minnesota,[...] clocked more than 100 hours of trainings on topics such as firearms usage, street survival, and the use of force—but had only attended two hours of deescalation training. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/08/warrior-cop-class-dave-grossman-killology.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/08/warrior-cop-clas...
- tenebrisalietum 6y ago
  > A situation that could be minimal risk to everyone (because let's not pretend that people shooting at cops entering a home is a usual thing), is now high risk (and traumatic in all cases) for the citizen. Well, if you are arresting a person, perhaps there's things that can be done, like waiting outside. How is it supposed to be handled when you have to get evidence? > I would sure be less freaked out in Europe I'm sure this is an oversimplification but AFAIK states in Europe either have more restrictions on gun ownership or a culture/mediascape/welfare-state that doesn't encourage the desperation/antagonism you see in the US.
hshshs2 6y ago
People own guns legally in other first world countries and this is a problem fairly unique to the US.
mattashii 6y ago
> Combine that with the fact being that gun ownership is a Constitutional right--that means the chance that anyone can have a gun is above 0. This chance is always above zero, unless you've just full-body-and-orifice searched the person. I am not american, but isn't there some constitutional clause on bodily integrity or something like that? And isn't that more important than this right on owning guns/pointing guns at people that might own guns, and/or carry said guns? > So as long as guns are as easily available as they are currently, it's not unreasonable to expect a law officer to start the interaction in this way which is a manner that protects the officer the most. Going into a home gun-first is something I would expect from armed burglars, not from police that are there for a digital media search warrant. [edit] So, after a search, TIL: the USA does not have constitutional bodily integrity, but does grant you the right to own a gun... What ?
fountainofage 6y ago
You are aware cops have absolutely no obligation to enforce the law, right? So you or me entering this woman's home with guns drawn - we have the same obligation to be there as a cop. This whole "oh but the cops are scared for their life" crap needs to stop. They have no obligation to do anything, so anytime they do, it's their choice. Just as much their choice as you or me busting into a home with guns drawn. You wouldn't be sitting here sympathizing with how a random burglar is totally justified in entering a home with a weapon drawn because the homeowner could be armed. Why do you do the same with cops? Edit: to summarize my point: cops have no obligation to be there, so if their solution is to enter with guns drawn and barking orders, we shouldn't try to sympathize with that behavior. We should tell them to stay at home and cuddle a teddy bear instead. A lot more people would be alive today if we quit making excuses for why cops are so eager to kill people.
- tenebrisalietum 6y ago
  > You are aware cops have absolutely no obligation to enforce the law, right? This is a search warrant situation. Obligations exist in this situation - to the judge, court process, and CO. If you want to debate the obligations to the public or immunity of cops, fine--but this isn't like a random traffic stop. What the police is supposed to do in this situation is very clear--serve warrant, get evidence. > You wouldn't be sitting here sympathizing with how a random burglar is totally justified in entering a home with a weapon drawn because the homeowner could be armed. This isn't sympathy but just expectation. You would expect a house invader to be armed for exactly that reason, right? Similarly, why wouldn't you expect a cop to do the same?
  - fountainofage 6y ago
    They have no legal obligation to be there or do that job. If they refuse, there can be no punishment. This has gone to the federal courts, and even the Supreme Court, several times. Cops have absolutely zero legal obligation to enforce the law. There's no sense in you even trying to disagree with this because the highest court in the land had consistently declared it as the law. On your second point... I agree? Cops are forcing themselves into people's homes with the express intent of fucking shit up, that's why they enter armed and dangerous, the same as a thief. Is that what you're saying? Because that's what I'm saying. Do you sympathize with the thief? I don't, the same as I don't sympathize with the cop. Edit: to clarify - the cop could be entering the home as a neighbor and a friend, and that's what everyone would prefer. Unfortunately, cops decided long ago they'd rather hold onto their right to kill with no questions asked, so now they're no better than a methhead busting down a door. It's ultimately their fault for this image, and they're the only ones that can fix it.
tshaddox 6y ago
> I'm not amazed, because police are put in completely unknown situations with people they've never met, and know absolutely nothing about. In the vast majority of cases, the police choose which situations to enter and how to engage.
pdonis 6y ago
> police are put in completely unknown situations with people they've never met, and know absolutely nothing about While this is often true, it wasn't true in this specific case. The person whose home the cops wanted to search was a former state employee, whose record they had plenty of time to examine prior to going to her home, so she was not an unknown quantity.

