4 ms·

I wonder how this argument would be applied to police murders of innocents. How do we deal with that?

by ta988 5y ago

t0mas88 5y ago
Train police to de-escalate and avoid police violence at all costs instead of the US approach where a traffic stop can involve pointing your gun at the suspect...
- mschuster91 5y ago
  > instead of the US approach where a traffic stop can involve pointing your gun at the suspect... Realistically though, for that to work the US needs a sweeping reform of drug and gun laws. Right now, if I'm a drug mule with a ton of meth in my trunk and get stopped on some lonely road, I have the choice between shooting the cop and maybe get away or getting a life in jail for the drugs. Here in Germany, you usually get out after 5, 6 years as a simple mule, and our cops (unless you're on an international route where cops can claim Schengen border duty rights) can't simply demand to open your trunk unless they have reasonable suspicion - and it's really hard to get your hand on a gun. As a result, our cops don't have to be afraid for their life at a random traffic stop. There's a reason why cops are so trigger happy in the US, and it goes way beyond shoddy training.
- ta988 5y ago
  I've seen part of police training in a big city and was impressed. They have a good portion of their training already on all the different methods of deescalation. With simulators (I tried them it is pretty impressive and immersive), role-play and so on. My guess is that the problem is after training.
  - bsanr2 5y ago
    I ran a simulator system for a couple of years for a military law course. The idea was to give those in the course first-hand experience with ROE/RUF concerns through the eyes of the people they'd be writing ROE/RUF for. The scenarios presented were laughable, badly-acted and completely unrealistic. Worse, every single one ended, by default, with the suspect pulling out a gun and shooting at the user. All of them. This is, of course, completely counter to reality. One could say that the issue is then the quality of these systems, but the fact that, apparently, it has been a viable business for going on a decade shows me that the issue isn't being taken seriously be their customers - that is, police departments and their trainers. The issue is, in fact, the institution as a whole. They're fundamentally incapable of reforming themselves.
    - ta988 5y ago
      No these were interactive scenarios, with a human behind the controls. So it really depends on the human of course. But you can select where the situation goes, raise the tone of voice or aggressiveness of the actor (real actor videos smoothly integrated) of course the operator can make it shoot and you also need to simulate that. The subject in the simulator has a prop taser and gun that work pretty realisticly (blank bullets and no voltage of course). I don't know how common this kind of training is across US probably not that much.
      - bsanr2 5y ago
        Right. The default (or, at least, the choice heavily weighted by system) was the shot ending. I could choose to allow the scenario to progress to a surrender, but there was no instance where a gun or knife could not possibly be produced. Ostensibly, these scenarios are meant to train police for realistic encounters; that is, there SHOULD be a number, if not a majority, that don't end in violence, even if the user fails to de-escalate properly.
Agingcoder 5y ago
(I assume you mean that by op's argument, we should abolish police) You make them accountable/actually punishable if they kill someone ? As to the death penalty, it's a bit different : you need law enforcement, you don't need the death penalty.
vmception 5y ago
Sanctions.
kingsuper20 5y ago
> I wonder how this argument would be applied to police murders of innocents. How do we deal with that? Realistically I think you'd have to drastically lower the perceived risk of a public interaction to the police. As long as they think they are going to get hurt, they'll feel the need to get in front of the problem.
- beerandt 5y ago
  This angle always amuses me, because while there's some truth to it, it means that raising "public awareness" of the issue is, in fact, making the issue worse. Which might be true, but that also lays at least some blame on the activists/ fear mongers. But also, it's just a different type of victim blaming. Anytime perception is allowed to be blamed, logic goes out the window. The same excuse was (is) used against minorites for years: if they don't want me to feel threatened by them, then they shouldn't be (perceived as being) so threatening. It's why any type of "thought crime" is so dangerous. It doesn't matter what you (the accused) actually think; it matters what someone else thinks/perceives what you thought. Which means that what someone else thinks of you can make you actually guilty of a crime.
  - kingsuper20 5y ago
    Or it could be as simple as improving physical security for police. Put an Ironman suit on a cop and he isn't going to much care if the potential perp is carrying a knife. It's a weird gig (street patrol) and it's hard to have a strong opinion on it without actually being a cop or going out on numerous ride-alongs. Naturally, it's easy to come up with 'solutions' behind the safety of a screen. One thing that brought that home to me is having several friends who are retired COs (Correctional Officers) from the California state system and several friends who are released felons. One thing their stories taught me is that people who are uninvolved in those systems don't know a thing about it and have nearly useless theories on the way things-oughta-be.
slumdev 5y ago
Stop canonizing the criminals "murdered" by police. Easy fix. As soon as Ben Crump shows up on the scene, you know the person wasn't innocent.

