Another shooting, more riots.

[doctalaughs]

What non lethal alternatives have been researched? why not ketamine here ?

The fact that there was no attempt at any other non -lethal modality like running away, ketamine dart, rubber bullets, i dont know a net??

please tell me you aren’t serious....

I guess if people can’t agree about a situation like this (insisting it’s not justified for police to shoot someone who doesn’t obey commands and comes at them with a large knife) then there isn’t any middle ground.

I believe that most people (even those that “side” with police) agree that better training and reform needs to happen. But when you try to argue with the other side.... seems like the police are never right when someone is killed, and citizens bear zero responsibility for their own actions.

If those officers were your son/husband/ father—- would you want them to try ketamine or a “net” on that guy coming at then them with a knife?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[coffeebythelake]

If I am a cop and I see a threat on my life, and he is coming at me, I am emptying my gun and making sure I have the best survival chance. Even if 1 bullet stops someone 80% of the time (which is high), then I am not risking bodily harm 20%. I am unloading my 10+ bullets as fast as I can.

Are police officers trained and taught to shoot until their magazine is empty?

 

[emergentmd]

Are police officers trained and taught to shoot until their magazine is empty?

Beats me but I would hope they are trained to shoot until assailant stops moving forward and drops his weapon.

 

[emergentmd]

Using Ketamine or net? I missed that and was great for a laugh. Why not a pillow. Why not just using harsh words. How about a water pistol.

Guy comes at me with a knife. I pull out my syringe of ketamine. He stabs me while I stab him with ketamine. I would be dead 5 minutes before he feels the affects.

Net. How in gods name are you going to deploy a net in 5 secs when he is running at you. I can't believe how asinine some people are.

 

[fakin' the funk]

If I was a cop, I am shooting if my life is in danger and that is the bottom line.

It's very clear that you think it is fully within the rights of cops to take lives, especially what you call "BLM/thugs."

Your dog whistle is loud, and you are the problem.

 

[GaseousClay]

It's very clear that you think it is fully within the rights of cops to take lives, especially what you call "BLM/thugs."

Your dog whistle is loud, and you are the problem.

were there not thugs looting and rioting the past 2 nights? did you see Eljiah Schaffer get his ass beat down for filming the looting and have a gun pointed at him in the store?



we can argue about whether or not the cops were justified til the cows come home but the looting, rioting and destroying of stores in ones own neighborhood can NOT be justified.

 

[fakin' the funk]

were there not thugs looting and rioting the past 2 nights? did you see Eljiah Schaffer get his ass beat down for filming the looting and have a gun pointed at him in the store?



we can argue about whether or not the cops were justified til the cows come home but the looting, rioting and destroying of stores in ones own neighborhood can NOT be justified.

Firstly, FOH with your Daily Caller BS.

No one is defending rioting.

The error, which you and others willfully make as a racist dog whistle, is conflating peaceful protest of police violence and killings, with rioting. And apparently a white dude got a fat lip.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I believe that most people (even those that “side” with police) agree that better training and reform needs to happen. But when you try to argue with the other side.... seems like the police are never right when someone is killed, and citizens bear zero responsibility for their own actions.

This to me is a big part of the issue between the 2 sides on this.

I would suspect that 90+% of people would support better training (and higher pay) for police so we can train them better at things like de-escalation.

But given the current pay and training, some people are expecting a lot from police who start at $16/hr and have at best 12 weeks of training in many places.

The first step here is to train and pay them better, then we can have nice high standards for them.

 

[deleted480308]

I have seen the video many times, my opinion:

Yes the dude was a threat.

But its 2020. How many other times has something similar happened?

What non lethal alternatives have been researched? why not ketamine here ?

The fact that there was no attempt at any other non -lethal modality like running away, ketamine dart, rubber bullets, i dont know a net??

There was just immediate shoot to kill.

It definitely gave a vibe of: I dont care about this guys life - I care about protecting my own life. And thats not really their job. This guy was a life who needed protecting too. Did they do their duty by him? Did they do the best they could to get him out of this situation? Who was he going to stab in the immediate vicintiy? (no one else around)

Here we are going into COVID rooms for 80 year olds. Our families and our lives at risk at home.

Thats what we do as a society, we take care of the old, the sick, the mentally ill, we risk our lives to do it - to a degree.. to what degree did they take on risk here for this guys benefit? None.

Who was he going to stab you ask? Them. He was going to stab the cops

 

[vector2]

Systemic Racism 101


It exists in the highest levels of government all the way down to the local police who didn't even bring the two billy bobs in for questioning after Arbery was killed.

 

[greatnt249]

Are police officers trained and taught to shoot until their magazine is empty?

