46 replies to this topic

[DarkFox]

I agree that statistics do not show everything (at least not one set of them) but they help light up the picture. We cant even argue what ifs because one can say that guns are more harmful to the owner than anyone else. After all most deaths caused by guns is to the owner of the weapon. 19 thousand to the 12 thousand. 

 

I personally believe that guns aren't the issue, rather a symptom of the real problem. And people use control as a sort of easy button. There are bad people out there and gun control isn't going to stop them. If anything it might lower suicide rates but I don't believe it would effect killings that are crime related.

[Yggdrazil]

Why Cops Shoot

Try It Yourself

 

If you are unfamiliar with guns, and yet want an idea of why shootings
by cops happen, let me suggest a few practical exercises that may shed
light on the subject.

    First (and for a variety of reasons I don't suggest trying this should
the occasion arise in real life), have a friend stand in front of you
and point his finger at your chest as if it were a gun. Hold your hands
at about shoulder height, as if he had said, "Hands up!" Tell him to
shoot instantly if you move. Then, as fast as you can, without warning,
try to knock his hand away.

    He will never be able to pull the (imaginary) trigger before you hit his hand.

    Next, get a second friend, or just pretend you have one at hand. Hold
your hand at your side as you might comfortably hold a gun, and point it
at the second friend, who we will assume to be a clerk at a convenience
store. If you are right handed, have your other friend stand directly
to your left, pointing his "gun" at you, ready to fire. He will be the
cop. If he wants, he can say, "Drop it!" or whatever.

    Now, turn to look toward him, simultaneously pointing your gun finger
at him, as fast as you can, and shoot. You will find that, although he
already has his "gun" aimed, he cannot react fast enough to shoot before
you do.

    
Reflect that in real life, unless he is cold and experienced in
gunfights (cops are usually neither) he will probably wait a split
second to decide whether the bad guy has hostile intent. End of story.

    Try a harder
one. Point your gun, again at a natural waist level, and close to your
body, toward the "clerk." Have the cop stand directly behind you, say,
ten feet away, with his gun aimed at you. Now, as fast as you possibly
can, twist -- don't step -- around and try to shoot him before he can
shoot you. The results may surprise you. Note that, if the "cop" had
his gun aimed at the middle of your back, he will probably find that it
is pointed at the clerk when he pulls the trigger because, in twisting
around, your body moved out of his line of fire.

    Most criminals won't have the presence of mind to try turning on you
this way, but some will. If a robber is wired out of his mind on PCP or
crank, he will be unpredictable. To someone who hasn't tried it, it
may look as if you have the drop on him. You don't, quite.

    As a final experiment, have him stand ten feet away from you with his
back turned to you and his hands in front of him. Assume that he is a
suspect fleeing from you down an alley, and finds that it is a dead end.
Have him hold two different objects in his hands -- say, his wallet
and his cell phone. The cell phone, let us say, is a gun.

Point
your "gun" at him. Say "Hands up!" if you want. His job is to turn
quickly toward you, with either the wallet or the cell phone in his gun
hand. If he has chosen to turn with the "gun," he should shoot you as
quickly as he can.

Your
job is to decide whether he is holding the "gun" or the wallet, and
either shoot, or refrain from shooting, as appropriate. Have a body bag
ready, because, if he turns with the gun, you won't have a prayer.

If
you want, try it with a Day-glo pink plastic banana and a realistic
plastic gun. For that matter, have him turn either holding the cell
phone or holding nothing. The results will be the same. The arithmetic
of reaction time says that you cannot look at an object, decide what it
is, and take action before he shoots. The one who acts first not only
has the advantage of reaction time, which in itself would be enough to
shoot first, but also the time needed for you to decide what to do. Not
even close.

Think
about trying it in a dark alley, after sprinting a hundred yards,
chasing a criminal who as a matter of statistical fact is quite likely
to be armed, but may not be. Very likely, someone will die: You,
because it was a gun and you waited to see, or him, because, gun or not,
you didn't wait.





This is what cops face every encounter and most of you want them to make the correct decision, that hesiatation will end badly for the cop.

[Samus]

Your scenario describes one where a criminal has a gun, majority of these examples and links in these last 2 threads have been where unarmed civilians were involved

If a criminal has a gun, by all means the police officer should do what they need to do to disarm him, if completely necessary even shoot to kill.

