The Derek Chauvin trial is underway..GUILTY on all charges

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by 81MC

Yeah, it’s a crudely phrased sentiment. What I mean, I suppose, is that these are positions that tend to have more immediately critical implications. And usually involving peoples life safety.

Obviously, the guy who fixing the ambulance or mowing lawns isn’t a less ‘valuable’ person; the outcomes of their work are just less critical, the majority of the time.

Most of us get put into tough situations that require quick action, but that might mean a few minutes to look over the data, or read the manual, or consult with our business partners. And if we make the wrong call, we’re often not either killing or being killed. We have the luxury of not only being removed from immediate threats, but having time and redundancy’s to prevent serious negative outcomes. 2 seconds of error in most positions is not likely to result in tragedy for most people.

Not to mention, most people could not mentally cope with what those roles deal with. If I had to attend a scene with a dying child or a severed limb or an abusive spouse, I would never, ever be the same. These people do this as a part of their daily life, and I certainly hold that in higher regard than my ability to lay a good clear coat.

I mean, athletes who train their entire lives and make literally millions make errors of judgement or execution all the time. When they’re ‘under pressure’ the outcome is a ball goes somewhere they don’t want. The absolute top performers, with no real threats, make mistakes all the time.

These people make mistakes and peoples lives are ruined. Yet someone gets their name on peoples back and drive Ferraris, we’ll someone gets called a pig, or has their middle class income questioned.

Your post is an excellent post that I think exemplifies why the vast majority (cops included) should not have guns, regardless of the danger level of situation they're entering. You've correctly identified that even trained athletes paid millions mess up in the heat of the moment- for them it's not life and death. With a police officer, we are literally talking about the life or death of the person on the other side of the gun. Is that an acceptable risk? I don't believe it is.

You'll have no argument for me whatsoever that enforcing the law is a taxing job mentally and physically. But I think these are good reasons why we need to tear down and remake the way we deal with this enforcement.

[PaperBagger'14]

^^I'd agree with all of that, especially if there is an equally (or better) effective and non lethal solution to guns. Removing guns from police would be a hard sell without that though

[jgotti]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Your post is an excellent post that I think exemplifies why the vast majority (cops included) should not have guns, regardless of the danger level of situation they're entering. You've correctly identified that even trained athletes paid millions mess up in the heat of the moment- for them it's not life and death. With a police officer, we are literally talking about the life or death of the person on the other side of the gun. Is that an acceptable risk? I don't believe it is.

You'll have no argument for me whatsoever that enforcing the law is a taxing job mentally and physically. But I think these are good reasons why we need to tear down and remake the way we deal with this enforcement.

There no risk to the officer when the other individual has a gun or weapon or it’s perfectly acceptable Because that is the profession they choose? Your hate for law enforcement is unbearable. With the amount of violent situations occurring in this world which include mass shootings in schools and malls how are those situations to be dealt with when police don’t have guns or a effective method to stop such a offense.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by jgotti

There no risk to the officer when the other individual has a gun or weapon or it’s perfectly acceptable Because that is the profession they choose? Your hate for law enforcement is unbearable. With the amount of violent situations occurring in this world which include mass shootings in schools and malls how are those situations to be dealt with when police don’t have guns or a effective method to stop such a offense.

Yeah, I do have hate for the current iteration of the institution of law enforcement. But I think you are confusing that with hatred of actual law enforcement officers, who I don't hate.

Most crimes in Canada don't involve guns, do they? If the vast majority of weapons involved in crimes in the city are knives or bludgeon objects, why does every officer need to carry such a disproportionate force multiplier?
Many stab wounds are survival with appropriate medical attention. I'm not asking every cop to go out and get stabbed, but if there's a mentally ill person with a knife wouldn't a better scenario be to talk them down, approach with numbers, and attempt to disarm them? The solution today (as evidenced in the O'Chiese incident I posted about last page) is to approach with guns drawn, escalating the violent nature of the situation immediately. Of course this has potential to leading to the death of the mentally ill individual.

So, what I am proposing is that potential injury to a law enforcement personnel (who would be the hero in this circumstance) is preferable to the death of a mentally unwell person.

