26 y.o. New Brunswick woman shot and killed by Police

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

And yet, they are still stabbed.

Is that acceptable to you? Couple stabbings here and there?

Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk

I'm going to come back to this because to some degree I think this is the problem, in the late 1960's in LA if I remember rightly Police training changed radically, a philosophy of no policeman being harmed became paramount in the training, everything else became secondary to officer safety and it has lead to a large degree the US to where it is today and while it wasn't adopted here some elements of it have seeped into policing in Canada, yes it is terrible but ok if policemen are hurt on the job but it makes the police better at protecting society, that's literally the trade off we have to ask policemen to make.

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I'm going to come back to this because to some degree I think this is the problem, in the late 1960's in LA if I remember rightly Police training changed radically, a philosophy of no policeman being harmed became paramount in the training, everything else became secondary to officer safety and it has lead to a large degree the US to where it is today and while it wasn't adopted here some elements of it have seeped into policing in Canada, yes it is terrible but ok if policemen are hurt on the job but it makes the police better at protecting society, that's literally the trade off we have to ask policemen to make.

And that, in a nutshell, sums up your position.

There is no argument I can make that will change your mind when you advocate that.

Night.



Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

And that, in a nutshell, sums up your position.

There is no argument I can make that will change your mind when you advocate that.

Night.



Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk

Are the police any less likely to get hurt in the US than they are in the UK? Does all this shooting make them any safer? I have no idea - but I'd guess if you are trying to de-escalate the situation you are less likely to be in range to get hurt.

[Flames_Gimp]

I reccomend you guys watch the bodycam videos on the youtube channel PoliceActivity

[blender]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Why are you comparing to South Africa? That's not a valid comparison, and you know it. I posted police kill statistics from a variety of industrialized OECD (i.e. "first world") countries that are comparable to Canada earlier in this thread. If you take away the United States, which is a huge outlier among that group, Canadian cops kill citizens an order of magnitude higher than any other first world country. Like more than twice as much as the next closest nation. This is unacceptable to me. It should be unacceptable to you, too.

Yes.
Cops are killing civilians because our culture dehumanizes marginalized people, especially people of colour and aboriginal peoples, so we value their lives less.
It is true and elementary.
And yes, unacceptable.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by blender

Yes.
Cops are killing civilians because our culture dehumanizes marginalized people, especially people of colour and aboriginal peoples, so we value their lives less.
It is true and elementary.
And yes, unacceptable.

What about Australia? Like Canada, they too have an awful history of mistreatment and dehumanization of their aboriginal peoples. Canadian police kill their citizens 5.7 times more often than Australian police do. I'm very curious as to why.

[blender]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

What about Australia? Like Canada, they too have an awful history of mistreatment and dehumanization of their aboriginal peoples. Canadian police kill their citizens 5.7 times more often than Australian police do. I'm very curious as to why.

Good question.
I might suggest that Australia's closer ties to the UK and Canada's to the US might account for the difference, but that is pure speculation.
ETA: I feel that Canada and Australia share the same essential post-colonial culture.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Are Canadians 5.7 times more violent than Australians? Or 19.4 times more violent than Brits? No? Then why are our police officers killing suspects at such a higher rate?



Data source: https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...gs-by-country/

Because we're America junior and after moving away from American style policing in the early 2000's we've since started following them in a more militarized approach?

[jayswin]

nm

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I'm going to come back to this because to some degree I think this is the problem, in the late 1960's in LA if I remember rightly Police training changed radically, a philosophy of no policeman being harmed became paramount in the training, everything else became secondary to officer safety and it has lead to a large degree the US to where it is today and while it wasn't adopted here some elements of it have seeped into policing in Canada, yes it is terrible but ok if policemen are hurt on the job but it makes the police better at protecting society, that's literally the trade off we have to ask policemen to make.

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

And that, in a nutshell, sums up your position.

There is no argument I can make that will change your mind when you advocate that.

Night.



Sent from my HD1905 using Tapatalk

Wait, you disagree with that so vehemently that it deserves a "night"?

Maybe you're too entrenched in the day to day?

[Snuffleupagus]

Originally Posted by speede5

Have you ever shot a handgun? It is very hard to shoot someone in the leg, nevermind adding in the stress and adrenalini in the situation.

Lethal force is a tool police are taught strict rules for use and when the decision to use it is made it is to be done as taught or there are consequences.

Once the decision is made it is shoot centre mass til the threat is over. 5 shots takes a couple seconds. When you look down the sights of a handgun you can not see your target, they are a blur, hence shooting centre mass.

I wish everyone who said shoot a leg would go to a range and play with a gun for a day. I've done shooting with the police during a famil at their range and on my farm with friends. It's not what you think it is.

I will concede some of these situations can be handled much better, but the resources aren't there yet. When 911 gets the call for someone with a knife there's no time to call in counsellers and others who can talk someone down. People can't stand the taxes and police budgets we already have imagine adding in all the support staff to have critical incident responders on shift as well.

I'd like to see better training for officers, I know a lot of good ones, but the more education the better.

Sorry for rambling, lots of good comments on this thread but also lots of people making judgement of a situation we know very little about.

I have and it's really not that hard, give me a Glock 22 from 21 feet and I'll guarantee at least one leg shot out of 15 rounds, the added stress for me would be killing someone I didn't have too.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

I have and it's really not that hard, give me a Glock 22 from 21 feet and I'll guarantee at least one leg shot out of 15 rounds, the added stress for me would be killing someone I didn't have too.