They're trained to shoot until the threat has been stopped. Since it often isn't immediately obvious that shots even landed on target, this often means a lot of shots get fired.

 

[greatnt249]

It's very clear that you think it is fully within the rights of cops to take lives

I don't believe this represents the spirit of what has been said. Take police out of the equation; everyone has a right to defend themselves against serious bodily harm from an aggressor, including police. In these moments, split-second judgment calls are being made as to what constitutes a threat with often very limited information available on scene. We can all debate what we would have/should have/could have done in any given situation, but until you're truly in fight or flight mode, it's hard to gauge what exactly your cognitive process would be in the moment. Are the number of police-involved shootings tragic? Of course they are. However, I believe the easy thing to do is criticize the shooting when we should really be exploring other factors that increase the tendency toward violence in general. I also don't believe that this opinion should be construed as my giving the police immunity from accountability, either.

 

[staple]

Tough time for america. Both sides of the spectrum

 

[doctalaughs]

It's very clear that you think it is fully within the rights of cops to take lives, especially what you call "BLM/thugs."

Your dog whistle is loud, and you are the problem.

This is the problem with the left and the reason why Trump is elected in the first place.

You argue from a very reasonable standpoint that most everyone should be able to find common ground (cops are allowed to shoot someone coming at them with a knife). You agree better police training is needed, and actually might have different opinions about each nuanced situation where police killings happen.

And that suddenly means you are racist, “using dog whistles” and... there’s no reason to have a rational conversation.

 

[AMEHigh]

This is the problem with the left and the reason why Trump is elected in the first place.

You argue from a very reasonable standpoint that most everyone should be able to find common ground (cops are allowed to shoot someone coming at them with a knife). You agree better police training is needed, and actually might have different opinions about each nuanced situation where police killings happen.

And that suddenly means you are racist, “using dog whistles” and... there’s no reason to have a rational conversation.

To be fair, maybe you could reflect on your original post. The "are we rioting every time the police kill a Black person" really bothered me and ignores a lot of systemic issues.

I’m certainly not saying that you are racist, but the conversation can be discussed other ways since there are a lot of nuances.

We live in a country with a history of racism that continues to this day. We’re in a pandemic where people have lost their lives, jobs, health care, food sources, etc and there hasn’t been a good coordinated response to help people overall. The police continue to be agitators in a lot of situations and don’t seem to have proper training or accountability. Health care and access to mental health care is pretty atrocious in this country.

So there are a multitude of things at play here and to just be like "oh people are just gonna riot for no reason" is not understanding the history and root cause of everything. It’s tiring and upsetting to have to explain that over and over again.

ETA: and like I posted above the MOVE bombing happened in W Philly in which the police bombed and killed innocent people including children still continues to be a horrific memory in that neighborhood that people talk about to this day. So yes there are nuances as to why people are angry with police actions there.

 

[greatnt249]

The police continue to be agitators in a lot of situations and don’t seem to have proper training or accountability.

According to whose standards? I will agree that police action has been scrutinized more intensely in the news cycle and court of public opinion recently, but by whose measure is this due to improper training? Yours? Mine? Joe MondayMorningQuarterback's? The media's? Bear in mind, I am not condoning police brutality, but statements like this are painting with a pretty broad brush.

I think it bears mentioning that this era of the 24 hour news cycle does the country no favors in overcoming availability bias. I'm not saying that these problems don't exist or trying to minimize their impact, but I think we also have to remember why people report the news; because it tends to be sensational and not necessarily an everyday occurrence. When the same story gets reported 24/7, even if it's the same story, the natural bias is to feel like it's happening all the time since you're literally hearing about it all the time.

So yes there are nuances as to why people are angry with police actions there.

"Nuance" goes out the window when you're being threatened with a weapon. You can be angry with police history, but realize that it also creates a bias.

 

[GaseousClay]

Firstly, FOH with your Daily Caller BS.

No one is defending rioting.

The error, which you and others willfully make as a racist dog whistle, is conflating peaceful protest of police violence and killings, with rioting. And apparently a white dude got a fat lip.

typical liberal nonsense with pointing out what the source is first. i don't know or care what the daily caller is this is actual footage. The error which you and others willfully make is to overlook looting and destruction of property because "peaceful protests" of police violence is occuring at the same time. Interesting that almost every city with your so called peaceful protests there is destruction, rioting and looting that joins it.

 

[AMEHigh]

According to whose standards? I will agree that police action has been scrutinized more intensely in the news cycle and court of public opinion recently, but by whose measure is this due to improper training? Yours? Mine? Joe MondayMorningQuarterback's? The media's? Bear in mind, I am not condoning police brutality, but statements like this are painting with a pretty broad brush.