I don't believe we can continue to mitigate violent situations through the increased use of weaponry. For the odd cases that do involve guns, there should be a special locked up team that's not on patrol that responds, and only responds to gun incidents. In these scenarios, regular officers should only act to quarantine the area and ensure the safety of any other citizens present.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

^^I'd agree with all of that, especially if there is an equally (or better) effective and non lethal solution to guns. Removing guns from police would be a hard sell without that though

Honestly I don't think there are, and every situation is different and un predictable. Not all non lethal weapons work all the time. It would also be impossible to split the police in America or Canada for example into lethal and non lethal response based on weaponry.



Sending a police officer into a un predictable situation or a situation in which very little is known with only a weapon that has a chance of debilitating or stunning is a recipe for getting him and his colleague killed. There needs to be varying levels of protection.


Also in terms of the idea of a armed response team that can be called in by non lethally armed police if the situation warrants adds too many un predictable factors.



I absolutely agree with police reform, training, mental health assessments for no cops, better supervision, etc all need to be looked at, as well as regular mental health assessments and treatments for police officers that are possibly dealing with PTSD and Truama need to be looked at. Recruiting methods as well.




But I don't think until we get a star trek phaser with a stun setting that we can go without a potential lethal option.

[afc wimbledon]

I should point out that the reason Police officers in the UK dont routinely carry guns is because it only takes about 2 or 3 minutes to get a gun on the scene and an unarmed police officer isnt expected to go running Rambo like into a situation, he or she is taught the advantage of nuance and de escalation, it is perfectly practical to have a similar situation in most metropolitan areas of Canada.

One of the advantages of an 'unarmed' police is they are a voice of reason in the gun debate in the UK, they are clear what they consider a risk to themselves and the public and work hard to make sure guns are reasonably regulated

[Captain Otto]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I should point out that the reason Police officers in the UK dont routinely carry guns is because it only takes about 2 or 3 minutes to get a gun on the scene and an unarmed police officer isnt expected to go running Rambo like into a situation, he or she is taught the advantage of nuance and de escalation, it is perfectly practical to have a similar situation in most metropolitan areas of Canada.

One of the advantages of an 'unarmed' police is they are a voice of reason in the gun debate in the UK, they are clear what they consider a risk to themselves and the public and work hard to make sure guns are reasonably regulated

I would think the 32,000 police officers in the MET alone makes this possible.

Police here deal with thousands of mentally ill people every year without shooting them. All, with a few exceptions, are "nuanced" and "de-escalated" and the public never hears about it.

Sometimes space and time isn't on your side and someone does end up getting shot. That is obviously not the goal of any police officer. It is just the reality.

I get that it's fashionable to hate the police at the moment. It's just disappointing that a few have tarnished the reputation of the thousands that do good everyday. And it's a shame that a few seize on those few incidents to push their own beliefs.

[Captain Otto]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Yeah, I do have hate for the current iteration of the institution of law enforcement. But I think you are confusing that with hatred of actual law enforcement officers, who I don't hate.

Most crimes in Canada don't involve guns, do they? If the vast majority of weapons involved in crimes in the city are knives or bludgeon objects, why does every officer need to carry such a disproportionate force multiplier?
Many stab wounds are survival with appropriate medical attention. I'm not asking every cop to go out and get stabbed, but if there's a mentally ill person with a knife wouldn't a better scenario be to talk them down, approach with numbers, and attempt to disarm them? The solution today (as evidenced in the O'Chiese incident I posted about last page) is to approach with guns drawn, escalating the violent nature of the situation immediately. Of course this has potential to leading to the death of the mentally ill individual.

So, what I am proposing is that potential injury to a law enforcement personnel (who would be the hero in this circumstance) is preferable to the death of a mentally unwell person.

I don't believe we can continue to mitigate violent situations through the increased use of weaponry. For the odd cases that do involve guns, there should be a special locked up team that's not on patrol that responds, and only responds to gun incidents. In these scenarios, regular officers should only act to quarantine the area and ensure the safety of any other citizens present.

You actually said stab wounds are generally survivable. In fact, you are more likely to die from a stab wound if you are unable to get to a trauma center within a short period of time.

Not sure I'd take those odds if I was a cop.

"Ya, I took the knife to the chest because you know, Monhammer said I should survive. My bad."

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

I would think the 32,000 police officers in the MET alone makes this possible.

Police here deal with thousands of mentally ill people every year without shooting them. All, with a few exceptions, are "nuanced" and "de-escalated" and the public never hears about it.

Sometimes space and time isn't on your side and someone does end up getting shot. That is obviously not the goal of any police officer. It is just the reality.

