This situation appears to be different, but its officer's jobs to put themselves at risk to protect everyone else. It's far preferable that officers are less trigger happy and are hospitalized more often than the alternative, which is individuals who havent signed up for the increased risk being shot by a trigger happy officers who are so obsessed with their own safety that everyone with a dark object in their hand needs to be executed on sight.
It's not actually their job to put themselves at risk to protect anyone. You can't force someone to do something that can harm them.
im not saying not to defend yourself, but last i checked self defense didnt include shooting unarmed people from across a street or while crawling towards you, etc. It's this is about the "risk" presented by seeing a vague dark object in someone's hand, if you're being given a gun and a badge you must be made to understand that using that gun and badge has consequences if you misuse it, and that if you cause more harm than you prevent you arent doing your job. Right now police have both immunity from their own actions and complete lack of responsibility for their role.
The thing with arguing Gun control/Police Force is that America has unfortunately forced itself into a very deep hole of violence, poverty and corporate greed.
The solution can only be fixed over probably hundreds of years of further violence and blood on the streets from both sides.
You're right. Why do we need OSHA as well? If you don't want to be forced to do unsafe things at work, then you just shouldn't work. It's so simple, I can't believe I've never thought of it.
What should these officers have done different when they see a guy in a shooting stance pointing something at them while shouting "fuck you!"
They're not protecting "everyone else" or anyone at all if they're letting a suspect taking those actions continue to flee and put the public and other officers at risk.
Have any of you watched the video...?
The police NEVER identify themselves until he's dead.
They run up on him with flashlights in the night, guns drawn, don't announce themselves, and they kill him shortly after him running around a bit in clear and obvious fear.
You're not seriously trying to argue that this guy thought they were anything but police running up on him with lights and guns telling him to show him his hands, are you?
Are you seriously defending the police NOT announcing themselves?
Are we going to let lives rely on what are only "Pretty good indicators" and not demand that errors in judgement(Like not annoucing themselves) shouldn't be excused as you're doing?
Where did you hear that? I watched the video with audio and didn't hear the guy say anything (let alone "fuck off") and I also didn't see him pointing anything at the officers, if anything it looks like his hands are up when the helicopter camera pans around to show him at the side of the house. This case is difficult because the cops weren't looking for an excuse to execute an unarmed black man, they were dealing with a potential robber who fled from them in the middle of the night and had an ambush angle on them when they finally approached. You can make the argument that they shot too soon but.. I don't know, I wouldn't want to get shot either.
On one hand I agree police take on a heightened sense of risk by agreeing to be police officers, and I think police are, by definition, needing to put themselves at risk for the good of the public.. But still, you have to have some reasonable sympathy for somebody that is chasing a robber in Sacramento in the middle of the night, who is holding something in their hands and isn't listening to your commands. Like, what should they have done? Sat around for a little longer behind that corner where the suspect had the drop on them and was coming towards them with something in their hands? It's a really unfortunate situation but I can't really bring myself to blame the cops too much in this case.
They announced themselves pretty well. By telling him to show his hands and stop running, and then once more before he gets shot. They don't need to say "hello good sire rest easy it is just your local constabulary" to everyone they run up on.
Besides, if you think the dude who just got caught breaking into someones shit actually thought they were anything but police after all that I don't know what to tell you because those are all things that I myself would assume meant I was being arrested. I don't know who else he would have thought they were.
I don't know, but it sounds like you're saying, yelling "POLICE" is too much to ask.
Too many black people are killed by police in instances remarkably similar to this.
Changing the protocol so the first response isn't to shoot is also, clearly asking too much.
Police don't exist to protect you, me, or anyone else. They exist to keep property safe, and little else. And you know what? That's not a good system to have.
Its kinda hard to hear but you if you listen closely enough you can make out him saying "fuck you"
And if you actually DO think that for one reason or another, do you think that would have changed anything? You actually think this dude would have got on the ground and complied with police commands?
Evilweazel, I get that you're not going to look at this as the police having done anything wrong. That's fine. I won't try and change your mind. That's a null prospect.
But too many people are dying at the hands of the police like this.
Philando Castile was straight up murdered, yet the officer in question never faced serious consequences. Stephon Clark was killed for having a phone, and being in the same area as an as of yet un-identified thief(This part is important at some level, no?) and running away. Do I know what would help them not run away, and not die? No, but I can imagine slightly less trigger happy police isn't a downside? This IS a racial issue as it's shown more black people face these kinds of issues then white people do. So what do we do? As you're doing, just sweep it all under the table?