I think it bears mentioning that this era of the 24 hour news cycle does the country no favors in overcoming availability bias. I'm not saying that these problems don't exist or trying to minimize their impact, but I think we also have to remember why people report the news; because it tends to be sensational and not necessarily an everyday occurrence. When the same story gets reported 24/7, even if it's the same story, the natural bias is to feel like it's happening all the time since you're literally hearing about it all the time.



"Nuance" goes out the window when you're being threatened with a weapon. You can be angry with police history, but realize that it also creates a bias.

Like I said above, of course there are "nice" police, just like there are "nice" doctors, but that doesn't mean in general there aren't problems with the systems in place. So yes I'm going to paint what happens with policing with a broad picture. Look at the history of policing and think about if you think that now all of a sudden police are on their best behavior? No, they're not.
Someone already listed above all the ways in which there are problems with policing and how they're not accountable. Those are broad things that need to be addressed.

Anecdote time....for example last year my cousin held open the subway door because my card wouldn't swipe. So he's holding the door and then I run on. The police are yelling at him to stop holding the door. The next stop they grab him up from the seat and throw him off and say we can't ride the subway. My cousin walks off and then the police officer pushes him. Literally for no reason. Stuff like that happens ALL THE TIME. And that's just a very small example. They had zero reason to put their hands on my cousin. They could've asked him to get off the subway and they certainly didn't have to push him when he was already out of the subway car.
I still remember being a young child and my mom getting pulled over and frisked for drugs because they thought there was no way my mom as a Black women could be driving a nice car and not be selling drugs. Most of these instances aren't actually getting caught on tape, yet happen.

I really don't watch much of the "main stream media" so my thoughts aren't necessarily coming from the 24/7 media, but from my own experiences and the experiences especially of my patients and other people I talk with while doing advocacy work.

So again, of course not every interaction is a bad one or bad experience with police officers, but there are a lot of experiences that are unnecessary that lead to escalation, violence, trauma and even death. Then, the police aren't held accountable and things are even covered up. So yes those instances need to change broadly.

 

[vector2]

typical liberal nonsense with pointing out what the source is first. i don't know or care what the daily caller is this is actual footage. The error which you and others willfully make is to overlook looting and destruction of property because "peaceful protests" of police violence is occuring at the same time. Interesting that almost every city with your so called peaceful protests there is destruction, rioting and looting that joins it.

My city was full of peaceful protests and minimal or no riots. As another poster pointed out, the media stories that get attention are ones that have some degree of sensationalism, and that's why incidental riots are what make national news- not the gazillion peaceful protests that also proceeded according to city ordinances.

 

[greatnt249]

I really don't watch much of the "main stream media" so my thoughts aren't necessarily coming from the 24/7 media, but from my own experiences and the experiences especially of my patients and other people I talk with while doing advocacy work.

You don't have to personally watch the "mainstream media" to be influenced by it. I'm not saying you don't have a right to your feelings, either. But also recognize that your own experiences, your work with patients, and the people you talk to doing advocacy work creates a bias and influences your perception of the world around you because you are specifically in contact with people that have had bad experiences. This isn't said to be inflammatory; bias isn't inherently an insult. But also recognize that none of us are immune to it. You say "of course not every action is a bad one or bad experience with police officers" which, like it or not, implies that it is an exception to the rule to have a good encounter with police.

I wholeheartedly believe police should be held accountable for their actions; I don't know why anyone would dispute that. What I don't believe in is being put on blast in the court of public opinion before the dust has even settled.

 

[GaseousClay]

My city was full of peaceful protests and minimal or no riots. As another poster pointed out, the media stories that get attention are ones that have some degree of sensationalism, and that's why incidental riots are what make national news- not the gazillion peaceful protests that also proceeded according to city ordinances.

I have had a lot of peaceful protests in my area as well mostly organized by students and everything goes well. These riots/lootings may not be even close to the majority but the damage done to the city and businesses there can not just be waived off by saying well most are peaceful. These are blatant thug opportunists that are ruining their own communities and will ultimately hurt their own communities for many years. Everyone has a right to protest that shooting if they feel the cops were not just justified, I don't believe anyone is arguing that.

 

[AMEHigh]

You don't have to personally watch the "mainstream media" to be influenced by it. I'm not saying you don't have a right to your feelings, either. But also recognize that your own experiences, your work with patients, and the people you talk to doing advocacy work creates a bias and influences your perception of the world around you because you are specifically in contact with people that have had bad experiences. This isn't said to be inflammatory; bias isn't inherently an insult. But also recognize that none of us are immune to it. You say "of course not every action is a bad one or bad experience with police officers" which, like it or not, implies that it is an exception to the rule to have a good encounter with police.

