When you can cut Police caused deaths by 72% and reduce harm to officers just by implementing 8 simple steps at 8cantwait.org we should consider many deaths as preventable and unnecessary. Part of the problem is we have this idea that it is acceptable for Police to kill people. Reducing the situations that Police are put in situations where force is required needs to be part of the solution.
Is it as egregious? No, but it needs just as much focus if the goal is to reduce Police violence.
I like to try and make arguments from both sides when the ideal situation is obvious to me.
Taking a life, while in the line of duty or not, is not something that a normal person can handle. Ignoring all of the fantastic points about protecting the public, having police deal with the aftermath of taking a life (justified or not), and all of the costs that go into assisting that person (counselling, addiction assistance, etc), all point to rebuilding the entire system to me.
I’m your huckleberry. Actually Corsi, you’ve done a pretty job covering most of the points raised by Itse. All I can do is speak from personal experience and my training. First, as Corsi has pointed out, it is difficult to shoot a pistol accurately and takes substantial training and practice to become and maintain proficiency. That’s in a controlled environment like a range. Second, it is incredibly difficult to shoot a pistol accurately, after physical exertion and stress. Fine motor functions diminish as your body goes into fight or flight mode. Now, add in a person who is charging at you with a knife and you’ve now added a moving target.
I’m not saying it can’t be done. I’m simply saying it’d be insanely difficult and would like result in more misses than hits.
I can’t speak for other police agencies but no, my agency is not trained specifically to shoot two rounds to the body one round to the head. The purpose of discharging your firearm is to stop the threat. If a person was wearing body armour for instance, rounds to centre mass may not be effective so a round to the head may have to be utilized. Again as Corsi mentioned, it’s a smaller target so more chance of a miss.
In all critical incidents, less lethal options are considered where possible. It appears that was the case in this incident as well.
Ya I mean, it's called a failure drill for a reason, the first two shots failed to stop the threat, so now you aim for the head as the hail mary.
As to afc's post, the number one job of the police is to preserve life, I understand the irony here but stick with me. If the paramedics were deeming this person a danger to himself, they have to attempt to preserve his life, even from himself.
The answer isn't to go in to shoot him, but I would assume at this point they've deemed the situation to be if they don't intervene he will take his own life, we need to attempt to disarm him to save him from himself. Unfortunately that did not pan out. But would you have the cops stand at the door way and let him stab himself to death? If someone wants to commit suicide, should they just let them? I dunno.. the argument is made that in that moment, you aren't thinking clearly.
There is a great documentary about people who jumped off the bridge in San Franciso, the few that survive said they immediately regretted letting go of the railing when they did.
__________________ "In brightest day, in blackest night / No evil shall escape my sight / Let those who worship evil's might / Beware my power, Green Lantern's light!"
If your choice is drag a person down a hallway risking dislocating a shoulder, or worse, or calling and waiting for assistant, I just don't see how you don't pick the second option 100% of the time.
If your choice is drag a person down a hallway risking dislocating a shoulder, or worse, or calling and waiting for assistant, I just don't see how you don't pick the second option 100% of the time.
That is impossible to defend. Brutal.
The Following User Says Thank You to Zulu29 For This Useful Post:
When you can cut Police caused deaths by 72% and reduce harm to officers just by implementing 8 simple steps at 8cantwait.org we should consider many deaths as preventable and unnecessary. Part of the problem is we have this idea that it is acceptable for Police to kill people. Reducing the situations that Police are put in situations where force is required needs to be part of the solution.
Is it as egregious? No, but it needs just as much focus if the goal is to reduce Police violence.
I'm not saying that this (or any other shooting on a wellness check) is justified or not preventable. I'm also not trying to imply that anyone's life matters more than that of anyone else, but I think we can all agree the theme we have going on here is just an ingrained overuse of force and commitment to the use of lethal force as opposed to negotiation/de-escalation tactics, poor understanding of the mental condition of victims before entering a residence, systematic incompetence and the general lack of accountability within the RCMP, etc.
Catastrophic issues that need to be immediately addressed no doubt, but a scenario that I perceive to be distinctly different than that of George Floyd.