I wonder how this argument would be applied to police murders of innocents. How do we deal with that?

by ta988 5y ago

I wonder how this argument would be applied to police murders of innocents. How do we deal with that?

Train police to de-escalate and avoid police violence at all costs instead of the US approach where a traffic stop can involve pointing your gun at the suspect...

mschuster91 5y ago
> instead of the US approach where a traffic stop can involve pointing your gun at the suspect... Realistically though, for that to work the US needs a sweeping reform of drug and gun laws. Right now, if I'm a drug mule with a ton of meth in my trunk and get stopped on some lonely road, I have the choice between shooting the cop and maybe get away or getting a life in jail for the drugs. Here in Germany, you usually get out after 5, 6 years as a simple mule, and our cops (unless you're on an international route where cops can claim Schengen border duty rights) can't simply demand to open your trunk unless they have reasonable suspicion - and it's really hard to get your hand on a gun. As a result, our cops don't have to be afraid for their life at a random traffic stop. There's a reason why cops are so trigger happy in the US, and it goes way beyond shoddy training.
ta988 5y ago
I've seen part of police training in a big city and was impressed. They have a good portion of their training already on all the different methods of deescalation. With simulators (I tried them it is pretty impressive and immersive), role-play and so on. My guess is that the problem is after training.
- bsanr2 5y ago
  I ran a simulator system for a couple of years for a military law course. The idea was to give those in the course first-hand experience with ROE/RUF concerns through the eyes of the people they'd be writing ROE/RUF for. The scenarios presented were laughable, badly-acted and completely unrealistic. Worse, every single one ended, by default, with the suspect pulling out a gun and shooting at the user. All of them. This is, of course, completely counter to reality. One could say that the issue is then the quality of these systems, but the fact that, apparently, it has been a viable business for going on a decade shows me that the issue isn't being taken seriously be their customers - that is, police departments and their trainers. The issue is, in fact, the institution as a whole. They're fundamentally incapable of reforming themselves.
  - ta988 5y ago
    No these were interactive scenarios, with a human behind the controls. So it really depends on the human of course. But you can select where the situation goes, raise the tone of voice or aggressiveness of the actor (real actor videos smoothly integrated) of course the operator can make it shoot and you also need to simulate that. The subject in the simulator has a prop taser and gun that work pretty realisticly (blank bullets and no voltage of course). I don't know how common this kind of training is across US probably not that much.
    - bsanr2 5y ago
      Right. The default (or, at least, the choice heavily weighted by system) was the shot ending. I could choose to allow the scenario to progress to a surrender, but there was no instance where a gun or knife could not possibly be produced. Ostensibly, these scenarios are meant to train police for realistic encounters; that is, there SHOULD be a number, if not a majority, that don't end in violence, even if the user fails to de-escalate properly.

Agingcoder 5y ago

(I assume you mean that by op's argument, we should abolish police) You make them accountable/actually punishable if they kill someone ? As to the death penalty, it's a bit different : you need law enforcement, you don't need the death penalty.

vmception 5y ago

Sanctions.

kingsuper20 5y ago

> I wonder how this argument would be applied to police murders of innocents. How do we deal with that? Realistically I think you'd have to drastically lower the perceived risk of a public interaction to the police. As long as they think they are going to get hurt, they'll feel the need to get in front of the problem.

beerandt 5y ago
This angle always amuses me, because while there's some truth to it, it means that raising "public awareness" of the issue is, in fact, making the issue worse. Which might be true, but that also lays at least some blame on the activists/ fear mongers. But also, it's just a different type of victim blaming. Anytime perception is allowed to be blamed, logic goes out the window. The same excuse was (is) used against minorites for years: if they don't want me to feel threatened by them, then they shouldn't be (perceived as being) so threatening. It's why any type of "thought crime" is so dangerous. It doesn't matter what you (the accused) actually think; it matters what someone else thinks/perceives what you thought. Which means that what someone else thinks of you can make you actually guilty of a crime.
- kingsuper20 5y ago
  Or it could be as simple as improving physical security for police. Put an Ironman suit on a cop and he isn't going to much care if the potential perp is carrying a knife. It's a weird gig (street patrol) and it's hard to have a strong opinion on it without actually being a cop or going out on numerous ride-alongs. Naturally, it's easy to come up with 'solutions' behind the safety of a screen. One thing that brought that home to me is having several friends who are retired COs (Correctional Officers) from the California state system and several friends who are released felons. One thing their stories taught me is that people who are uninvolved in those systems don't know a thing about it and have nearly useless theories on the way things-oughta-be.

slumdev 5y ago

Stop canonizing the criminals "murdered" by police. Easy fix. As soon as Ben Crump shows up on the scene, you know the person wasn't innocent.