I wholeheartedly believe police should be held accountable for their actions; I don't know why anyone would dispute that. What I don't believe in is being put on blast in the court of public opinion before the dust has even settled.

Yes of course our world views influence how we see the world.
Someone said above that I hate police officers. I never said that, nor do I hate police officers in general.
I was just pointing out that negative interactions with the police happen even more than is filmed/shown on tv, so no it's not a 24/7 media thing. It's people's everyday lived experiences.
The data supports the fact that Black and brown people and mentally ill people are killed at disproportionate rates.
The data supports the fact that other "developed" countries don't have the police killing people in their communities at the same rate we do.
Let's re-imagine policing and community needs.

If there are 100 police interactions and 10 of them are negative specifically due to police actions of escalation, violence for no reason, etc, then that is 10 too many in my book. So all I'm saying is we need to figure out a way to get those 10 negative interactions down. And if we were living in the upside down and it were white women getting killed by the police at disproportionate rates, you and I both know that people wouldn't just be sitting around saying oh well and not out in the streets mad.

Unfortunately a lot of people aren't "innocent until proven guilty" in many instances.
Protests are happening because there's a long history of police brutality.

 

[greatnt249]

Yes of course our world views influence how we see the world.
Someone said above that I hate police officers. I never said that, nor do I hate police officers in general.
I was just pointing out that negative interactions with the police happen even more than is filmed/shown on tv, so no it's not a 24/7 media thing. It's people's everyday lived experiences.
The data supports the fact that Black and brown people and mentally ill people are killed at disproportionate rates.
The data supports the fact that other "developed" countries don't have the police killing people in their communities at the same rate we do.
Let's re-imagine policing and community needs.

If there are 100 police interactions and 10 of them are negative specifically due to police actions of escalation, violence for no reason, etc, then that is 10 too many in my book. So all I'm saying is we need to figure out a way to get those 10 negative interactions down. And if we were living in the upside down and it were white women getting killed by the police at disproportionate rates, you and I both know that people wouldn't just be sitting around saying oh well and not out in the streets mad.

Unfortunately a lot of people aren't "innocent until proven guilty" in many instances.
Protests are happening because there's a long history of police brutality.

I'm not denying police brutality is a problem, and I think a lot of where that comes from is the perception (real or not) that they are not held accountable, or at the very least, don't hold each other accountable. What I have a problem with is the assumptions and conclusions being drawn about adverse events before anyone can regain composure and analyze what happened...this isn't directed specifically at you. The public likes to judge the actions of others as if everyone was in a position to make a rational decision. Having a knife waved in your face has a tendency to not put you in a position to debate the motives of the person waving the knife in your face.

 

[GaseousClay]

I'm not denying police brutality is a problem, and I think a lot of where that comes from is the perception (real or not) that they are not held accountable, or at the very least, don't hold each other accountable. What I have a problem with is the assumptions and conclusions being drawn about adverse events before anyone can regain composure and analyze what happened...this isn't directed specifically at you. The public likes to judge the actions of others as if everyone was in a position to make a rational decision. Having a knife waved in your face has a tendency to not put you in a position to debate the motives of the person waving the knife in your face.

Just google reporters trying to go through police shoot or don't shoot scenarios and you'll see that most people don't know wtf they are talking about in regards to when or not deadly force can be used. Each of them come out realizing this fact. The cops need to be held accountable, bad cops need to be released and known publicly we really have no right to judge the intent of these cops who most are just trying to do their job. The dude that was shot in philly assautled cops in the past, robbed a woman and put a gun to her head and punched his own mother in the face. Mental illness plays a part but does not make him any less dangerous. There needs to be more solutions in terms of less lethal and we absolutely have the technology to create something.

 

[agammaglobulin]

This to me is a big part of the issue between the 2 sides on this.

I would suspect that 90+% of people would support better training (and higher pay) for police so we can train them better at things like de-escalation.

But given the current pay and training, some people are expecting a lot from police who start at $16/hr and have at best 12 weeks of training in many places.

The first step here is to train and pay them better, then we can have nice high standards for them.

Agree. As bipartisian as you may think that is, I hope you realize the government in blue cities (Seattle, Portland, SF, etc) want to cut/eliminate the Police budget. cutting a departments budget doesn't result in better training or higher quality police officers.

CHAZ list of demands "The Seattle Police Department and attached court system are beyond reform. We do not request reform, we demand abolition."

Police Budget Cuts Seattle

Police Budget Cut Portland

Budget cuts SF

 

[greatnt249]

There needs to be more solutions in terms of less lethal and we absolutely have the technology to create something.

