3 ms·

Massive +1 to this. It seems to me that the UK police, since they are not armed, generally try to defuse situations. (Of course, they can call for armed backup

by rtb 13y ago

Massive +1 to this. It seems to me that the UK police, since they are not armed, generally try to defuse situations. (Of course, they can call for armed backup if it is necessary.) Time and again, I read of US police unnecessarily escalating situations. If your immediate response to any tension is to pull out a gun and start shouting, then things are very likely to get a lot worse in many cases. Perhaps this is just confirmation bias though. I only get to read about the US cases where things have gone wrong.

pestaa 13y ago
> pull out a gun and start shouting I know this is a typo, but that picture in my head made me smile. Confirmation bias is only dangerous when there is significantly more evidence against the statement. You rarely hear, "we could have saved the day if we had higher damage output!"
- joe5150 13y ago
  I don't think it was a typo. Shouting usually comes before shooting.
  - rtb 13y ago
    I did mean shouting; it wasn't a typo. I see that the way I phrased it was ambiguous though. :-) I meant that the police generally pull out their gun to emphasise their power and to reinforce their shouts, not always with the intention of actually shooting.
rangibaby 13y ago
> Perhaps this is just confirmation bias though. I only get to read about the US cases where things have gone wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menez...
- willvarfar 13y ago
  Whilst that is a harrowing case, it is hardly the same as the routine pulling of guns first and asking questions later attitude that you were replying to?
  - rangibaby 13y ago
    Thanks for bringing this up! I considered the same point before posting the link, but decided that it was appropriate considering (imo) that it is a product of the same 21st century paranoia and police culture of "shoot first, ask questions later".
    - willvarfar 13y ago
      These were officers who, at short notice, were staking out a suspected terrorist's flat just days after a bombing and during a national hysteria. It was a horrid chain reaction of errors, but it was hardly officers waving guns around to apprehend a girl they thought had brought beer?
speeder 13y ago
I read once a argument that is related to this... I saw on a forum, a couple of people arguing that women should not be cops, I was confused, since the argument was filled with cop jargon and seemly started elsewhere. Then someone posted a personal anecdote that I found interesting, about escalation. The guy was a cop, returning home after work. He saw a female cop confronting a teenager (that the male cop knew personally) that was obviously not in the right state of the mind. The male teenager, was obviously stronger than the female cop, and started to make a imposing pose (but not threatening, just "imposing" I am bigger than you), the female cop pulled her gun and threatened the guy, that obviously got shitless scared, and started to run toward her, the male cop also as soon he saw she pulling the gun, also run toward her (unseen by both of them), he shouted, and in the confusion she pointed the gun at him, he did some evasive movement and ended tackling her before the boy reached her. Then he took her gun, and the boy stopped (not feeling threatened anymore), then he explained the boy he was a cop and was taking him to drug exams and he was free to go, and that noone would use violence against him. Immediately the boy turned around and allowed himself to be hand cuffed. This guy was arguing that female officers in his apartment killed way more people with guns than male officers and this is why they should not be there... But anyway, I brought this here, because I think it is a good example of a attitude to just bring up guns whenever they feel they can use it to impose power, and obviously this many times only result in dangerous escalations (like pulling a gun on a junkie, or a scared innocent), I doubt the pair (female cop, junkie boy) would leave intact if it was not outside intervention, or the junkie would have killed the cop, or the cop would have shot the junkie.

by rtb 13y ago

pestaa 13y ago

> pull out a gun and start shouting I know this is a typo, but that picture in my head made me smile. Confirmation bias is only dangerous when there is significantly more evidence against the statement. You rarely hear, "we could have saved the day if we had higher damage output!"

joe5150 13y ago
I don't think it was a typo. Shouting usually comes before shooting.
- rtb 13y ago
  I did mean shouting; it wasn't a typo. I see that the way I phrased it was ambiguous though. :-) I meant that the police generally pull out their gun to emphasise their power and to reinforce their shouts, not always with the intention of actually shooting.

rangibaby 13y ago

> Perhaps this is just confirmation bias though. I only get to read about the US cases where things have gone wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menez...

willvarfar 13y ago
Whilst that is a harrowing case, it is hardly the same as the routine pulling of guns first and asking questions later attitude that you were replying to?
- rangibaby 13y ago
  Thanks for bringing this up! I considered the same point before posting the link, but decided that it was appropriate considering (imo) that it is a product of the same 21st century paranoia and police culture of "shoot first, ask questions later".
  - willvarfar 13y ago
    These were officers who, at short notice, were staking out a suspected terrorist's flat just days after a bombing and during a national hysteria. It was a horrid chain reaction of errors, but it was hardly officers waving guns around to apprehend a girl they thought had brought beer?

speeder 13y ago

I read once a argument that is related to this... I saw on a forum, a couple of people arguing that women should not be cops, I was confused, since the argument was filled with cop jargon and seemly started elsewhere. Then someone posted a personal anecdote that I found interesting, about escalation. The guy was a cop, returning home after work. He saw a female cop confronting a teenager (that the male cop knew personally) that was obviously not in the right state of the mind. The male teenager, was obviously stronger than the female cop, and started to make a imposing pose (but not threatening, just "imposing" I am bigger than you), the female cop pulled her gun and threatened the guy, that obviously got shitless scared, and started to run toward her, the male cop also as soon he saw she pulling the gun, also run toward her (unseen by both of them), he shouted, and in the confusion she pointed the gun at him, he did some evasive movement and ended tackling her before the boy reached her. Then he took her gun, and the boy stopped (not feeling threatened anymore), then he explained the boy he was a cop and was taking him to drug exams and he was free to go, and that noone would use violence against him. Immediately the boy turned around and allowed himself to be hand cuffed. This guy was arguing that female officers in his apartment killed way more people with guns than male officers and this is why they should not be there... But anyway, I brought this here, because I think it is a good example of a attitude to just bring up guns whenever they feel they can use it to impose power, and obviously this many times only result in dangerous escalations (like pulling a gun on a junkie, or a scared innocent), I doubt the pair (female cop, junkie boy) would leave intact if it was not outside intervention, or the junkie would have killed the cop, or the cop would have shot the junkie.