The Following User Says Thank You to Acey For This Useful Post:
Here's a video that shows how quickly these knife calls can escalate. Police gave this guy all the time in the world and he chose to attack. And then he gets up after being shot and attacks again.
For those that think a leg shot, or even just one single bullet should be enough, watch this video. Stress and adrenaline and you expect a leg shot? Body shots don't even kill people quickly before an attack can be avoided.
__________________
But living an honest life - for that you need the truth. That's the other thing I learned that day, that the truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, leads to liberation and dignity. -Ricky Gervais
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to metallicat For This Useful Post:
The whole premise for a police officer to use their firearm is to immediately stop the threat. Shots to the limbs do not stop the threat. Itse cites a case in Finland where a man who is stabbing a woman is shot in the leg and continues to stab the woman. Then is shot in the hand and again does not stop the threat. Only when the man is shot in the torso does he cease stabbing the woman. It is unacceptable IMO to allow the victim to be stabbed repeatedly in that instance because the police officer was trying to only wound the suspect.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Zulu29 For This Useful Post:
1) Using a pistol to shoot someone in the arm or leg. Its one thing to say that someone should be able to do it, its another thing to be able to do something to that effect on a range, its an entirely different thing when your on the move, you've been running, adrenaline is coursing through your system and your hand is maybe shaking or your breathing hard or erratically, as well we hear about time slowing down in these situations, and I call BS on that, in a few situations where it was fight or flight for me, time sped up.
Pistols are really a center mass weapon. Its the biggest part, it fills the sight to about 10 feet out.
2) I get the idea of taking funding away from the police for social causes or root problem issues. But I believe that if your looking at budget priorities for the police, it should be focused around, how do they recruit and test possible recruits, and background check possible recruits. How to you train a recruit, I think that this is a bit of a failure point right now when combined with the first point. Training has to be better and probably longer, and it really needs to find a way to expose flaws in a person so they can either be fixed or dismissed. Funding the police police and creating a more open and transparent system of internal investigation.
If you want to do a defunding argument, maybe its taking away funds from some of the equipping decisions. and reducing the amount of police that are on the so called sharper edge of law enforcement. Taking that money and plowing it into the above.
just my 2 cents
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
#1. It's expensive as hell to train new cops. You can't just say the training should be longer and better. What needs to be improved? Have you studied the schedule and courses and whatever else it is that goes into recruit training to decide what is needed and what isn't?
#2. What equipment isn't needed? It's extremely popular to say the pokice should be "demilitarized". Patrol isn't driving around the armoured personnel carriers, that's for the tactics units. This isn't America. What specific equipment do people have an issue with?
__________________
But living an honest life - for that you need the truth. That's the other thing I learned that day, that the truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, leads to liberation and dignity. -Ricky Gervais
I like to try and make arguments from both sides when the ideal situation is obvious to me.
Taking a life, while in the line of duty or not, is not something that a normal person can handle. Ignoring all of the fantastic points about protecting the public, having police deal with the aftermath of taking a life (justified or not), and all of the costs that go into assisting that person (counselling, addiction assistance, etc), all point to rebuilding the entire system to me.
Thats true. A Holistic approach is needed to improve the system. I have talked to people involved occupational medicine, psychologist, and physiotherapists, and they tell me that its very hard for cops with PTSD and depression to get proper recovery plan and get back to work. They just frankly get discarded by the people who are there to support them. A lot of them have to hire lawyers against their insurance companies.
And I like discussion about when and why guns are needed, and where should the person be shot, but in this particular case, all of this could have been avoided if they just sit back, make a plan no matter how many hours it takes, and execute it with saving the life of the person as a priority. This was executed so poorly that someone deserve some type of punishment for this. Those three on the balcony need to be thrown out of the their jobs for sure. You don't need an "investigation" to know this was wrong.
Last edited by JeanLucPicard; 06-23-2020 at 12:24 PM.
Yes, you do need an investigation of you want their jobs. I'm not sure what you do for a living, but I'd bet you'd want something more done than just firing you. Again, you really have no idea what happened here (nor do I). You can't just summarily fire these cops when you have no more information than a news article.
