Maybe US is a bit much to the other side but with the statistics of people with guns there it makes sense.
You know what would help? If the police tells you to do something, do it without question or big mouthing. Cops tell you to put your hands where they can see them? Do it. Tell you to lie down? Do it. Fight them later for any unjust actions but while at gunpoint just beeping comply.
April from all that I hope they will prosecute the idiot swatter to set an example. This ain't no games you do for fun.
-The problem, at least in some cases, is that you may get confusing, if not direct contradictory orders.
Say, if one officer yells 'Put your hands up' whereas another yells 'Get down, get down' - sure, keeping your wits about you, you could get your hands up, then kneel and get down - however, you are probably stressed as hell (being at gunpoint hopefully not being an everyday occurrence), and stressed people make mistakes.
Being frightened is NOT a condition which carries the death penalty. Police officers are the professional party in encounters like this. They should act like it - and receive training in how Joe Q. Public is likely to react when having a gun pointed at him.
(Heck, it might even be justified to have a masked instructor crash a class at the police academy and holding them at gunpoint for a few seconds (better make it a class where the cadets are not armed!) - with any luck, the brighter ones will remember how scared they were and cut civilians they encounter later a little slack for being scared s--tless.
I have no doubt the police is trained. I have no doubt they did not draw because they wanted to have a party. They most likely thought they were in serious danger.
Let's do the Devils advocate. You are the cop standing there. You are almost certain he will pull a gun on you or your colleague. What would you do?
I don't think it will be solved by having an actor join their class. It's statistics and interpretation of it mostly.
-Fair question. IMHO there will be situations where the police are justified in firing on suspects. I just think that bar is currently (apparently) way too low - and that much can be done BEFORE a situation goes as far as the one in the parent story.
I would expect that SOP at 911 dispatch when receiving a call like the one triggering this death would be to seek more information as the team dispatched; why didn't they call the neighbours? Why didn't they call the house the call supposedly originated from? Why didn't they floodlight the entrance to the house as they ordered the victim to come out? He wouldn't see a thing with a couple of lights in his face, and it wouldn't matter one iota whether he had a gun or not.
My point isn't that police never are justified in exerting violence on us; my point is that they could do a lot more to avoid ending up in situations where deadly force is the only apparent solution in the first place.
I hope I didn't dodge your question.
Growing up, in my civics classes, we were taught that police were no more privileged than an ordinary citizen. It was WW2 Europe where your papers were required. If you were being bullied by a cop, you can stand up for yourself and be shown to be right by the justice system.
Of course, even as a kid, I knew this was self-delusion. I have always distrusted police and treated them as super powerful combatants who weren't targeting me, but would put me in their crosshairs if they didn't personally like something about me.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that if an offense only warrants 40 hours of public service, it's probably not serious enough for a cop to use their firearm.
Oh no, children saying rude things? So long civilization, it was good while it lasted.
If we're talking about the Dutch police, they actually seem to do a pretty great job with patience and professionalism from what I remember when I lived there (for about 2 years).
Regarding mostly fictious: we have national television reporting our first aid/response units are being assaulted on their jobs. We have police officers on trial for arresting people who didn't comply simple questions (no crossing orders). We have the generic public joking about public service. Mostly fictious is not what I would call it. The image of our national police is not great. I would say we could have a bit more of the US respect and they can have a bit of our control. Then again, no proof so hard to fight either way.
P.S. I knew I should jot have taken a 13 yo example :(.
It’s important to understand though how the (rest of) US thinks about situations like these. Throwing. Your arms up and declaring the moral high ground instead of being a apart of pragmatic conversations reminds me of the stance R.M.S would take on things.
Can I just point out the irony of saying there's no reasoning with 'those people' because of identity politics.
However it gets a bit iffy when you accuse a certain group of people of identity politics.
Admittedly people who hold that opinion might adhere to a 'conservative identity' but the gp was specifically describing people who engaged in categorical dismissal of of political proposal, so it's legitimate to say they can't be reasoned with because categorical dismissals are an example of a genetic fallacy.
Done something like being poor, minority or both?
I've recently read a nice piece (Vox IIRC) on authoritarian personalities and I think this is the new norm.
A decade ago I would have just written that type of comment as trolling, but now it's a different world.
People genuinely hold this cryptofascist beliefs.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/13/why-a...
However, all races should be equally concerned with police executions. This isn't the land of Judge Dredd. We still have the 5th and 14th amendments.
1) Damond must have done something unusual or stupid to cause the officer to fire on her, making it her fault, because what officer would be threatened by a Pretty White Woman?
2) As mentioned above, officers make mistakes, and this is a terrible tragedy, but they put their lives on the line every day and they were trying to do the right thing, so we can't punish them for this.
3) This is one of the "rare" cases of actual police brutality and the cop deserves to go to jail for murder.
I'm from the southern US, which is historically more conservative than the rest of the country. I'm not in any way claiming that the following viewpoints are universal and accepted in this region, but a large enough portion of the population holds these viewpoints, preventing further progress:
1) Anyone who gets shot by cops must have done something to warrant being shot. Even for people who get shot during traffic stops, that person did something to get pulled over in the first place. If they had a criminal record in the past, even if they didn't commit an offense during the situation where they were killed, there's a good chance they would have offended again, and this preemptive killing probably prevented a future crime.
2) In the case of this swatting incident, the blame lies 100% on the person who made the false police report. No false report, no shooting. The cop had reason to believe based on the report that the man who emerged from the door claimed to have a gun and had killed in the last hour, so it was plausible to believe he may try to retaliate and the appropriate force was used. No time for fact checking during an active shooter situation. "Shoot first, ask questions later" is considered an appropriate way for the police to deal with criminals.
Obviously there are numerous refutations, and that isn't lost on people. Many people will justify it by saying that regardless of the circumstances, the police put their lives on the line every day, so that gives them a pass when they make mistakes. Many people would view your suggestions as weakening the police, and the militarization of US police is viewed by many as making us safer, not less safe.