But where an unarmed individual is involved I don't think that should ever be the case.

[Lysistrata]

"Policeman" by Paul Harvey

Needs to be added to the conversation.

 

A police officer is a composite of what all men are, a mingling of saint and sinner, dust and deity. Culled statistics wave the fan over the stinkers, underscore instances of dishonestly and brutality because they are "news." What that really means is that they are exceptional, unusual, not commonplace.

 

Buried under the froth is the fact: Less than one-half of 1 percent of officers misfit that uniform.

That's a better average than you'd find among clergymen.

 

What is an officer made of? He, of all men, is at once the most needed and the most unwanted. He's a strangely nameless creature who is "sir" to his face and "pig" behind his back. He must be such a diplomat that he can settle differences between individuals so that each will think he won.

 

But... If the policeman is neat, he's conceited; if he's careless, he's a bum. If he's pleasant, he's a flirt; if he's not, he's a grouch. He must make, in an instant, decisions which would require months for a lawyer.

 

But... If he hurries, he's careless; if he's deliberate, he's lazy. He must be first to an accident and infallible with a diagnosis. He must be able to start breathing, stop bleeding, tie splints and, about all, be sure the victim goes home without a limp. Or expect to be sued.

 

The police officer must know every gun, draw on the run, and hit where it doesn't hurt. He must be able to whip two men twice his size and half his age without damaging his uniform and without being "brutal". If you hit him, he's a coward, if he hits you, he's a bully. A police officer must know everything -- and not tell. He must know where all the sin is -- and not partake. The policeman must, from a
single human hair, be able to describe the crime, the weapon and the criminal -- and tell you where the criminal is hiding.

 

But... If he catches the criminal, he's lucky; if he doesn't, he's a dunce. If he gets promoted, he has political pull; if he doesn't, he's a dullard. The policeman must chase bum leads to a dead end, stake out 10 nights to tag one witness who saw it happen -- but refuses to remember. He runs files and writes reports until his eyes ache to build a case against some felon who'll get dealed out by a shameless shamus or an "honorable" who isn't.

 

The police officer must be a minister, a social worker, a diplomat, a tough guy, and a gentleman.

 

And of course he'll have to be a genius... For he'll have to do it on a policeman's salary.

[ihateaaron]

Your scenario describes one where a criminal has a gun, majority of these examples and links in these last 2 threads have been where unarmed civilians were involved

If a criminal has a gun, by all means the police officer should do what they need to do to disarm him, if completely necessary even shoot to kill.

But where an unarmed individual is involved I don't think that should ever be the case.

I believe that the last example would give you the best idea of the unarmed scenario.

 

If an unarmed person turns the police officer has a fraction of a second to identify the object in their hand, and determine the threat level.  If if registers as a weapon to an officer, or a threat, they have less than a second to react and shoot.  Hesitation kills in their line of duty.  I did that for a little while, and every encounter can be deadly.

 

Another point I want to make really quick.  There is a lot of mention of the excessive number of incidents of police brutality, and the fact that it is happening so often, brings up a point I made in another thread.

 

In the US last year there was over 40 million interactions between police and civilians.  That is a lot of interactions.  A very small number of those incidents involved reported brutality or potentially unjustified shootings.  I don't have the exact numbers, but it points to the fact that our current instant news and judgment era has created a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

Is there a problem?  Yes.  There should be zero cases of police brutality, and zero cases of unjustified shootings.  But human error and split second decisions have to be accounted for.  Being a police officer is one of the most stressful and intense jobs in the world.  I prefer open combat to police work.  In open combat you are almost always assured to be facing an enemy.  In police work every encounter could be your average citizen in need of assistance, or some dude drugged out of his mind looking to kill you.  That means being on edge all the time.

 

There is no excuse for police to use excessive force, but there is also no need for the general public to make snap decisions on levels of force used without all of the evidence present.  They deserve the same due process that is guaranteed to everyone else.

 

To me the Ferguson case was pretty clear cut.  The physical evidence was in line with the officers statement, and the statements of witnesses who were not discredited.

