Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Virtz]

Here's hoping it sticks. Maybe we can finally nail down 'murdering someone in their own home' as something cops consistently face legal consequences for. Wouldn't that be nice

Well, about that consistently part, a cop in GA who shot a naked unarmed man got acquitted of murder, though he was still convicted of lying and breaking oath of office.

Naked unarmed man acting psychotic, ignoring orders and charging at him, you mean? Wasn't aware being unarmed means someone's harmless and can't punch an officer's skull in, or grab their gun and use it against them. No danger there, especially from a war veteran. Clearly he just wanted to shoot him for the hell of it.

[Doomblade187]

Here's hoping it sticks. Maybe we can finally nail down 'murdering someone in their own home' as something cops consistently face legal consequences for. Wouldn't that be nice

Well, about that consistently part, a cop in GA who shot a naked unarmed man got acquitted of murder, though he was still convicted of lying and breaking oath of office.

Naked unarmed man acting psychotic, ignoring orders and charging at him, you mean? Wasn't aware being unarmed means someone's harmless and can't punch an officer's skull in, or grab their gun and use it against them. No danger there, especially from a war veteran. Clearly he just wanted to shoot him for the hell of it.

B r u h.

The guy was having a mental health episode. So many people are killed by police because coming in guns out makes people who are already freaking out freak out more. Tell me, if you're having a panic attack, is someone knocking on your door with a gun going to help, or are you going to to grab the nearest improvised weapon?

[Doomblade187]

Right, but do you blame the cop for even showing up, or the people who sent them out there in the first place?

Besides, Georgia has stand-your-ground; under those circumstances it likely wouldn't have been murder even if it was a civilian and not a cop. At least, under that description.

Remember, "legal" and "ethical" are two entirely different things.

Stand your ground likely would have rendered that verdict that way, yes. But I blame neither the cop for showing up nor the people who sent them. I blame the cop for shooting people.

And yes, legal and ethical are entirely different. See: Amber Guyger's attorney trying to use the castle doctrine laws despite her not being in her own home.

[Doomblade187]

Well, I'll present a hypothetical out of curiosity. Say the circumstances were as described- the cop didn't shoot, but was summarily beaten to the point of being comatose by the individual, likely suffering permanent brain damage presuming he ever woke up. I'm not entirely aware of the circumstances of what went on here, but if it isn't reasonable to suspect that someone having a mental breakdown could have done that, then suppose they were high on meth or something.

Would we praise the cop for not shooting the guy?

I should clarify that this hypothetical isn't to antagonize, but to suss out the true ethical position being taken here.

So, this is where less lethal methods come in. Tasers, mace, handcuffs all serve a purpose. This purpose is to not kill people. Even night sticks.

That said, what you mentioned is part of the reason the cop shot, imo. They were scared. That is why it's better for cops to work in pairs - safety in numbers makes them act safer, and treat others safer, often.

Also, that fear of injury and death isn't help by a lot of police training, and a lot of police training also spends more time on gun training than nonviolent de-escalation and non-lethal methods, by a wide margin - not saying they should skip the firearm training, but that they should pick up more on the other fronts.

[Virtz]

B r u h.

The guy was having a mental health episode. So many people are killed by police because coming in guns out makes people who are already freaking out freak out more. Tell me, if you're having a panic attack, is someone knocking on your door with a gun going to help, or are you going to to grab the nearest improvised weapon?

B r u h.

I suggest you look up some statistics and compare the number of police shootings to regular homicide shootings in the US, see what's more likely to happen to you. And keep in mind that the vast majority of police shootings are justified, employed against violent criminals. This pseudo-reality that police are really likely to kill you for no reason is manufactured by sensationalist media, dishonest activists and attorneys seeking to make their cases easier for themselves. The entire basis for this belief is anecdotal, and if it drives people to be more paranoid about police, that's not exactly the police's fault. Resisting arrest is never a good idea.

Also, this particular case didn't take place in any home, it was outside. The guy ran at the cop as he got out of his patrol car. What do you expect the cop to think in that situation? "Here comes a free hug"?

So, this is where less lethal methods come in. Tasers, mace, handcuffs all serve a purpose. This purpose is to not kill people. Even night sticks.

Tasers - don't work about half the time. Not great when soloing.
Mace - doesn't always work, particularly against drugged up people, run the risk of getting some on yourself as well if a scuffle ensues. Not great when soloing or getting charged at.
Handcuffs - you can't cuff someone until they're subdued already, how does that help?
Nightsticks/batons - somehow I don't see it preventing a crazed/drugged-up person from tackling you. Particularly since police aren't allowed to use them indiscriminately and need to aim their strikes carefully. Not employed much outside of riot control, afaik.

I do agree that it's better if there's more cops on scene, though. Then some can break out the non-lethal stuff while others keep their guns drawn. But that's just not always possible due to limited resources or because the situation speeds up.

[nenjin]

I guess police forces around the rest of the world must be totally ineffective with their non-lethal technologies, then.