The problem is, when you arrive on scene and the situation has already been escalated to lethal force being presented (ie visible knife or firearm), there often isn't time to consider less-lethal options.

 

[Twiggidy]

If I read this thread close enough I’d be convinced there are Terminators among us and I need to find John Connor immediately. This whole “I need to keep shooting because he may not stop” is simply ridiculous. This isn’t the movies and the police need to stop acting like every person they encounter is Arnold Schwarzenegger.

I’d also make an argument there’s a racial component to this line of thinking

 

[greatnt249]

If I read this thread close enough I’d be convinced there are Terminators among us and I need to find John Connor immediately. This whole “I need to keep shooting because he may not stop” is simply ridiculous. This isn’t the movies and the police need to stop acting like every person they encounter is Arnold Schwarzenegger.

People don't instantly stop fighting and drop like a sack of potatoes when they get shot once like "in the movies," and bullet wounds don't explode on contact like squibs do "in the movies"; it's not immediately apparent even if you've fired off several rounds that the threat has even been shot, especially if they are still standing and moving. In a gunfight, people don't have excellent aim like they do "in the movies" even if they are well-trained; you'll see quotes of only 3 in 10 shots being fired actually hitting target in police shootouts, and that's not due to poor marksmanship. All these factors lead to shooting until the threat is no longer a threat; there's no way to predict how many shots that will take.

 

[agammaglobulin]

If I read this thread close enough I’d be convinced there are Terminators among us and I need to find John Connor immediately. This whole “I need to keep shooting because he may not stop” is simply ridiculous. This isn’t the movies and the police need to stop acting like every person they encounter is Arnold Schwarzenegger.

I’d also make an argument there’s a racial component to this line of thinking

I imagine police are trained to shoot until 'threat is neutralized'. I bet we could do research and find out how many shots are necessary to neutralize a threat, on average. Maybe it's not many, but I'd think it takes more than 1.

CNN article regarding why so many shots fired.

 

[Twiggidy]

People don't instantly stop fighting and drop like a sack of potatoes when they get shot once like "in the movies," and bullet wounds don't explode on contact like squibs do "in the movies"; it's not immediately apparent even if you've fired off several rounds that the threat has even been shot, especially if they are still standing and moving. In a gunfight, people don't have excellent aim like they do "in the movies" even if they are well-trained; you'll see quotes of only 3 in 10 shots being fired actually hitting target in police shootouts, and that's not due to poor marksmanship. All these factors lead to shooting until the threat is no longer a threat; there's no way to predict how many shots that will take.

A couple of things....

1) Training is what we're talking about and if a police officer isn't skilled enough to be an expert with his equipment then maybe he shouldn't need to be a police officer. Imagine in our field if it was totally acceptable that it needed more that 5 attempts to intubate someone. Sorry, I hold police to a higher standard

2) Again, people are T-1000s. Majority of people are going to take a shot or maybe 2 (especially with the ammo most police use), scream "MF'er", and likely drop to the ground. This notion of superhumans chasing police is completely ridiculous and honestly is part of the reason why you have the video Rex Chapman posted.

 

[Twiggidy]

I imagine police are trained to shoot until 'threat is neutralized'. I bet we could do research and find out how many shots are necessary to neutralize a threat, on average. Maybe it's not many, but I'd think it takes more than 1.

CNN article regarding why so many shots fired.

I feel like we're making a lot of excuses for guys who should be better at their jobs, but that's not to say they shouldn't shoot someone approaching them with a knife. It's just my personal opinion that law enforcement should be expert marksmen and I don't think the "being accurate is too hard" excuse applies when lives are at stake. Again, we wouldn't use that excuse in our field.

 

[Southpaw]

2) Again, people are T-1000s. Majority of people are going to take a shot or maybe 2 (especially with the ammo most police use), scream "MF'er", and likely drop to the ground. This notion of superhumans chasing police is completely ridiculous and honestly is part of the reason why you have the video Rex Chapman posted.

This isn't how they see it, and you'll never convince them otherwise. Because if there exists a video of 1 guy out there who didn't stop after being shot, then the premise becomes NO ONE will stop if shot. So they're trained to shoot to kill, and keep shooting until the subject is down and no longer a threat (in their mind).

 

[greatnt249]

A couple of things....

1) Training is what we're talking about and if a police officer isn't skilled enough to be an expert with his equipment then maybe he shouldn't need to be a police officer. Imagine in our field if it was totally acceptable that it needed more that 5 attempts to intubate someone. Sorry, I hold police to a higher standard

2) Again, people are T-1000s. Majority of people are going to take a shot or maybe 2 (especially with the ammo most police use), scream "MF'er", and likely drop to the ground. This notion of superhumans chasing police is completely ridiculous and honestly is part of the reason why you have the video Rex Chapman posted.

