4 ms·

Should this be rather "American Police Kill too Many people"? Or maybe even "American Police Kill too many Innocent people". Also, what would be the right amou

Should this be rather "American Police Kill too Many people"? Or maybe even "American Police Kill too many Innocent people". Also, what would be the right amount of innocent people for the police to kill? Edit: I reacted instinctively without thinking it through. I agree with the comments below that the word ‘innocent’ should have nothing to do with it.

taeric 5y ago
I rather liked the meme that police shouldn't kill guilty people either. So, the ideal number is clearly zero. Just the same as the ideal number of people to die in car crashes. Yes, you can acknowledge that zero is likely not going to get attained. No, you don't give up and argue over the number as a distraction.
- User23 5y ago
  Ideally criminals wouldn’t kill people either. If you had the choice of the police killing a criminal or same criminal killing you or a loved one, which would you choose?
  - bastawhiz 5y ago
    There's not a binary of "one person must die or another person must die". You can still arrest someone without killing them.
    - User23 5y ago
      I certainly can’t. I can readily imagine scenarios where I would be unable to stop a criminal from taking lives without using deadly force. Perhaps that’s just a failure of my imagination though. Please elaborate on how you would effect the arrest of a criminal who is actively using deadly force in an attempt to cause grave bodily harm or death to yourself or other innocent persons? I’m quite serious by the way. Using deadly force in self defense is a nightmare of legal fees and moral anguish under the best circumstances, so I’m very interested in reliable and reliably non lethal methods to stop, which is to say “arrest,” someone who is physically my superior and in a frame of mind where he intends to do grave bodily harm to me or persons I’m meant to protect.
      - AI_UI_UX 5y ago
        One suggestion I heard recently is giving police Brazilian Jiu-jitsu training. You can hear it discussed in detail in a podcast here. https://samharris.org/podcasts/246-police-training-police-misconduct/ https://samharris.org/podcasts/246-police-training-police-mi...
      - bastawhiz 5y ago
        Most police shootings are not in scenarios where the individual being shot is actively taking lives. Almost all of the situations in the linked article describe cases where the person killed was running away, was complying with orders, or otherwise could have been apprehended without the need for lethal force. There are numerous non-lethal weapons that police are equipped with that could be used to subdue an alleged criminal: pepper spray, rubber bullets, tasers, etc. Even folks who are threatening the lives of others are entitled to a fair trial. Lethal force may be allowed, but that doesn't mean that the police should use it. The right to a fair trial applies to everyone, not just the folks who police don't shoot to death.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
aemreunal 5y ago
The [dangerous] implication behind saying "[...] Police Kill too many Innocent people" is that police have a right to kill criminals, which is not true. Whether or not you are innocent, police still don't have a right (and shouldn't) kill you, so I personally am rejecting your re-interpretation of the title. Police are responsible for for apprehending the criminals and only are supposed to use deadly force in self-defense or in protecting other people.
- surfsvammel 5y ago
  That’s a good point that did not occur to me, and I agree!

taeric 5y ago

I rather liked the meme that police shouldn't kill guilty people either. So, the ideal number is clearly zero. Just the same as the ideal number of people to die in car crashes. Yes, you can acknowledge that zero is likely not going to get attained. No, you don't give up and argue over the number as a distraction.

User23 5y ago
Ideally criminals wouldn’t kill people either. If you had the choice of the police killing a criminal or same criminal killing you or a loved one, which would you choose?
- bastawhiz 5y ago
  There's not a binary of "one person must die or another person must die". You can still arrest someone without killing them.
  - User23 5y ago
    I certainly can’t. I can readily imagine scenarios where I would be unable to stop a criminal from taking lives without using deadly force. Perhaps that’s just a failure of my imagination though. Please elaborate on how you would effect the arrest of a criminal who is actively using deadly force in an attempt to cause grave bodily harm or death to yourself or other innocent persons? I’m quite serious by the way. Using deadly force in self defense is a nightmare of legal fees and moral anguish under the best circumstances, so I’m very interested in reliable and reliably non lethal methods to stop, which is to say “arrest,” someone who is physically my superior and in a frame of mind where he intends to do grave bodily harm to me or persons I’m meant to protect.
    - AI_UI_UX 5y ago
      One suggestion I heard recently is giving police Brazilian Jiu-jitsu training. You can hear it discussed in detail in a podcast here. https://samharris.org/podcasts/246-police-training-police-misconduct/ https://samharris.org/podcasts/246-police-training-police-mi...
    - bastawhiz 5y ago
      Most police shootings are not in scenarios where the individual being shot is actively taking lives. Almost all of the situations in the linked article describe cases where the person killed was running away, was complying with orders, or otherwise could have been apprehended without the need for lethal force. There are numerous non-lethal weapons that police are equipped with that could be used to subdue an alleged criminal: pepper spray, rubber bullets, tasers, etc. Even folks who are threatening the lives of others are entitled to a fair trial. Lethal force may be allowed, but that doesn't mean that the police should use it. The right to a fair trial applies to everyone, not just the folks who police don't shoot to death.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

aemreunal 5y ago

The [dangerous] implication behind saying "[...] Police Kill too many Innocent people" is that police have a right to kill criminals, which is not true. Whether or not you are innocent, police still don't have a right (and shouldn't) kill you, so I personally am rejecting your re-interpretation of the title. Police are responsible for for apprehending the criminals and only are supposed to use deadly force in self-defense or in protecting other people.

surfsvammel 5y ago
That’s a good point that did not occur to me, and I agree!