I don't know what the answer is. You clearly think you do.
It's not too much to ask so much as it's more or less irrelevant considering I have no doubt in my mind this guy knew they were police.
This didn't have anything to do with the dude being black, but it did have a ton to do with him being an absolute moron.
How else are police supposed to react when there is a suspected gun in the hands of a non compliant and fleeing suspect 10 feet in front of them?
I don't agree with the last sentence, sorry. Knowing how many DUIs the deputies yank off the road in my county or keep belligerent bystanders and family off of us when we run calls, I'm much safer just from that alone.
They give DUI's to prevent property damage. Not save your life dude. It's a by product.
The western form of police exist for this purpose. I'm not making an argument. I'm not trying to be controversial. That's what they were established for, and still used for today.
Sure, but you're saying that they don't need to identify themselves and that the result is all his fault. I can't agree with that
What do you feel police should have done instead?
This isn't accurate. If you ask any chief- hell, and trooper, deputy, city cop, whatever- why they're yanking people driving drunk or stoned off the road they're going to tell you it's because someone gets killed by DUI about once an hour. I don't think I've ever heard any of them talk about preventing property damage via DUI arrests at any of the meetings we've had with them on traffic collision procedure and the like. Like, seriously, next time you see a cop, ask him why they pull over people for DUI checks. If they do something besides laugh, I think the answer will be very enlightening.
Where did you receive this information that the primary goal of the police is to prevent property damage? Maybe it's different in Canada, but I don't think I've ever seen an RCMP officer say anything similar.
If that were the case, why don't police just stop responding to calls in these neighborhoods? There's no big business to protect around there, just small businesses and poor people. But they do respond because it's their jobs to keep the peace, regardless of what people think.
They give DUIs to protect public safety, actually
I don't think cops have a legal obligation to protect you, but saying their only purpose is to prevent property damage is a bit absurd.
They don't, and in my opinion it would be impossible to uphold that standard. They're not bodyguards and they don't teleport, so there's no way to actually uphold that "protect every individual at all times" thing. They're more of a big picture deal, they don't protect you directly, but they protect you by keeping the peace and capturing criminals that could hurt you.
It's an officer's job to enforce the law. It's a risky job but that doesn't mean that they should be okay with an acceptable amount of bodily harm. It isn't the officer's fault that some asshole who is breaking the law and resists arrests decides to get violent. The police are there to slap the silvers on you for breaking the law, it's not their fault if you want to escalate the situation
As far as unneccisarry risks go i completely agree. When weighing your life against the potential to harm or kill an innocent civilian no risk falls into this category, though, your life has to be considered less than the civilian who didn't sign up for this inherently risky job. If we were a factory worker or something, then it would be different, you don't risk shooting timmy walking down the street if you fuck up, all risks should be minimized because none of your risks going down means risks going up for civilians. Consider the extreme case of your argument here. Anyone who doesn't go into the prone position with their hands in the air behind their back upon noticing an officer of the law in their vicinity poses more threat than people who do not immediately go into the prone position. Therefore, to minimize all possible risks to the officer, the officer would need to shoot everyone who does not go into a prone position to ensure his own safety is maximized.
The goal is not to maximize the safety of the officer. The goal is to minimize unneccisarry risks while recognizing that police work is an inherently risky job that demands officers exercise forethought and caution when deciding to end other human being's lives.
You're going to have a hard time convincing any department in the US to adopt SOPs where they're supposed to just take people waving guns or what could very possibly be guns at them during or after a pursuit as anything but a deadly threat, and you're going to have just as hard a time convincing anyone to vote for a sheriff or representatives who are going to push such a policy. That is something that has to be met with lethal force.
When exactly do you think cops should shoot a suspect, then?
I dont know what I would suggest. But this shouldn't happen so often. Yet it does. Any attempt to correct that is met with anger and I don't very know why.
We can start with the ~extreme view~ that police should properly follow procedure by announcing themselves as such since it seems like they didn't in this case, not lie about what their victim said which it seems like they did in this case to cover their asses, and not shoot people unless they're sure what theyre looking at is a gun. Yes, there will always be mistakes to point to, but right now those mistakes simply are not punished, and fact is right now many US police departments actively encourage excessive use of force, and the corrupt relationship bwteen judges, prosecutors and police leads to nonexistant sentancing for those excessive uses of force.
If these had been plain clothes officers would you still be saying that they shouldn't need to identify themselves?
But they weren't so thats irrelevant to this case
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
