While there are armed police available in the UK the reality is it takes probably an hour to get them to the scene, virtually every time the cops in the UK handle armed assailants they do it with no more than a truncheon, they are trained to keep their distance until support arrives, once you get a couple of cops they move in one to each arm and take them down. British cops accept getting hurt as part of the job, not killed mind you, although it does happen, but taking a thump or getting cut is part of the job.
Cops in the US seem congenitally unable to back away from the suspect and wait a few minutes, nine times out of ten if you don't do or say anything to escalate it the anger disapates and things end well, point a gun though and you escalate things.
Interesting. I'll do some research and get back to you.
So now we are asking police to decide whether a knife is large enough to be lethal?? Really?!! Or have I misunderstood you.
What is your understanding of "apprehension procedures"?
We could discuss the violence in the US at length, but that might derail this thread... oh wait... nevermind.
There's a big difference between a guy wielding a small swiss army knife and a large butcher's knife. Yes, both can be lethal--but a hunting rifle and a machine gun are also both lethal, but there are varying degrees we're talking about here. A small swiss army knife and the guy is likely to wound people, a huge butcher's knife or larger and he could inflict some major damage, just as someone with a hunting rifle might be able to shoot a couple of people before being stopped, whereas someone with a machine gun could easily take out a good chunk of a crowd in the same amount of time. And an officer of the law who is expected to serve and protect his community should be able to assess the situation quickly and handle it as safely as possible, while leaving lethal force as an absolute last resort. My issue is that all too often in these cases lethal force is applied very quickly without much, if any, attempt at deescalating the situation first.
When police forces literally the rest of the globe over are capable of disarming without lethal force, is it really that unacceptable that I would like to see US police forces do the same? The biggest argument I've heard for increased violence/homicides/etc for police in the US is the inherent gun culture in the US--this guy didn't have a gun. Brown didn't have a gun. Eric Garner didn't have a gun, etc, etc.
Yes, gun culture and prevalence is an issue in this country, and I would love to see some common sense legislation to deal with it. But there are other countries that have relatively high gun ownership rates and these things don't happen there. Iceland ranks 15th in the world in gun ownership, yet they just had their first ever homicide by a police officer. Britain hasn't had a homicide by a cop since 2012.
Again, if you can honestly look at the numbers, at the way that police in this country tend to treat its citizens as enemy combatants (hence the need for complete overkill with regards to military style weaponry), and then look at the rest of the world's industrialized nations and their police forces and say that the US has it all figured out, then I just don't think we can ever come to an agreement.
Just think of a few months ago when the nutjob was actively killing and targeting police officers in Canada--he was stopped peacefully and without killing the guy. In the US it'd likely be a foregone conclusion that deadly force would've been used to stop him.
There's a big difference between a guy wielding a small swiss army knife and a large butcher's knife. Yes, both can be lethal--but a hunting rifle and a machine gun are also both lethal, but there are varying degrees we're talking about here. A small swiss army knife and the guy is likely to wound people, a huge butcher's knife or larger and he could inflict some major damage, just as someone with a hunting rifle might be able to shoot a couple of people before being stopped, whereas someone with a machine gun could easily take out a good chunk of a crowd in the same amount of time. And an officer of the law who is expected to serve and protect his community should be able to assess the situation quickly and handle it as safely as possible, while leaving lethal force as an absolute last resort. My issue is that all too often in these cases lethal force is applied very quickly without much, if any, attempt at deescalating the situation first.
When police forces literally the rest of the globe over are capable of disarming without lethal force, is it really that unacceptable that I would like to see US police forces do the same? The biggest argument I've heard for increased violence/homicides/etc for police in the US is the inherent gun culture in the US--this guy didn't have a gun. Brown didn't have a gun. Eric Garner didn't have a gun, etc, etc.
Yes, gun culture and prevalence is an issue in this country, and I would love to see some common sense legislation to deal with it. But there are other countries that have relatively high gun ownership rates and these things don't happen there. Iceland ranks 15th in the world in gun ownership, yet they just had their first ever homicide by a police officer. Britain hasn't had a homicide by a cop since 2012.
Again, if you can honestly look at the numbers, at the way that police in this country tend to treat its citizens as enemy combatants (hence the need for complete overkill with regards to military style weaponry), and then look at the rest of the world's industrialized nations and their police forces and say that the US has it all figured out, then I just don't think we can ever come to an agreement.
Just think of a few months ago when the nutjob was actively killing and targeting police officers in Canada--he was stopped peacefully and without killing the guy. In the US it'd likely be a foregone conclusion that deadly force would've been used to stop him.
Well, I don't really want to continue this debate. Doesn't seem to go anywhere.
I do however, encourage you and others to do some reading before posting anymore opinions. There are lots of good peer reviewed, articles and journal entries.
If the passenger side police officer moved to the back of his SUV he would have placed an obstacle in front of himself and forced Powell to either make a hard turn and slowing him down, or walk parallel to the SUV. In both cases the officers would have more time and better opportunities to withdraw or defend themselves. If anyone actually googles Dennis Tueller rather than Tueller drills than you would know that he was trying to emphasis using obstacles and movements to reduce the effectiveness of a straight line attack .
So now the officer is defending themselves against this guy and not defending the public. If this guy turned and ran, what do the police do? Stand behind another car? I really don't see a solution for a very difficult situation. Maybe stun guns or things like that, but they are used at a range where the knife is dangerous to the police. I actually didn't watch the video, I didn't feel like watching someone get killed.