thinkloop 6y ago

> a manner that protects the officer the most I doubt this is true. To me it is clear that their demeanor and behavior increases the liklihood of escalation and an incident.

maxerickson 6y ago

The chance that anyone can have a gun is above 0 everywhere, it's a meaningless statement. Sure, the chances are higher in the US than just about everywhere else, so why not just say that. It's totally unreasonable for the officers to act this way, and I don't think it's particularly obvious that escalating to guns drawn makes them any safer. Maybe it does, but maybe it turns them into a threat in the minds of the people they think they are protecting themselves from.

godelski 6y ago

> So as long as guns are as easily available as they are currently, it's not unreasonable to expect a law officer to start the interaction in this way which is a manner that protects the officer the most. I don't think it is as simple as this. While one should train for the worst possible scenarios one also has to be aware what to reasonably expect. Like the source in my original comment notes, being a police officer is relatively safe. Given those statistics an officer should not view every situation as deadly. Though it is fine for them to be on high alert. It is still something that is often drilled into people during gun training that you should not point a weapon at something you do not intend to destroy. That is rule #1. Officers need to understand that by erring on the side of weapons drawn is equivalent to escalating any given interaction. Is that the mode of failure we want to have in police?

tenebrisalietum 6y ago
> While one should train for the worst possible scenarios one also has to be aware what to reasonably expect Sometimes (I'm actually going to say most of time) giving the suspect warnings or time isn't a good idea. In the case of collecting evidence that is on computers, this evidence is easily destroyed if someone knows what they are doing and giving the suspect a warning could ultimately result in loss of justice. Therefore, coming in unexpectedly, and performing actions to make sure the suspect does not do anything until the evidence is collected makes sense. Yes, coming in with guns drawn is scary, etc. But would knocking on the door and asking for the computers have worked? It might eventually, after many opportunities for evidence destruction occurred... but which way has a higher chance of working? It's useful to note here that I think if you work for the state, you should be held to a higher standard--this is different than working at a private company and embezzlement, stealing, etc. If you have violated the trust of the citizens of Florida via doing something wrong at your state job, and a judge agrees there is enough probable cause that evidence is on your home computer, isn't better that a method of evidence collection is done that is swift and not likely to result in destruction of evidence? If someone more or less commits a crime against the state of Florida, isn't that more important than the fear/mental health of the individual suspect?

Voloskaya 6y ago

> it's not unreasonable to expect a law officer to start the interaction in this way which is a manner that protects the officer the most This mentality is so wrong to me. Yes there is danger associated with entering a home, but if you are not willing to take any risk, don't try to be a cop. Sure, if cops can reduce risk for themselves without increasing it for others, then by all mean they should, I'm not saying they should be daredevils. But this is different, this is just offloading all the risks from their side onto the citizens. A situation that could be minimal risk to everyone (because let's not pretend that people shooting at cops entering a home is a usual thing), is now high risk (and traumatic in all cases) for the citizen. I would even wager that the risk for themselves is getting increased over time because of people freaking out more and more seeing a cop with a gun in the US. And let's not pretend that cops in the US are well trained, they are so afraid and completly unable to de-escalate a situation that I would have 0 confidence in a cop pulling a gun on me in the US (not saying I would like it anywhere, but I would sure be less freaked out in Europe). This is just plain stupid, it's not a necessity of life like you paint it.

