3 ms·

Police in the US should respond to the hilt because the likelihood of the suspect being armed is significantly higher than any other country...

quietsegfault 2mo ago
If it’s so dangerous, perhaps we should find a way to better control the danger of firearms.
- Barbing 2mo ago
  Yes and in the meantime, respond with all available resources? (pretending my parents, wife, children are police officers and posting from that perspective, but do not like taste of boot nor Flock - just thinking logical on the ground procedure accounting for broken larger system)
  - nemomarx 2mo ago
    Try pretending your wife and children are in a car being pulled over for a drug inspection and think from that perspective. Or to have their papers checked to make sure they're not illegal aliens, whichever you prefer.
    - Barbing 2mo ago
      Great point, not fair for them to need a lifetime of therapy. So there’s a happy medium. I don’t know why the first thing that comes to mind is calling in for backup and having a cop in a mascot costume get out, with body armor and a completely concealed weapon at the ready underneath. They cheerfully chat up the adult driver, say hi to the kid & give a sticker, and once they assess it’s safe they can move onto the next call while the uniformed officer comes to discuss the situation. Doesn’t help the adult much though I guess, we’d know about the concealed weapon. … btw maybe sending a drone or a robot actually came to mind first, but those solutions are uncomfortable - OK w/a million caveats maybe (Instead of posting something so stupid I could’ve left it at I hope there’s a happy medium!)
- M3L0NM4N 2mo ago
  Yes, firearms themselves present a clear and present danger by themselves. I'm sure once you make laws to control them, the firearms learn to stop being dangerous.
  - kittoes 2mo ago
    Why does this always have to be binary when any amount of gun control is suggested? It's simple math: if me didn't manufacture so many guns and didn't make them so readily available then there will inherently be less danger... this isn't even debatable!
    - M3L0NM4N 2mo ago
      That is obviously true... but also a fairy tale hypothetical, and we are in the real world. So the question is, what's the solution, right now? Not 200 years ago.
      - kittoes 2mo ago
        A fairy tale? The UK, Australia, and Brazil all have something to say about that claim. In developed countries, the United States is an extreme outlier so why pretend this is a completely unapproachable problem? Our constitution itself gives us a blueprint because it states, in no uncertain terms, a "well-regulated militia"; not "each individual citizen".
        genewitch 2mo ago
        I notice you put a semicolon there. You forgot to put the rest: > the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. what does "the people" mean to you?
        iamnothere 2mo ago
        Not the OP, but if I had to guess, they probably imagine that it means the nation as a whole, embodied by its government. You know, as in “The People’s Republic of North Korea.” (If anyone wants to alter the 2nd so it’s more in line with their views, there’s a clear legal path. Pass an Amendment or call a Constitutional convention.)
nemomarx 2mo ago
They still die less often than pizza delivery drivers even with that. I think they could eat the extra risk in traffic stops.
- M3L0NM4N 2mo ago
  I would prefer less people die, actually.
  - nemomarx 2mo ago
    If it comes down to it, I would prefer an officer die compared to an innocent civilian mistakenly die because a cop was scared or already had their finger on the trigger. Their job is to serve the public, accepting some level of risks is part of this. "About as risky as low paid delivery work" doesn't seem unreasonably high to me basically. Most cops die in car crashes, not being shot by potential suspects as it stands.
    - M3L0NM4N 2mo ago
      More police are shot and killed every year than people who were accidentally shot by police. Imagine if they didn't approach every high-risk situation with guns drawn. There would be orders of magnitude more officers killed.
      - genewitch 2mo ago
        This is not correct. to the best of my memory, no year since the 90s has had more than 100 or 200 total officer fatalities in the line of duty. Police routinely kill 3 people a day. it's a pretty high bar to say that all three people the police kill every day were warranted. most line of duty deaths involve not wearing a seatbelt.
        M3L0NM4N 2mo ago
        This is where I think you're wrong. The vast, vast majority of people killed by police are warranted. People routinely threaten officers' lives with guns, and get killed for it. It's unfortunate, but it happens. People aren't just getting shot by police for no reason regularly.
giantg2 2mo ago
Most police in the US don't overreact to the presence of a weapon during traffic stops or pther routine interactions. Many states could have around 10% of people carrying a gun, making armed interactions quite common.
- M3L0NM4N 2mo ago
  I completely agree. My point was that they should always be prepared for the worst.

quietsegfault 2mo ago

If it’s so dangerous, perhaps we should find a way to better control the danger of firearms.