On what factual basis are any of these points coming from? Number of shots fired has nothing to do with skill of equipment use and does not equate to "excessive use of force." It doesn't matter how well trained you are with your firearm; if you're actively being shot at, your accuracy will drop. Your "higher standard" is simply unrealistic.

Take a shot or two with "the ammo most police use"...what does that even mean? A person getting shot is no different than a deer getting shot...it's a very rare circumstance that the deer goes down the moment it gets shot. Same with people...when adrenaline is surging, a person who's been shot might not even know they've been shot, and during that time period, they can still pose a threat.

 

[Twiggidy]

This isn't how they see it, and you'll never convince them otherwise. Because if there exists a video of 1 guy out there who didn't stop after being shot, then the premise becomes NO ONE will stop if shot. So they're trained to shoot to kill, and keep shooting until the subject is down and no longer a threat (in their mind).

Valid point

 

[greatnt249]

This isn't how they see it, and you'll never convince them otherwise. Because if there exists a video of 1 guy out there who didn't stop after being shot, then the premise becomes NO ONE will stop if shot. So they're trained to shoot to kill, and keep shooting until the subject is down and no longer a threat (in their mind).

They're trained to stop the threat from continuing..."trained to kill" implies malicious intent. Police aren't magically immune to the effects of adrenaline compared to the general public.

All of this ignores the point I was making that it is exceedingly difficult to tell in the moment that someone has even been shot. If you think people "can't be convinced otherwise," it's because the points being debated are coming from assumptions about how stressful situations like gunfights "should" play out.

 

[Twiggidy]

On what factual basis are any of these points coming from? Number of shots fired has nothing to do with skill of equipment use and does not equate to "excessive use of force." It doesn't matter how well trained you are with your firearm; if you're actively being shot at, your accuracy will drop. Your "higher standard" is simply unrealistic.

Take a shot or two with "the ammo most police use"...what does that even mean? A person getting shot is no different than a deer getting shot...it's a very rare circumstance that the deer goes down the moment it gets shot. Same with people...when adrenaline is surging, a person who's been shot might not even know they've been shot, and during that time period, they can still pose a threat.

First, we're not talking about being shot at we're talking about someone approaching with a knife. Second, I think even the gun experts on the forum will acknowledge that not all ammo is equal. Also, people aren't animals

 

[agammaglobulin]

So if you are the police, do you shoot one round at a time then wait and see what happens? How would that look in practice?

For example, someone’s 10 feet from you running at you and your kids with a knife, how should you shoot back? If it were me I’d shoot until they’re on the ground.

 

[greatnt249]

First, we're not talking about being shot at we're talking about someone approaching with a knife. Second, I think even the gun experts on the forum will acknowledge that not all ammo is equal.

I am aware that "not all ammo is equal"; what I meant was that much of what the police use is available to the general public as well. Hollow-point ammunition is not something specially-reserved for the police.

You're moving the goalposts when you said "we're not talking guns, we're talking about knives." A charging threat with a knife isn't somehow "less a threat" than someone with a firearm.

 

[Southpaw]

On what factual basis are any of these points coming from? Number of shots fired has nothing to do with skill of equipment use and does not equate to "excessive use of force." It doesn't matter how well trained you are with your firearm; if you're actively being shot at, your accuracy will drop. Your "higher standard" is simply unrealistic.

Take a shot or two with "the ammo most police use"...what does that even mean? A person getting shot is no different than a deer getting shot...it's a very rare circumstance that the deer goes down the moment it gets shot. Same with people...when adrenaline is surging, a person who's been shot might not even know they've been shot, and during that time period, they can still pose a threat.

This is correct. Look at Ahmaud Arbery (not the police). He didn't fall immediately after being hunted and shot several times from my recollection. He stumbled and continued to try and run away before falling and dying on the pavement. Same with Rayshard Brooks. After he attempted to use the taser against the police, he was shot several times while running away from the police. And it took a few seconds, while running away, before the imminent threat fell.

 

[Twiggidy]

So if you are the police, do you shoot one round at a time then wait and see what happens? How would that look in practice?

For example, someone’s 10 feet from you running at you and your kids with a knife, how should you shoot back? If it were me I’d shoot until they’re on the ground.