 

The NY case is a lot more muddy.  Did the officer do something wrong?  Yes.  He violated NYPD policy and used a chokehold that is prohibited by their own guidelines.  He was punished immediately for the improper technique used.  Did he commit a crime?  That is harder to define.  The man was resisting arrest, had medical conditions, and ended up dead.  That is not the final result that I expect that they wanted.  But, did the officer go in with intent to harm or kill the man?  I can say with a lot of confidence that he did not.  He may have acted with poor instincts in that situation, but I do not think that his intention was to cause harm to the man.

 

Another point of fact that has been skipped, and I have not had a chance to read through the reports and do any searching, but I heard that the lead officer that day with the group who took the man down was an African American woman.  If people want to scream that the whole incident was racially motivated, what are they saying about her?

 

I get called a racist a lot.  I am a white male, tall, bald, and have a goatee.  People assume I am a hate mongering piece of crap.  You know what?  They just judged me by my appearance.  The same thing they claim to hate having done to themselves or others.  You wanna know the most ironic part of it?  My best friend is a black guy from Texas.  He is gay.  Jon is a brother to me, and he knows I would do anything to help him whenever he needs it.  I have done some crazy stuff to help him out, and he has done the same level of insanity for me.

 

The constant shouting about race does not help to work through the issues.  Recently there has been incidences of white officers shooting back people, and black officers shooting white people.  Those who are shouting the loudest are shouting about white officers killing black men.  It should be looked at as an officer shooting a man.  The media immediately making it about race only fans flames that need no help.

 

There is a racial divide in the country, but I do not think it will ever be fixed if the focus is always on race and not on healing.

 

There is a small issue with police brutality and excessive force.  Like the racial divide, it will not be fixed unless we get focused on the right things.

 

Communication and building relations are where we need to be focused.  Removing the fear of police from kids, and removing the fear of not going home at night from he police's minds.  We need to get back to person accountability and respect.  A lot of problems would be solved with just a little bit of respect for ourselves and for one another.

[Samus]

 

Your scenario describes one where a criminal has a gun, majority of these examples and links in these last 2 threads have been where unarmed civilians were involved

If a criminal has a gun, by all means the police officer should do what they need to do to disarm him, if completely necessary even shoot to kill.

But where an unarmed individual is involved I don't think that should ever be the case.

I believe that the last example would give you the best idea of the unarmed scenario.

 

If an unarmed person turns the police officer has a fraction of a second to identify the object in their hand, and determine the threat level.  If if registers as a weapon to an officer, or a threat, they have less than a second to react and shoot.  Hesitation kills in their line of duty.  I did that for a little while, and every encounter can be deadly.

 

Another point I want to make really quick.  There is a lot of mention of the excessive number of incidents of police brutality, and the fact that it is happening so often, brings up a point I made in another thread.

 

In the US last year there was over 40 million interactions between police and civilians.  That is a lot of interactions.  A very small number of those incidents involved reported brutality or potentially unjustified shootings.  I don't have the exact numbers, but it points to the fact that our current instant news and judgment era has created a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

Is there a problem?  Yes.  There should be zero cases of police brutality, and zero cases of unjustified shootings.  But human error and split second decisions have to be accounted for.  Being a police officer is one of the most stressful and intense jobs in the world.  I prefer open combat to police work.  In open combat you are almost always assured to be facing an enemy.  In police work every encounter could be your average citizen in need of assistance, or some dude drugged out of his mind looking to kill you.  That means being on edge all the time.

 

There is no excuse for police to use excessive force, but there is also no need for the general public to make snap decisions on levels of force used without all of the evidence present.  They deserve the same due process that is guaranteed to everyone else.

 

To me the Ferguson case was pretty clear cut.  The physical evidence was in line with the officers statement, and the statements of witnesses who were not discredited.

 

The NY case is a lot more muddy.  Did the officer do something wrong?  Yes.  He violated NYPD policy and used a chokehold that is prohibited by their own guidelines.  He was punished immediately for the improper technique used.  Did he commit a crime?  That is harder to define.  The man was resisting arrest, had medical conditions, and ended up dead.  That is not the final result that I expect that they wanted.  But, did the officer go in with intent to harm or kill the man?  I can say with a lot of confidence that he did not.  He may have acted with poor instincts in that situation, but I do not think that his intention was to cause harm to the man.