[Naturegirl1999]

Also, there is not as much money being put towards developing tasers that work better/don't kill as often

[smjjames]

Too bad we don't have some sort of immobilizing nanomotile gel that absolutely cannot kill. (I'm referencing a Schlockmercenary comic, but I don't remember what book it's in and I don't want to do a massive archive crawl right now)

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Tasers aren't a good thing either. Cops often use them as "pain compliance tools" (real term), and even more willy-nilly than guns since they're legally less than lethal despite killing people all the time. Doesn't help that they'll leave a person handcuffed face down for long periods after tasering them, which helps ensure they die if the taser triggers a heart attack. Tragic accident.

The only solution to police violence is to disarm the police. And so disarmed they must be.

[Doomblade187]

I am aware of the taser abuse situation, yes. :/

That said, probably easier to start the movement by downgrading to tasers than going cold turkey on weaponry.

[Virtz]

I guess police forces around the rest of the world must be totally ineffective with their non-lethal technologies, then.

I'm sure they'd be up to the challenge of dealing with the US's drugged up, psychotic criminals and its ridiculous anti-police culture.

Also, there is not as much money being put towards developing tasers that work better/don't kill as often

There's not a whole lot you can develop in tasers. Essentially it's how you get it to stick to the body and how much voltage you're willing and legally able to put through another human being. Certain things, like baggy or thick clothing, you simply cannot circumvent.

Tasers aren't a good thing either. Cops often use them as "pain compliance tools" (real term), and even more willy-nilly than guns since they're legally less than lethal despite killing people all the time. Doesn't help that they'll leave a person handcuffed face down for long periods after tasering them, which helps ensure they die if the taser triggers a heart attack. Tragic accident.

The only solution to police violence is to disarm the police. And so disarmed they must be.

All non-lethal means are "pain compliance tools", because they only work against perps susceptible to pain. Which, thanks to adrenaline or certain kinds of drugs, is not all of them.

But I'm sure your woke solution would work wonders for the US homicide rate.

[SalmonGod]

But I'm sure your woke solution would work wonders for the US homicide rate.

Oh well when you put it that way....

I then get to ask you - can you show me the evidence that anything they do currently helps?

Because there is evidence that when they back off to try and show us what for, that crime actually decreases in response.

Plus there's that whole thing where police have knowingly and willingly ignored calls for help as violent crimes were imminently taking place, often from domestic abuse victims whose ex's were violating restraining orders, or refused to get involved when a homicide was taking place literally right in front of their faces as the victim called out desperately for their help.... and courts all the way up to supreme have repeatedly ruled in response that police have "no duty to protect".

Sorry for my ridiculous anti-police culture.  It's a side-effect of reading.

[Reelya]

The only solution to police violence is to disarm the police. And so disarmed they must be.

Yeah, it's not proven that the "only solution" is that. In Australia we have armed police, but police shootings are extremely rare. Which suggests it's more about the culture than what equipment the cop turns up with.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_firearm_use_by_country#Australia

Note there was a high point of 10 people shot in Australia 1 year by police, and a low of 1 person shot (but that was only 2 years before the one with 10, so there's no real trend there), with the most common outcome being 3 people killed per year.

Also as for Virtz's assertion that police homicides aren't an issue, because they are lower than the total number of homicides. Well, let's consider the stats. there are 1000 shooting deaths by US police per year, out of a total homicide rate of about 15000, and about 2/3rds of all homicides are by firearm. So a full 10% of firearm homicides are by the police, contributing 0.5 deaths per 100,000 people out of the total US murder rate of ~ 5.0 deaths per 100,000 people. 0.5 deaths per 100,000 people is about average for the total homicide rate of many European nations. So the American police kill about as many people as all the murderers in a typical European nation, on a per-capita basis.

If you compare the total homicides vs police homicides in UK and Australia, you're looking at the police causing about 1% of homicide deaths, rather than something approaching 10% of homicide deaths caused by police in the USA. So the argument that we should look elsewhere for blame because you're "more likely" to be killed by someone who's not a cop doesn't really hold water. The police killing people is a big issue far below the point where they are responsible for 50% of all deaths.

Sure, other non-cop people kill more people than cops do, but that's a completely unrelated issue. You can't "pre-arrest" individual citizens. But the police are public servants. You definitely have the democratic right to prevent them from doing the same. Arguing that it's not a problem because it's "less" is like arguing that employees stealing stock is not an issue that should be focused on because customers steal more stock than employees do.

[Egan_BW]

No fair comparing the US to first world countries.

[nenjin]

I'm sure they'd be up to the challenge of dealing with the US's drugged up, psychotic criminals and its ridiculous anti-police culture.

Oh so Americans are the problem then, that's why we let slip the leash on police violence? It's not the illegals or the terrorists but just the average American citizen that excuses shoot first and look for reasons later? Because we're just so unruly over here? Not like other countries don't have problems with drugs, mental illness, a resentment of the police state culture, gang violence and criminal activity and areas of extreme lawlessness. Everything must be idyllic over in Europe then, what with their constant terrorist attacks, riots, immigration problems and the like. Surely they'd be TOTALLY unable to deal with American problems of law enforcement, like non-emergency calls resulting in someone being dead with 5 seconds within their home. That's why they can "get away with" not carrying guns all the time and not shooting to kill within 10 seconds of arriving on scene.

Or maybe, just maybe...other countries have actual experience with jack-booted police thugs in their history and so are more wary of giving them too much power, assumption of innocence and license to kill.