__________________
But living an honest life - for that you need the truth. That's the other thing I learned that day, that the truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, leads to liberation and dignity. -Ricky Gervais
Last edited by metallicat; 06-23-2020 at 12:30 PM.
I wholeheartedly agree that in a situation where the police have to shoot someone asking them to shoot anything less than the center mass of the torso is inane, for me the issue is why the hell are we training and equipping police police officers so badly that they put themselves in a position that they end up needing to shoot in the first place.
It should not be that hard to train and equip policemen so that they do not end up inadvertantly escalating situations until they are attacked and end up having to shoot, in almost any situation a knife shouldnt present a mortal threat to a policeman, between training, distance, stab proof vests, helmets, shields and shear numbers of physically fit officers it shouldn't be beyond the bounds of possibility to deal with knives the way prisons, hospitals and the vast majority of UK cops who have no guns in the first place do, maybe the police should just go look at other professions and juristictions and copy them?
#1. It's expensive as hell to train new cops. You can't just say the training should be longer and better. What needs to be improved? Have you studied the schedule and courses and whatever else it is that goes into recruit training to decide what is needed and what isn't?
#2. What equipment isn't needed? It's extremely popular to say the pokice should be "demilitarized". Patrol isn't driving around the armoured personnel carriers, that's for the tactics units. This isn't America. What specific equipment do people have an issue with?
Those are all good questions! Except someone in the right positions needs to ask them and demand solutions.
This actually could mean increasing funding for police. I am not going to align myself with the "defund the police" chant because maybe allocating money to other government departments may not actually be very efficient only by itself.
Yes, you do need an investigation of you want their jobs. I'm not sure what you do for a living, but I'd bet you'd want something more done than just firing you. Again, you really have no idea what happened here (nor do I). You can't just summarily fire these cops when you have no more information than a news article.
Yes yes I know But if people don't get angry when things like this happen, I think it will embolden more and more cops who have no idea what hell their job actually means and continue bending the rules.
I know its not the same situation, but without massive public outrage, Chauvin wouldn't be charged with second degree, and the other three wouldn't be charged at all... based on so called professional "investigation".
We should be outraged, and we should be emotional about this. If it was our relative, we would want something more too.
Last edited by JeanLucPicard; 06-23-2020 at 12:49 PM.
Yes yes I know But if people don't get angry when things like this happen, I think it will embolden more and more cops who have no idea what hell their job actually means and continue bending the rules.
I know its not the same situation, but without massive public outrage, Chauvin wouldn't be charged with second degree, and the other three wouldn't be charged at all... based on so called profession "investigation".
We should be outraged, and we should be emotional about this.
Shouldn't we be calm and rational to make the best decisions?
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Sliver For This Useful Post:
These threads are hopeless, it's like listening to a bunch of lunatics trying to figure out what's wrong with them. It's obvious from the outside just how much is wrong, but you can't see it yourself because you're all ultimately part of the same culture.
In any case, here's one article listing some countries where "shoot to kill" is not a policy.
It's not 100% accurate, nor is it that much, but honestly, I don't think there is any amount of reason or facts that would make any difference.
In Finland and Norway, officers have to get permission from a superior officer before shooting to wound.
Officers in Spain should first fire a warning shot, then aim for non-vital body parts, before resorting to lethal force.
In Sweden, if the police shoot at a person, they should endeavour to "temporarily incapacitate the person. The shots should be primarily directed at the legs". The same goes in the Netherlands.
And in Denmark "force must be used as considerately as possible under the circumstances and so as to minimise any bodily harm".
Berny Maubach used to be a Detective Chief Inspector in the German state North Rhine-Westphalia. He now lives in Whanganui raising stud horses.
The firearms expert, who gave evidence in the trial that followed Steven Wallace's shooting, says the central body mass rule is "completely rubbish".
Shouldn't we be calm and rational to make the best decisions?
Thats true man! Being calm and rational is the best. But I think its best said by the government, the police, the people in authority position during that tragic situation. Public's job is to be aggressive and loud, to force the government to make the rational decisions. We do that all the time.
But if people don't get angry when things like this happen, I think it will embolden more and more cops who have no idea what hell their job actually means and continue bending the rules. 