I get that it's fashionable to hate the police at the moment. It's just disappointing that a few have tarnished the reputation of the thousands that do good everyday. And it's a shame that a few seize on those few incidents to push their own beliefs.

I draw a huge distinction between Canadian police who I have great respect for and the cops in the US who are mostly morons, I dont even blame the US cops, they are little more than untrained security guards with a licence to kill, they are hired by thousands of disparate states and towns and municipalities as cheaply as possible, there training is done as cheaply and quickly as possible, is therefore all but non existent and mostly consists of a lot of phys ed and shooting guns led by ex military for a few months

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

You actually said stab wounds are generally survivable. In fact, you are more likely to die from a stab wound if you are unable to get to a trauma center within a short period of time.

Not sure I'd take those odds if I was a cop.

"Ya, I took the knife to the chest because you know, Monhammer said I should survive. My bad."

stab wounds are unlikely to kill because almost everyone will get to a trauma center in short time and the paramedics can keep you alive as soon as they arrive, on top of this in the UK all police wear stab proof vests when on duty, it is an unlikely way to die as a policeman these days

[Captain Otto]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

stab wounds are unlikely to kill because almost everyone will get to a trauma center in short time and the paramedics can keep you alive as soon as they arrive, on top of this in the UK all police wear stab proof vests when on duty, it is an unlikely way to die as a policeman these days

That's the crux though, "unlikely". Not sure that's a chance any person, cop or otherwise should take.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I should point out that the reason Police officers in the UK dont routinely carry guns is because it only takes about 2 or 3 minutes to get a gun on the scene and an unarmed police officer isnt expected to go running Rambo like into a situation, he or she is taught the advantage of nuance and de escalation, it is perfectly practical to have a similar situation in most metropolitan areas of Canada.

It’s a completely different policing environment. A significant proportion of the people American police interact with every day have a handgun on their person or within reach. A police officer in the UK can go their entire career without pulling over someone in a car who has a handgun in the vehicle. That’s a situation most American police experience daily.

[Captain Otto]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I draw a huge distinction between Canadian police who I have great respect for and the cops in the US who are mostly morons, I dont even blame the US cops, they are little more than untrained security guards with a licence to kill, they are hired by thousands of disparate states and towns and municipalities as cheaply as possible, there training is done as cheaply and quickly as possible, is therefore all but non existent and mostly consists of a lot of phys ed and shooting guns led by ex military for a few months

I think I read somewhere there are 17,000 police agencies in the US. That's insane.

[Since1984]

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

I think I read somewhere there are 17,000 police agencies in the US. That's insane.

17,985 based on a quick google search.

[Monahammer]

Originally Posted by Captain Otto

That's the crux though, "unlikely". Not sure that's a chance any person, cop or otherwise should take.

But maybe that's the crux. And though I did it uncouthly, that's genuinely why I wanted to know what motivates police officers.

IMO the people we want to have guns should be the people who would put themselves into a risky situation to ensure safety of others. Not someone who needs to feel 100% secure with any situation they're in at all times. That is what leads to cops drawing their weapons immediately.

[Captain Otto]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

But maybe that's the crux. And though I did it uncouthly, that's genuinely why I wanted to know what motivates police officers.

IMO the people we want to have guns should be the people who would put themselves into a risky situation to ensure safety of others. Not someone who needs to feel 100% secure with any situation they're in at all times. That is what leads to cops drawing their weapons immediately.

And you don't think that's what we have? If so, what are you basing that on?

[troutman]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1381744319451779080

[MarchHare]

In Salem, OR, a group of about 20 BLM advocates were protesting outside the local police department. Along comes a counter-protester, 75-year old Larry McFarland, who fired a shotgun into the air to intimidate the protesters while yelling obscenities at them. Police ordered McFarland to drop his weapon. He refused their order, got into his truck, and drove away. He was subsequently arrested without incident. Sounds about white.

https://www.statesmanjournal.com/sto...st/7249938002/

Video:

https://twitter.com/user/status/1383080014791475203

[transplant99]

The former California home of use-of-force expert Barry Brodd was smeared with pig's blood Saturday, four days after he testified for the defense in Derek Chauvin's trial in Minneapolis, Minnesota, police said.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/18/us/ch...osa/index.html

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

Many stab wounds are survivable with appropriate medical attention.

Nope, not the case. In a knife fight the winner is one who gets to die after arrival at the hospital. Stab wounds are not easy to treat and they require stitches within minutes if you want to stabilize the whole bleeding to death thing.