 

Another point of fact that has been skipped, and I have not had a chance to read through the reports and do any searching, but I heard that the lead officer that day with the group who took the man down was an African American woman.  If people want to scream that the whole incident was racially motivated, what are they saying about her?

 

I get called a racist a lot.  I am a white male, tall, bald, and have a goatee.  People assume I am a hate mongering piece of crap.  You know what?  They just judged me by my appearance.  The same thing they claim to hate having done to themselves or others.  You wanna know the most ironic part of it?  My best friend is a black guy from Texas.  He is gay.  Jon is a brother to me, and he knows I would do anything to help him whenever he needs it.  I have done some crazy stuff to help him out, and he has done the same level of insanity for me.

 

The constant shouting about race does not help to work through the issues.  Recently there has been incidences of white officers shooting back people, and black officers shooting white people.  Those who are shouting the loudest are shouting about white officers killing black men.  It should be looked at as an officer shooting a man.  The media immediately making it about race only fans flames that need no help.

 

There is a racial divide in the country, but I do not think it will ever be fixed if the focus is always on race and not on healing.

 

There is a small issue with police brutality and excessive force.  Like the racial divide, it will not be fixed unless we get focused on the right things.

 

Communication and building relations are where we need to be focused.  Removing the fear of police from kids, and removing the fear of not going home at night from he police's minds.  We need to get back to person accountability and respect.  A lot of problems would be solved with just a little bit of respect for ourselves and for one another.

 

 

All your points are undderstandable and I can say I mostly agree with them.

 

But with the NY situation, sure maybe he didn't intend to kill him, but as a result of his actions, the man ended up dead. I don't know much of American law, but in the UK we refer to that as manslaughter. A human being still ended up dead at this officers hand.

[ihateaaron]

I agree with you on the manslaughter thing in principle.  I do not have all the evidence in front of me though.  I have heard that he had a medical condition that could have caused complications.  But again, I do not have all that information.  The Grand Jury looked at the evidence and decided that there was not enough evidence to show that a crime might have been committed.  That is not a police group, that is regular citizens assigned to look at cases like this.  They had all the evidence and decided to not bring charges.

 

Could they have gotten it wrong?  Of course.  Without a doubt things could have been messed up.  However, with a group of people looking from outside the police force at all the evidence, and then deciding not to charge him, I have to believe there are things we do not know.  Or the Grand Jury really screwed things up.

 

One of the things about the NY case that has really bothered me is the Mayor.  He was one of the first people to jump in and condemn the police.  Loudly.  But the whole situation was caused by his, as quoted by many NY residents, "excessive" cigarette tax.  The high taxes on cigarettes has created a huge black market for them.  The whole confrontation does not happen if the tax is not so high that people are willing to break laws to avoid it.

 

In the end, I do tend to give the police the benefit of the doubt.  In almost every instance, except for one lone officer, all of my police encounters have been handled professionally, if not nicely.  Does that have to do with my race maybe?  It could.  Could that be because I offer them the same respect I would hope to receive in return?  That definitely factors in.  Every police officer I know, and that is actually quiet a few, treat everyone as respectful as they are being treated.

 

Do they profile?  Without a doubt, but profiling has been proven effective time and again.  Do they get profiling wrong?  Yep.  But everyone profiles.  First impressions.  You see a person and make a snap judgment on them before you really know them.  It happens with every person I know.  It is human nature, and part of the whole self preservation thing.

 

It is important to know that because officers will make a decision on someone based on how they appear, how they react towards the officer, and what area they are in.  Is that always fair?  No.  But looking on the other side of it, if you give everyone the benefit of the doubt, then a lot less police go home every night.  There are terrible people out there (no matter where in the world you are) and I am just hoping that the number of good police that are out there can help keep them at bay.

 

And, as someone pointed out before, less than 1 percent of police officers do something to dishonor the uniform.  Less than 1 percent.  That is a lot better odds of meeting a good cop than a lot of other professions.

 

There is plenty of room for improvement.  Until we have the issues down to zero, there can always be improvement.  And I am all for hearing ways to make that happen.  I strongly feel that discussions like this help to educate both sides.  Personally I have learned a few things just from this thread, and the opinions put out there.

 

I really appreciate the thoughtful responses, and the general idea that we can just talk through this.  We may not change the world, but perhaps we can get some meaningful ideas started to get things rolling.