Honestly, I had an aunt that was a police and when she was on the force it was my understanding that you actually did shoot 2 bullets at a time, ie 2 trigger pulls. Things may have and probably did change.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

On what factual basis are any of these points coming from? Number of shots fired has nothing to do with skill of equipment use and does not equate to "excessive use of force." It doesn't matter how well trained you are with your firearm; if you're actively being shot at, your accuracy will drop. Your "higher standard" is simply unrealistic.

Take a shot or two with "the ammo most police use"...what does that even mean? A person getting shot is no different than a deer getting shot...it's a very rare circumstance that the deer goes down the moment it gets shot. Same with people...when adrenaline is surging, a person who's been shot might not even know they've been shot, and during that time period, they can still pose a threat.

Exactly. I've shot deer literally in the heart with a fairly large rifle round (.30-06 if you're curious) and they'll still make it a good 50 yards before dropping.

 

[PikminOC]

The problem is, when you arrive on scene and the situation has already been escalated to lethal force being presented (ie visible knife or firearm), there often isn't time to consider less-lethal options.

In jacob blake they tazed him twice first

 

[Southpaw]

All of this ignores the point I was making that it is exceedingly difficult to tell in the moment that someone has even been shot. If you think people "can't be convinced otherwise," it's because the points being debated are coming from assumptions about how stressful situations like gunfights "should" play out.

This is sort of a 'shoulder shrug as I toss in the towel' response. I find this all exceedingly frustrating and futile, because there is no question we will rinse and repeat this situation weeks or months from now, and again, and again, and again until finally it becomes enough and people (politicians?) decide to make change. The 'can't be convinced otherwise' is me saying that in my opinion police turn all of the shades of gray into black or white, and in the end their safety is the most important thing. And anything could be a threat. Anything. At any point. This appears to be how they're trained to view a potentially hostile situation, how any object anyone is holding can be a threat to their life if someone is within 20 feet, and how anyone could attack them or become aggressive at any point. So, stop them before they become a danger to the police or anyone around. I can both understand their view, their safety, and see that how they're trained and how they interact with the public simply means this will never stop until the status quo is shaken up.

 

[Twiggidy]

I find it very interesting that on a medical forum, no one is mentioning the obvious: It was the medical system's failure to help this mentally ill man that ultimately led to his death.

I haven't read up on this specific case, but appears to be the routine story of a person struggling with mental health issues, out in society, a danger to himself and others, and the family has no recourse other than to call for help AFTER the person becomes violent. If they call for assistance BEFORE the person turns violent, they are told by the police that there is nothing that they can do to intervene. The police's role in these cases is only to deal with people who have escalated to violence, often times AFTER a family member has been injured or murdered.

When an ambulance is called to collect a mentally ill person who is lashing out, the police are sent as well, for the protection of the first responders. The idea that we can just send a social worker to the scene is a fantasy, and he or she would be put in the same dangerous situation. Perhaps a psychiatric physician should be dispatched to the scene? Would you support one of your own profession being the sacrificial lamb in this case? You think the psychiatrist has a magic wand to turn a violent schizophrenic into a passive and complaint person with just words? What would they do in this case?

The shortcomings of our mental health care system is a stain upon all of our medical professions. Something needs to be done to improve and expand our mental health care system. More money. More inpatient services. I, for one, am sick and tired of hearing "Oh, he fell through the cracks of the system" after a case like this, or a family member being killed, or a mass shooting, or... Lots of fingers being pointed at the police, but, I say, look in the mirror, people. We failed this man, and now he is dead.

I agree with all of this

 

[Twiggidy]

"Gun fight" keeps coming up which I can only assume we're referring to the Breonna Taylor case. There is a TON wrong with that case, most of which I don't want to get into. I will say this, the AG got the technicalities of the case correct. The police burst through the door, was shot at, and returned fire. We can debate whether they should've been there, if they announced themselves, etc. By the letter of the law the shoot was clean and an innocent bystander died. But we also shouldn't act like the majority of situations that occur are scenes from "Heat".

 

[AMEHigh]

I find it very interesting that on a medical forum, no one is mentioning the obvious: It was the medical system's failure to help this mentally ill man that ultimately led to his death.

I haven't read up on this specific case, but appears to be the routine story of a person struggling with mental health issues, out in society, a danger to himself and others, and the family has no recourse other than to call for help AFTER the person becomes violent. If they call for assistance BEFORE the person turns violent, they are told by the police that there is nothing that they can do to intervene. The police's role in these cases is only to deal with people who have escalated to violence, often times AFTER a family member has been injured or murdered.

When an ambulance is called to collect a mentally ill person who is lashing out, the police are sent as well, for the protection of the first responders. The idea that we can just send a social worker to the scene is a fantasy, and he or she would be put in the same dangerous situation. Perhaps a psychiatric physician should be dispatched to the scene? Would you support one of your own profession being the sacrificial lamb in this case? You think the psychiatrist has a magic wand to turn a violent schizophrenic into a passive and complaint person with just words? What would they do in this case?