Barbing 2mo ago
Yes and in the meantime, respond with all available resources? (pretending my parents, wife, children are police officers and posting from that perspective, but do not like taste of boot nor Flock - just thinking logical on the ground procedure accounting for broken larger system)
- nemomarx 2mo ago
  Try pretending your wife and children are in a car being pulled over for a drug inspection and think from that perspective. Or to have their papers checked to make sure they're not illegal aliens, whichever you prefer.
  - Barbing 2mo ago
    Great point, not fair for them to need a lifetime of therapy. So there’s a happy medium. I don’t know why the first thing that comes to mind is calling in for backup and having a cop in a mascot costume get out, with body armor and a completely concealed weapon at the ready underneath. They cheerfully chat up the adult driver, say hi to the kid & give a sticker, and once they assess it’s safe they can move onto the next call while the uniformed officer comes to discuss the situation. Doesn’t help the adult much though I guess, we’d know about the concealed weapon. … btw maybe sending a drone or a robot actually came to mind first, but those solutions are uncomfortable - OK w/a million caveats maybe (Instead of posting something so stupid I could’ve left it at I hope there’s a happy medium!)
M3L0NM4N 2mo ago
Yes, firearms themselves present a clear and present danger by themselves. I'm sure once you make laws to control them, the firearms learn to stop being dangerous.
- kittoes 2mo ago
  Why does this always have to be binary when any amount of gun control is suggested? It's simple math: if me didn't manufacture so many guns and didn't make them so readily available then there will inherently be less danger... this isn't even debatable!
  - M3L0NM4N 2mo ago
    That is obviously true... but also a fairy tale hypothetical, and we are in the real world. So the question is, what's the solution, right now? Not 200 years ago.
    - kittoes 2mo ago
      A fairy tale? The UK, Australia, and Brazil all have something to say about that claim. In developed countries, the United States is an extreme outlier so why pretend this is a completely unapproachable problem? Our constitution itself gives us a blueprint because it states, in no uncertain terms, a "well-regulated militia"; not "each individual citizen".
      - genewitch 2mo ago
        I notice you put a semicolon there. You forgot to put the rest: > the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. what does "the people" mean to you?
        iamnothere 2mo ago
        Not the OP, but if I had to guess, they probably imagine that it means the nation as a whole, embodied by its government. You know, as in “The People’s Republic of North Korea.” (If anyone wants to alter the 2nd so it’s more in line with their views, there’s a clear legal path. Pass an Amendment or call a Constitutional convention.)

nemomarx 2mo ago

They still die less often than pizza delivery drivers even with that. I think they could eat the extra risk in traffic stops.

M3L0NM4N 2mo ago
I would prefer less people die, actually.
- nemomarx 2mo ago
  If it comes down to it, I would prefer an officer die compared to an innocent civilian mistakenly die because a cop was scared or already had their finger on the trigger. Their job is to serve the public, accepting some level of risks is part of this. "About as risky as low paid delivery work" doesn't seem unreasonably high to me basically. Most cops die in car crashes, not being shot by potential suspects as it stands.
  - M3L0NM4N 2mo ago
    More police are shot and killed every year than people who were accidentally shot by police. Imagine if they didn't approach every high-risk situation with guns drawn. There would be orders of magnitude more officers killed.
    - genewitch 2mo ago
      This is not correct. to the best of my memory, no year since the 90s has had more than 100 or 200 total officer fatalities in the line of duty. Police routinely kill 3 people a day. it's a pretty high bar to say that all three people the police kill every day were warranted. most line of duty deaths involve not wearing a seatbelt.
      - M3L0NM4N 2mo ago
        This is where I think you're wrong. The vast, vast majority of people killed by police are warranted. People routinely threaten officers' lives with guns, and get killed for it. It's unfortunate, but it happens. People aren't just getting shot by police for no reason regularly.

giantg2 2mo ago

Most police in the US don't overreact to the presence of a weapon during traffic stops or pther routine interactions. Many states could have around 10% of people carrying a gun, making armed interactions quite common.

M3L0NM4N 2mo ago
I completely agree. My point was that they should always be prepared for the worst.