Where do those other 14 shots end up?

That's the big reason why the police are trained to target the centre of mass, even if your aim is off a bit, you should still hit the person you're aiming at. If you're trying to be Annie Oakley and aiming for the assailant's arm or leg, there's a good chance you'll miss completely and hit an innocent bystander.

Also, you shouldn't ever aim your weapon at someone you don't intend to kill. It's lethal force. If you're not prepared to kill, you shouldn't be using it.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus

I have and it's really not that hard, give me a Glock 22 from 21 feet and I'll guarantee at least one leg shot out of 15 rounds, the added stress for me would be killing someone I didn't have too.

Sure, if they're a stationary target not doing anything. If they're coming at you with a knife, you're not getting anywhere near those 15 rounds off and who knows what (or who) you'll hit. I'd bet you abandon your aspirations of sharpshooterdom pretty quickly under those circumstances.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by getbak

Where do those other 14 shots end up?

That's the big reason why the police are trained to target the centre of mass, even if your aim is off a bit, you should still hit the person you're aiming at. If you're trying to be Annie Oakley and aiming for the assailant's arm or leg, there's a good chance you'll miss completely and hit an innocent bystander.

Even if you are the sharpest shooter to ever shoot...shooting someone in the leg can hit a major artery, and they can bleed out and die in about a minute.

[woob]

This thread is really bizarre. Posters are literally providing real world examples of approaches to policing that are orders of magnitude better than both Canada and the US, and people are still digging in their heels trying to justify why our policing has to be the way it is. Why?? Just bizarre.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Are Canadians 5.7 times more violent than Australians? Or 19.4 times more violent than Brits? No? Then why are our police officers killing suspects at such a higher rate?

This chart is dumb. Given the ratio of police shootings that occur when the subject has a firearm, and not the impeccable mothers with knives, is a more meaningful metric not something like this that ranks countries by the number of guns per person? In this instance we are about double France and we're about a quarter of the US, which more closely aligns with your chart.

Without mentioning the fact that the US has more guns than people the chart means pretty much zero. I understand that in the magical world of this thread there's probably fairy dust that disarms people with firearms but it's still a huge asterisk.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Acey

This chart is dumb. Given the ratio of police shootings that occur when the subject has a firearm, and not the impeccable mothers with knives, is a more meaningful metric not something like this that ranks countries by the number of guns per person? In this instance we are about double France and we're about a quarter of the US, which more closely aligns with your chart.

Without mentioning the fact that the US has more guns than people the chart means pretty much zero. I understand that in the magical world of this thread there's probably fairy dust that disarms people with firearms but it's still a huge asterisk.

so as long as Canadian police don't shoot too many people with knives that don't really need to be shot that's ok?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Acey

This chart is dumb. Given the ratio of police shootings that occur when the subject has a firearm, and not the impeccable mothers with knives, is a more meaningful metric not something like this that ranks countries by the number of guns per person? In this instance we are about double France and we're about a quarter of the US, which more closely aligns with your chart.

Without mentioning the fact that the US has more guns than people the chart means pretty much zero. I understand that in the magical world of this thread there's probably fairy dust that disarms people with firearms but it's still a huge asterisk.

According to your link, firearm possession in Canada (34.7 guns per 100 people) is not too dissimilar to Norway (28.8). If you are correct, and the number of police killings correlates with firearm ownership, then we could expect that cops in Canada would kill their citizens about 20% more often than cops in Norway. In actuality, Canadian cops use lethal force 410% more often than Norwegian cops.

Oh, and Switzerland, the magical fantasy nation that ammosexuals like to use as a counter-example in every gun control thread because there's a military-grade rifle in almost every Swiss home, reported zero police killings.

[woob]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

ammosexuals

I've seriously never read this word before but I love it. Pardon the interruption, back to the discussion at hand.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

so as long as Canadian police don't shoot too many people with knives that don't really need to be shot that's ok?

The point is that the many of the people being killed by police were not holding knives, but firearms. Since this has devolved into a discussion that has nothing to do with the original incident, it's worth mentioning firearms because even if North American police stop shooting people with knives our numbers would still be through the roof.

I understand that the thread is an attack on police tactics, but I believe it's attacking the wrong specific problem.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

According to your link, firearm possession in Canada (34.7 guns per 100 people) is not too dissimilar to Norway (28.8). If you are correct, and the number of police killings correlates with firearm ownership, then we could expect that cops in Canada would kill their citizens about 20% more often than cops in Norway. In actuality, Canadian cops use lethal force 410% more often than Norwegian cops.

Oh, and Switzerland, the magical fantasy nation that ammosexuals like to use as a counter-example in every gun control thread because there's a military-grade rifle in almost every Swiss home, reported zero police killings.

I don't care about Switzerland and made no mention of it, all I'm saying is that since the majority of police killings are firearm related, then firearm metrics are of value.

Cherry picking numbers is the name of this game, so one could be that Canada has 7x the homicide rate by firearm vs Norway. You could argue that the people killing other people with firearms are those most likely to be killed by the police. So if Canadians are 7x more likely to kill somebody with a firearm... it would make sense that Canadians are more likely to be killed by police firearm.

In general, I don't support the police for obvious reasons... but I rate this thread zero stars.