Re:Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use de...
by nijave on Wednesday November 23, 2022 @08:05PM
(#33726635)
There's always not "fighting fire with fire"
Working on having less guns would be a start. In terms of "less lethal" pepper spray is usually pretty good
Re:Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use de...
by vorpalhex on Wednesday November 23, 2022 @08:09PM
(#33726676)
Have you been pepper sprayed?
It's disorienting but you can still be a very lethal threat under it's effects.
That also assumes the pepper spray works, it's not too windy, you can get within 15ft, suspect isn't running...
Re:Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use de...
by salad-fan on Wednesday November 23, 2022 @08:02PM
(#33726618)
Why does anyone or anything need to “go in”? There are plenty of other ways to deal with these situations instead of pretending to be Seal Team Six.
Re:Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use de...
by vorpalhex on Wednesday November 23, 2022 @08:10PM
(#33726677)
Dead bystanders is usually considered poor form.
Re:Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use de...
by falcolas on Wednesday November 23, 2022 @08:45PM
(#33726964)
Tell that to the Uvalde police department.
Police are concerned with their own lives. They have no duty to protect anybody else’s lives
Re:Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use de...
by vorpalhex on Wednesday November 23, 2022 @09:01PM
(#33727056)
That's a fixable problem. Police could have a legally mandated ethics code similar to lawyers and fiduciary duty.
I do believe, ethically speaking, Uvalde officers should be criminally charged. There's no legal basis of course.
Re:Draft policy proposal would authorize SF Police to use de...
by falcolas on Wednesday November 23, 2022 @09:06PM
(#33727092)
You're correct, there is no legal basis. In fact, the police have a supreme court ruling which affirms that the police has no legal duty or responsibility to protect anyone. Even when they're given roles that would imply the responsibility (such as serving in a school).
Could we hold police more accountable? Potentially. Will we? Based on historical evidence, no.
And without that accountability, this is just another deadly weapon, one they can and will (again, based on historical evidence) use with impunity.
- REPLYING TO BELOW -
> Why does anyone or anything need to “go in”? There are plenty of other ways to deal with these situations instead of pretending to be Seal Team Six.
Such as? Like a large magnet to pull the guns out of their hand?
Sometimes these situations will only result in shootouts, like busting a drug operation of a gang.
Then you have to go in to protect other citizens. Sending in a robot would then be safer. And it's been done before.
> Working on having less guns would be a start. In terms of "less lethal" pepper spray is usually pretty good
Sure, but that's not today, gangs currently have guns. Drug busts currently have dangers.
(note I don't agree that guns are the problem, if anything everyone should be armed)