Tueller was the guy who determined the time it takes for an armed attacker to reach a shooter, creating the 'danger zone'. If you think instead he is most well known for using obstacles as cover, that is somewhat silly. Of course, in order to minimize the ability of a armed attacker racing over to you, use cover, or distance, or have your weapon already drawn.
Pentagon spokesman says only equipment Ferguson PD has that originated from the DOD consists of a generator, a trailer and two soft skinned Humvees.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
Anyone hear the Michael Bradley statement? Says there was a scuffle at the cruiser, Brown was shot at as he was running away, he turned and was going down to the ground and was shot up to 4 times more.
That account makes more sense than anything else I have heard thus far.
For me, this all goes back to why the encounter took place to begin with. If you are contacting citizens in a authoritarian manner because they are walking down the middle of a residential street in the middle of the day you are probably not a good cop.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
The Following User Says Thank You to Displaced Flames fan For This Useful Post:
How do you think that makes the most sense? It doesn't seem the most sensible to me. Maybe that is what happened, but it isn't the most likely IMO.
And as to why he was stopped initially, it depends on the details doesn't it? If 2 dudes are wanting in the middle of Macleod Trail, it makes total sense. If it is down the middle of a quiet suburban cul-de-sac, then no. But it all depends on the context.
It would surprise me if he yelled freeze with his gun drawn, then as the suspect stopped and turned with his hands up he started shooting. But again it all depends on the details.
Because it is the single eyewitness account that explains how he got shot in the top of the head.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
The St. Louis County prosecutor began presenting evidence from the case Wednesday before a grand jury, but that evidence won’t include an incident report from the shooting
The prosecutor’s office revealed Thursday that Ferguson police never generated an incident report that included Wilson’s account of the shooting and instead turned over the investigation almost immediately to St. Louis County police
All hearsay evidence will be allowed before the grand jury tho.
All hearsay evidence will be allowed before the grand jury tho.
I just really can't deal with the fact that there's not an incident report from the officer on this. A person died--justified or not, I feel like there should be some kind of report when an officer kills someone on the job.
Part of the defense I've heard for Officer Wilson is that he has 6 years on the force with no incidents--well if the department isn't keeping records well (or at all), it makes those 6 years incident free kinda suspect.
Well both sides of this show there was some sort of altercation.
There won't be a next time IMO. He is a house hold name synonymous with shooting an unarmed teen. Even if he's cleared in no way should any police force take him. That would be asking for trouble.
Well, I don't really want to continue this debate. Doesn't seem to go anywhere.
I do however, encourage you and others to do some reading before posting anymore opinions. There are lots of good peer reviewed, articles and journal entries.
Great article although may cost you some money. I have it in hard copy somewhere and if you're genuinely interested I can see about getting it to you.
I fail to see how an English article concerning Mumbai might be relevant to the question of whether or not the police in US is possibly trigger happy and poorly instructed. I mean, it apparently is not a comparative study?
I'm on a phone now, so can't go back to check, but it was you who linked "On Combat", right? Not a bad book, but also really irrelevant if you ask me.
Well both sides of this show there was some sort of altercation.
There won't be a next time IMO. He is a house hold name synonymous with shooting an unarmed teen. Even if he's cleared in no way should any police force take him. That would be asking for trouble.
So if he's cleared of wrongdoing he should still lose his job???
I fail to see how an English article concerning Mumbai might be relevant to the question of whether or not the police in US is possibly trigger happy and poorly instructed. I mean, it apparently is not a comparative study?
I'm on a phone now, so can't go back to check, but it was you who linked "On Combat", right? Not a bad book, but also really irrelevant if you ask me.
You clearly didn't read the paper and only skimmed the link.
So now we are asking police to decide whether a knife is large enough to be lethal?? Really?!!
Why is it such an absurd suggestion? I can decide the "lethal-ness" of knives. One of mine is on my keychain. Another one cuts bread. Another one is in the shed at the lake and can cut branches off a tree.
I watched the video and, considering the rules of the day that we all appear to accept, they were justified in shooting the guy. But at the same time, you can't even see the knife he's carrying. It's not a big knife. He's not waving a machete at them.
Those cops are two large, fit, and hopefully decently trained men carrying truncheons (never mind the guns).
What would have had to happen for them to be in real danger of losing their lives in that situation? Looks to me like one of them would have had to lie down on the ground and accept being stabbed while the other officer ran away.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
Why is it such an absurd suggestion? I can decide the "lethal-ness" of knives. One of mine is on my keychain. Another one cuts bread. Another one is in the shed at the lake and can cut branches off a tree.
I watched the video and, considering the rules of the day that we all appear to accept, they were justified in shooting the guy. But at the same time, you can't even see the knife he's carrying. It's not a big knife. He's not waving a machete at them.
Those cops are two large, fit, and hopefully decently trained men carrying truncheons (never mind the guns).
What would have had to happen for them to be in real danger of losing their lives in that situation? Looks to me like one of them would have had to lie down on the ground and accept being stabbed while the other officer ran away.
Officers must fear death OR grievous bodily harm in order to use lethal force. A knife doesn't need to be able to take your head off with one swipe in order to qualify as dangerous. I'm not 100% certain but I believe a half inch of penetration in the chest cavity can cause death, so potentially something as mundane as a jackknife could kill.