35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago
> And let's not pretend that cops in the US are well trained, they are so afraid and completly unable to de-escalate a situation that they I would have 0 confidence in a cop pulling a gun on me in the US (not saying I would like it anywhere, but I would sure be less freaked out in Europe). > The officer who shot and killed Philando Castile during a 2016 traffic stop in Falcon Heights, Minnesota,[...] clocked more than 100 hours of trainings on topics such as firearms usage, street survival, and the use of force—but had only attended two hours of deescalation training. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/08/warrior-cop-class-dave-grossman-killology.html https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/08/warrior-cop-clas...
tenebrisalietum 6y ago
> A situation that could be minimal risk to everyone (because let's not pretend that people shooting at cops entering a home is a usual thing), is now high risk (and traumatic in all cases) for the citizen. Well, if you are arresting a person, perhaps there's things that can be done, like waiting outside. How is it supposed to be handled when you have to get evidence? > I would sure be less freaked out in Europe I'm sure this is an oversimplification but AFAIK states in Europe either have more restrictions on gun ownership or a culture/mediascape/welfare-state that doesn't encourage the desperation/antagonism you see in the US.

hshshs2 6y ago

People own guns legally in other first world countries and this is a problem fairly unique to the US.

mattashii 6y ago

> Combine that with the fact being that gun ownership is a Constitutional right--that means the chance that anyone can have a gun is above 0. This chance is always above zero, unless you've just full-body-and-orifice searched the person. I am not american, but isn't there some constitutional clause on bodily integrity or something like that? And isn't that more important than this right on owning guns/pointing guns at people that might own guns, and/or carry said guns? > So as long as guns are as easily available as they are currently, it's not unreasonable to expect a law officer to start the interaction in this way which is a manner that protects the officer the most. Going into a home gun-first is something I would expect from armed burglars, not from police that are there for a digital media search warrant. [edit] So, after a search, TIL: the USA does not have constitutional bodily integrity, but does grant you the right to own a gun... What ?

fountainofage 6y ago

You are aware cops have absolutely no obligation to enforce the law, right? So you or me entering this woman's home with guns drawn - we have the same obligation to be there as a cop. This whole "oh but the cops are scared for their life" crap needs to stop. They have no obligation to do anything, so anytime they do, it's their choice. Just as much their choice as you or me busting into a home with guns drawn. You wouldn't be sitting here sympathizing with how a random burglar is totally justified in entering a home with a weapon drawn because the homeowner could be armed. Why do you do the same with cops? Edit: to summarize my point: cops have no obligation to be there, so if their solution is to enter with guns drawn and barking orders, we shouldn't try to sympathize with that behavior. We should tell them to stay at home and cuddle a teddy bear instead. A lot more people would be alive today if we quit making excuses for why cops are so eager to kill people.

tenebrisalietum 6y ago
> You are aware cops have absolutely no obligation to enforce the law, right? This is a search warrant situation. Obligations exist in this situation - to the judge, court process, and CO. If you want to debate the obligations to the public or immunity of cops, fine--but this isn't like a random traffic stop. What the police is supposed to do in this situation is very clear--serve warrant, get evidence. > You wouldn't be sitting here sympathizing with how a random burglar is totally justified in entering a home with a weapon drawn because the homeowner could be armed. This isn't sympathy but just expectation. You would expect a house invader to be armed for exactly that reason, right? Similarly, why wouldn't you expect a cop to do the same?
- fountainofage 6y ago
  They have no legal obligation to be there or do that job. If they refuse, there can be no punishment. This has gone to the federal courts, and even the Supreme Court, several times. Cops have absolutely zero legal obligation to enforce the law. There's no sense in you even trying to disagree with this because the highest court in the land had consistently declared it as the law. On your second point... I agree? Cops are forcing themselves into people's homes with the express intent of fucking shit up, that's why they enter armed and dangerous, the same as a thief. Is that what you're saying? Because that's what I'm saying. Do you sympathize with the thief? I don't, the same as I don't sympathize with the cop. Edit: to clarify - the cop could be entering the home as a neighbor and a friend, and that's what everyone would prefer. Unfortunately, cops decided long ago they'd rather hold onto their right to kill with no questions asked, so now they're no better than a methhead busting down a door. It's ultimately their fault for this image, and they're the only ones that can fix it.

tshaddox 6y ago

> I'm not amazed, because police are put in completely unknown situations with people they've never met, and know absolutely nothing about. In the vast majority of cases, the police choose which situations to enter and how to engage.

pdonis 6y ago

> police are put in completely unknown situations with people they've never met, and know absolutely nothing about While this is often true, it wasn't true in this specific case. The person whose home the cops wanted to search was a former state employee, whose record they had plenty of time to examine prior to going to her home, so she was not an unknown quantity.