3 ms·

A friend was an LAPD detective for 30 years. He was involved in two fatal shootings, and we talk a lot about his days on the beat. He said, without exception,

by grecy 6y ago

A friend was an LAPD detective for 30 years. He was involved in two fatal shootings, and we talk a lot about his days on the beat. He said, without exception, the only time he can draw and use his firearm is if "he had immediate fear for his own life (or the life of another)" - he said they're trained to say those exact words when questioned about why they used lethal force. Shooting someone because they're running away, or swearing, or not cooperating is VERY strictly not allowed. Whenever I hear of a person shot running away, or a person with their hands in the air I suspect there will be very big problems.

sdenton4 6y ago
It would go a loooooong way if the cops in this country would stop reflexively circling the wagons and actually make it abundantly clear that this kind of thing is unacceptable. Without firings and prosecutions for this kind of thing, the 'bad apples' see that it is in fact acceptable: They just need to say the magic words, that they feared for their lives, just like they were trained to.
sneak 6y ago
> A friend was an LAPD detective for 30 years. He was involved in two fatal shootings, and we talk a lot about his days on the beat. If he shot and killed two people, you should say he shot and killed two people. This weird circular speech around cops killing people ("officer-involved shooting") is one of the reasons it continues to be so common. So long as they have a magic phrase for evading responsibility, we'll remain in the situation of having to deal with killer cops.
curryst 6y ago
That will almost certainly vary from state to state. Texas allows it's citizens to use lethal force in a number of non-life-threatening scenarios. One of which is to protect your own property. You can shoot someone in the back provided they were stealing from you. There was a case in the early 2010s where a guy paid a prostitute, she refused to render services and to give his money back, and he shot her to get his money back. It was ruled a lawful shooting. https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/jilted-john-acquitted-texas-prostitute-death-article-1.1365975 https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/jilted-john-acquitted... I would be extremely surprised if the police were restricted to using less force than your average joe.
maxerickson 6y ago
They are trained to explain their actions in a way that unambiguously justifies them in law? That sure is easy to interpret in more than one way.
8note 6y ago
Probably not that big of problems. The officer needs to tell people that he was afraid for his life of the person running away with their hands in the air, and everyone will say it's ok. Maybe some paid vacation, or move to another police department, but no real or lasting consequences

by grecy 6y ago

sdenton4 6y ago

It would go a loooooong way if the cops in this country would stop reflexively circling the wagons and actually make it abundantly clear that this kind of thing is unacceptable. Without firings and prosecutions for this kind of thing, the 'bad apples' see that it is in fact acceptable: They just need to say the magic words, that they feared for their lives, just like they were trained to.

sneak 6y ago

> A friend was an LAPD detective for 30 years. He was involved in two fatal shootings, and we talk a lot about his days on the beat. If he shot and killed two people, you should say he shot and killed two people. This weird circular speech around cops killing people ("officer-involved shooting") is one of the reasons it continues to be so common. So long as they have a magic phrase for evading responsibility, we'll remain in the situation of having to deal with killer cops.

curryst 6y ago

That will almost certainly vary from state to state. Texas allows it's citizens to use lethal force in a number of non-life-threatening scenarios. One of which is to protect your own property. You can shoot someone in the back provided they were stealing from you. There was a case in the early 2010s where a guy paid a prostitute, she refused to render services and to give his money back, and he shot her to get his money back. It was ruled a lawful shooting. https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/jilted-john-acquitted-texas-prostitute-death-article-1.1365975 https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/jilted-john-acquitted... I would be extremely surprised if the police were restricted to using less force than your average joe.

maxerickson 6y ago

They are trained to explain their actions in a way that unambiguously justifies them in law? That sure is easy to interpret in more than one way.

8note 6y ago

Probably not that big of problems. The officer needs to tell people that he was afraid for his life of the person running away with their hands in the air, and everyone will say it's ok. Maybe some paid vacation, or move to another police department, but no real or lasting consequences