The shortcomings of our mental health care system is a stain upon all of our medical professions. Something needs to be done to improve and expand our mental health care system. More money. More inpatient services. I, for one, am sick and tired of hearing "Oh, he fell through the cracks of the system" after a case like this, or a family member being killed, or a mass shooting, or... Lots of fingers being pointed at the police, but, I say, look in the mirror, people. We failed this man, and now he is dead.

I raised that issue multiple times in this thread. What could’ve been done before the police showed up and how healthcare and definitely mental health care are a failure in the US. Just read the whole thread

I have such a difficult time getting my patients more complex mental health needs met when they’re begging for help and treatment.

There’s a lot of systems at play here that have lead to these moments of protest. People are mad because they don’t have jobs, healthcare, food on the table, etc AND deal with police brutality.

 

[AMEHigh]

Also, it seems there are now 2 different conversations going on here.

Of course if someone is running full speed ahead at you with a gun or knife I expect the police to shoot them in America.

However, let’s look at, who do police perceive as a threat? Are they "trigger happy" with white women? Are they "trigger happy" with Black boys and men? If it were a little white girl holding a toy gun instead of Tamie Rice, would she have been shot with no warning? Are there other training standards that police can be held to?

Before the person started charging at them, what were the police interactions? The basics of what I know about the people that negotiate with people in hostage situations don’t go charging in yelling and with guns drawn right away. Can police use more de-escalation tactics? What tactics are used in other countries where all police don’t carry weapons? Why do all police in Philly carry guns but only 1/3 have tasers?

And then there’s the issue of overall community needs and budgets and change. Why are schools falling apart, huge class sizes, water fountains with lead, teachers having to buy paper, yet police budgets are millions more than education budgets? Can we re-allocate funds to get people mental health care they need, education they need, housing they need? Why do schools in the suburbs have pools and multi-million dollar athletic facilities while schools in other areas have peeling lead paint?

So yeah those are some of the issues, that are separate from saying that police shouldn’t shoot if there is an actual clear and present life threatening person after they’ve been trained to assess the situation well and used other tactics first if appropriate.

 

[greatnt249]

"Gun fight" keeps coming up which I can only assume we're referring to the Breonna Taylor case.

I'm not referring to any specific case in particular when I'm making my points; I'm trying to address assumptions being made about how people should react in high-stress situations when higher cognitive function isn't possible, such as:

1. The assumption that one or two shots will immediately incapacitate someone. This is not true and wildly variable. The training is to shoot until the threat stops being a threat, not "shoot to kill," not "fire x number of rounds regardless of the circumstances."

2. That x number of shots constitutes "appropriate/excessive force." It depends on the situation. Gunfire is loud, and it is not easy to discern who is doing the shooting. So, if one person starts shooting, regardless of who instigates, there can be a tendency for others to start shooting out of fear that they are being shot at. So, in the end, 45 shots have been fired by the police; not because one person emptied, reloaded, and emptied again, but because nine officers fired 5 shots each until each could see that the threat had been stopped (this is a made-up example). What gets reported in the media? "45 shots taken to bring the suspect down."

3. That, when in "fight/flight" mode that you will even be aware that you've been shot, and that you're immediate instinct would be to drop to the ground. This doesn't even account for the level of sobriety of the person who got shot.

4. That there are reliable indicators that after you've fired your weapon that the target has actually been hit (ie, gunshot wounds don't explode like squibs in the movies).

5. That shooting a pistol is as easy as it looks and that marksmanship qualifications on a stationary paper target remotely equates to being in a real-time situation.

6. That higher cognitive function is possible when under direct threat.

This is certainly not everything, but more of the common elements that I see get brought up. As for case-specifics, that's another story. The message I'm trying to convey is not that every one of these instances that have been mentioned were justified, but rather why it's more complex than some people make it out to be.

 

[DrOwnage]

Solution: Train cops to use curare tipped blow darts and intubate the aggressor after they're down.

 

[AMEHigh]

So this is an example of maddening police behavior.

This woman was on her way to pick up her child. She encountered a protest and was told to turn around. While turning around the police bust open the windows of the car and pull her and her 2 year old child out. She was injured, taken to the hospital and separated from her child for hours. Then the fraternal order of the police posted videos stating that this child was just found wandering the streets and the police protected the child.

So now this woman likely has a hospital bill, has a car repair bill from the police smashing the windows and the trauma that her and her child had to endure.

Absolutely ridiculous.

Redirect Notice