4 ms·

I'm personally of the belief that if you assault someone with a deadly weapon, you have forfeited your right to live. Hell, if you assault someone in my family

I'm personally of the belief that if you assault someone with a deadly weapon, you have forfeited your right to live. Hell, if you assault someone in my family without a weapon you've forfeited your right to live. I realize some may hold cops to a different standard, and I most certainly hold them to the same standard as I do anyone (and the recent spat of cops killing unarmed men or kids with toys on park benches have been atrocious) but this guy was out to murder a cop, so, boom you're dead. I know others may have a different opinion, but don't imagine a stranger - imagine someone you know is being assaulted with a hammer. Would you not put the assailant down on the spot, even if you had police/military/marshal arts training? I would.

thfuran 11y ago
What might be done in the heat of the moment and what is reasonable or just are not necessarily the same. I think suggesting considering assault of one's family instead of a stranger is precisely the wrong approach. Consider your response to harm to a stranger. I don't see how holding different positions on retaliatory use of lethal force depending on whether someone is related to you or not is a tenable position. If shooting a stranger in the head after you witness them slapping another stranger isn't just, neither is shooting them in the head after witnessing them slapping your wife/child, though the latter is perhaps more understandable.
- themartorana 11y ago
  I disagree, respectfully. I think people are so fast to condemn something that they have no way of understanding. It is so much easier to make judgements in a disassociated fashion. Cops are usually extremely close to their partners. They take the responsibility of the other's life quite seriously. So if you want to even pretend to understand what happened, you have to imagine someone was attacking a friend/loved one with a hammer. Personally, as you can no doubt tell, I think the cop was right to shoot the guy completely disassociated. But it's because I know what my reaction would be in the most extreme situation that I don't stand back and place judgement.
  - thfuran 11y ago
    I was speaking more to the point of your comment regarding someone attacking your family without a weapon forfeiting their life. A hammer is absolutely a deadly weapon and while it would be preferable to avoid killing people in general, I do think lethal force is justified in defense of someone's life.
vidarh 11y ago
It's the wrong thing to focus on. Once the guy was chasing the officer, the right decision may very well have been to shoot. But what I imagine is a police force that is trained enough to know better than to approach a man with a hammer without adequate backup and preparation. Thankfully I live somewhere where - despite high profile, dreadful, mistakes - that tends to be what police does. The high profile, dreadful mistakes are high profile because they are so exceedingly rare. This is why we get lists like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc... while still having lists like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officer... The answer is to approach with the intent to isolate and de-escalate rather than with the intent to confront. British police are only armed in exceptional cases, and as a result they can't go in the way US police often do because they don't have someone ready to shoot the suspect at the drop of a pin. Instead they go in with more people. They get other people away if possible. They keep their distance if there's potential danger until they can approach the suspect cautiously, and ideally from multiple directions. They don't walk up to someone wielding a hammer with only one person as backup. There are of course exceptions where there are immediate dangers they must respond to, but they generally try very hard not to contribute to creating those dangers - whether for themselves or others.

thfuran 11y ago

What might be done in the heat of the moment and what is reasonable or just are not necessarily the same. I think suggesting considering assault of one's family instead of a stranger is precisely the wrong approach. Consider your response to harm to a stranger. I don't see how holding different positions on retaliatory use of lethal force depending on whether someone is related to you or not is a tenable position. If shooting a stranger in the head after you witness them slapping another stranger isn't just, neither is shooting them in the head after witnessing them slapping your wife/child, though the latter is perhaps more understandable.

themartorana 11y ago
I disagree, respectfully. I think people are so fast to condemn something that they have no way of understanding. It is so much easier to make judgements in a disassociated fashion. Cops are usually extremely close to their partners. They take the responsibility of the other's life quite seriously. So if you want to even pretend to understand what happened, you have to imagine someone was attacking a friend/loved one with a hammer. Personally, as you can no doubt tell, I think the cop was right to shoot the guy completely disassociated. But it's because I know what my reaction would be in the most extreme situation that I don't stand back and place judgement.
- thfuran 11y ago
  I was speaking more to the point of your comment regarding someone attacking your family without a weapon forfeiting their life. A hammer is absolutely a deadly weapon and while it would be preferable to avoid killing people in general, I do think lethal force is justified in defense of someone's life.

vidarh 11y ago

It's the wrong thing to focus on. Once the guy was chasing the officer, the right decision may very well have been to shoot. But what I imagine is a police force that is trained enough to know better than to approach a man with a hammer without adequate backup and preparation. Thankfully I live somewhere where - despite high profile, dreadful, mistakes - that tends to be what police does. The high profile, dreadful mistakes are high profile because they are so exceedingly rare. This is why we get lists like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc... while still having lists like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_police_officer... The answer is to approach with the intent to isolate and de-escalate rather than with the intent to confront. British police are only armed in exceptional cases, and as a result they can't go in the way US police often do because they don't have someone ready to shoot the suspect at the drop of a pin. Instead they go in with more people. They get other people away if possible. They keep their distance if there's potential danger until they can approach the suspect cautiously, and ideally from multiple directions. They don't walk up to someone wielding a hammer with only one person as backup. There are of course exceptions where there are immediate dangers they must respond to, but they generally try very hard not to contribute to creating those dangers - whether for themselves or others.