Why is that aways your default response when someone tries to talk about a political proclamation you've made? If you don't want to debate your views, perhaps a discussion forum is not the best place to air them? You always reply with the equivalent of "that's not what I meant, but I'm not going to tell you what I meant because you couldn't possibly have the knowledge required to appreciate the validity of my views". This approach does not make for good discussion. In fact, it can be rather frustrating and appear like a childish way to obscure ignorance of a talking point. This isn't meant as an insult, I'm just trying to move the discussion along and circumvent tempers fraying
did you not even read the post you wrote. vandals and murder of parents in the same sentence. was that just a coincidence?
with all due respect hannibal, i do not think the force was appropriate in the video. why is it unacceptable that the cop just can't run behind the car? or run across the street? or pull out his taser or baton?
That's my reaction when words are put in my mouth. Sorry I don't have the inclination to write pages upon pages to say something, then argue misinterpretations of what I said then explain what I actually said. It's not that I don't want to debate my views, it's that I don't want to waste my time untangling strawmen and debating views I actually did not make. 1. Attack > retaliation 2. Same attackers also vandalized a kids hospital If someone's synthesis is vandals = murderers, then what do you me to say? Fine, have a good weekend and let's move on before wasting any more of each other's time. I'm doing everyone a favor, really. No tempers fraying on this end whatsoever
Have you ever backed up against a weapon? Ultimately deadly force was being used against the cop, why should he respond with a lower level of force?
Yep. Miller discusses this regarding self-knowledge vis-à-vis violence. How far would you go? If the threat is a young man? A 10 year old kid? A pregnant woman? We can add mentally ill to the list.
actually, yes. i believe a man was coming at me with a blade--years ago. i didn't wait to see if he was going to actually pull one out. i ran until my lungs exploded. i am not a police office so i want to be sensitive to the very difficult and dangerous job that those people have to, ultimately, protect and serve. and there is legitimate trust that we put in officers to use lethal force. i'm having a hard time understanding for that situation that was posted, how the best response was to gun that assailant down. how did that response protect and serve not only society and the officer, but ultimately, what looks to me like a mentally ill, or temporarily deranged person. doesn't that person also deserve some level of service and protection? or, raise your hand, flagpole, or whatever on an leo, get gunned down? is that really what we're saying?
While I don't think the flag pole cop was really out of order, given his training, I do think that the above reasoning can quickly lead down a slippery slope. Rioters are fighting, so why shouldn't cops fight the rioters? A stolen vehicle is driving recklessly through a city, so why shouldn't cops drive recklessly through the city? Smarter tactical approaches to crime than simple action-reaction always prove more effective. Police will always find themselves having to use deadly force in some unexpected situations, but I believe it is naive to think that the tactics and training could not be improved in ways that benefit both police and public safety.
But it is still fair to ask questions about how to minimise the risk of history repeating itself. Why was he alone? Could his approach and verbals have been done differently? Why did he use lethal, rather than a non-lethal, weapon? If it is a case of needing to put a threat down as expediently as possible, are there improvements that could be made to the non-lethal weapon systems used by the force? Maybe if US police authorities spent more money on training, staff, and non-lethal weapons, instead of buying up surplus military vehicles and other nonsense in preparing for some Red Dawn-esque invasion by jihadis (or to counter an insurgency by Black Lives Matter?), perhaps that might improve public relations for US police?
Taser is unreliablr, pepper spray takes time and is not accurate and given the dynamic a shot is the appropriate response He was in IMMINENT danger....the lead up is irrelevant at that point and the thread needs resolving
Not a valid option given a pursuer on you with large impact weapon...retreat leaves you open Mentally ill or not he is attacking directly and then threat needs dealing with quickly - service and protection can only come in the absence of a clear amd present danger and he surrenders said right when he attacks with potentially lethal and certainly injurous force That does not give carte blanche for excessive application but if you make me choose between you and me you lose
Case in point... http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36563152 France police killing: policeman refuses to shake president's hand French President Francois Hollande has vowed to improve the protection of police officers, after a police couple was killed by a militant this week. But during a ceremony to honour the victims, one policeman refused the shake hands with the president and his prime minister. Interviewed on TF1 television afterwards, he said "There are too many problems in the police. We've had enough." --- The policeman also stated that it was to protest the lack of resources given to officers.
I appreciate that, and don't dispute it. What I am saying is that more investment in manpower so that officers are not alone, more investment in training, de-escalation and mental health, and more investment in non-lethal weapon research so that non-lethal measures are as accurate and have as much chance of incapacitating a target as a pistol would be a good start in preventing this from happening again.
You know, normally I agree with you on this stuff, and in a situation where a firearm might be involved, I'd agree 100%. But this is not that. This is someone who was, by their movements, clearly drunk or agitated. They then went off and got a flagpole from maybe 10 feet away, which they could swing overhead with the flag still attached. It's not heavy, it's not pointed. The cop could just walk to the other side of his car at a fairly leisurely pace and not get hurt. He absolutely does not have to respond with lethal force at that point. Now, he might choose to. He might choose to based on experience of assailants baring other weapons. He might be legally entitled to. But he doesn't have to. Seriously, back in Hull he'd have walked behind his car, chatted a bit whilst waiting for some more officers to arrive, then a bunch of them would have rugby tackled this numpty to the ground. Nobody hurt beyond a few grazes and job's a good'un. It may not be murder, but a man is dead and there was really no need for it. Mitch
The fact that he can swing it overhead certainly doesn't mean it's so light that he can't kill or stun you with it. There's a reason expandable batons aren't meant to be used against the head unless lethal force is warranted. And while standing back and waiting for backup is a great idea when you have the time (or using a taser when you have lethal force backup ready to step in), it isn't really feasible against someone actively closing the distance and swinging a large blunt object at your head. FWIW I think empty hand tactics are pretty lacking in law enforcement as a whole but this is a case where it isn't really advisable.
