or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 162

post #2416 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai View Post

Your statistic may be true for all cops as a group, including folks who sit at desks doing paperwork, etc. and cops in small towns with few problems.

For cops actually patrolling in dangerous areas, and serving arrest warrants on violent criminals, that number is going to be much higher. Have you ever even talked to a cop that works a high crime beat and asked him/her about his experiences? Violence is not something that happens every ten years. It is routine. People fight with cops on a regular basis. Foot pursuits, being hit, kicked, tackled spit on, and threatened, are a common part of the experience. It's not an every ten year thing.

Even in a relatively safe place like Boulder, Colorado, I've seen cops attacked by drunk students.

Overhead question here, what point exactly are you trying to make here? Everybody knows that dangerous areas are also more dangerous for cops than the national average, and that being a cop exposes you to more violence than a normal person. And? Where are you going with that?

The takehome message from your first post seemed to be "Cops are on edge for a reason." If you actually go and look at the details of many of the police shootings, the degree that police are "on edge" is extremely disproportionate to the actual risk faced by police officers. The odds that a cop in Salt Lake City is going to get shot are vanishingly small. Same with Cleveland, same with many of the places we've seen shootings. These shootings are being deemed "reasonable" for exactly the reasoning that you're pushing here, that being a cop is supremely dangerous and they need to be given wide latitude to err in lethal force threat evaluations. The numbers simply don't support that.
Edited by Gibonius - 6/18/15 at 4:27pm
post #2417 of 6095
Putting shootings aside, and talking just about physical violence without resorting to guns:

There is no gentle, telegenic, clean, and nice way to subdue a violent, combative suspect who chooses to fight rather than submit to arrest. It's ugly and awful, and it's part of the job. I see a lot of criticism of police by internet experts who don't want the police to use force against people who resist arrest. However, the alternative if police are unable or unwilling to use violence to apprehend and arrest combative people is that police have no power over anyone who is willing to resist.

Furthermore, I see a lot of people complain about asymmetrical and disproportionate use of force: "Why did 3 police officers take down that one man?" "Why did that big officer throw that much smaller teen to the ground?" If police have to use violence to subdue a combative suspect, then it should be disproportionate and one sided. The more even the contest, and the longer it goes on, the greater the chances of escalation. If someone resists arrest, the police officer needs to get them under control quickly and efficiently, and if that means ganging up on someone, or throwing them to the ground and sitting on them, then that's how it should go.

Folks who get upset when they watch videos of police fighting with people seem to forget that, in most all cases, the suspects made a choice to fight rather than submit to arrest. The resulting ugly violence is the result of the police doing their job.

With regard to police shootings:

Statistics don't really mean very much when you are faced with a potentially lethal confrontation. If you are a cop in Salt Lake City, confronting a guy with a weapon, it's not reasonable to be thinking, "Well, given the number of cops in Salt Lake, and the number of months that have gone by without a police death, the odds of my being killed in this encounter are 1253 to one." Just because places like Detroit and Chicago have a greater number of murders, doesn't mean that Salt Lake doesn't have people who pose a danger to police. A police officer answering a domestic abuse 911 call has reason to be concerned, no matter what city (or town) he lives in.

Honestly, any person who is irrational enough to resist arrest is a threat, and depending on circumstances, a potential deadly threat. Normal people don't fight with police. Normal people don't threaten police. Normal people don't get beat up or shot by police.

It's easy to criticize the actions of police officers when you have no experience at all with their day to day experiences. However, if your day to day routine doesn't ever include having to fight with people or wonder if the people you interact with may try to kill you, then maybe you should give the police the benefit of the doubt when second guessing their decisions.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Overhead question here, what point exactly are you trying to make here? Everybody knows that dangerous areas are also more dangerous for cops than the national average, and that being a cop exposes you to more violence than a normal person. And? Where are you going with that?

The takehome message from your first post seemed to be "Cops are on edge for a reason." If you actually go and look at the details of many of the police shootings, the degree that police are "on edge" is extremely disproportionate to the actual risk faced by police officers. The odds that a cop in Salt Lake City is going to get shot are vanishingly small. Same with Cleveland, same with many of the places we've seen shootings. These shootings are being deemed "reasonable" for exactly the reasoning that you're pushing here, that being a cop is supremely dangerous and they need to be given wide latitude to err in lethal force threat evaluations. The numbers simply don't support that.
post #2418 of 6095
"Normal people". I love you Kai, never change.
post #2419 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai View Post

Putting shootings aside, and talking just about physical violence without resorting to guns:



Folks who get upset when they watch videos of police fighting with people seem to forget that, in most all cases, the suspects made a choice to fight rather than submit to arrest. The resulting ugly violence is the result of the police doing their job.

There's some truth here. Police are the arm of the state authorized to use force, and that's not going to be a pretty thing in a lot of cases even though it may be necessary. Most people don't see violence in their life, and even necessary violence is going to look horrible on film.

The other factor here is determining which violence is actually necessary. We've criminalized a lot of dumb shit, which forces way more interactions with the police than would otherwise be necessary. More encounters, more chances for violence. The number of Stop and Frisk encounters (for example) that ended in violence is incredible, and a large fraction of them didn't even involve an arrestable offense.
Quote:
Statistics don't really mean very much when you are faced with a potentially lethal confrontation. If you are a cop in Salt Lake City, confronting a guy with a weapon, it's not reasonable to be thinking, "Well, given the number of cops in Salt Lake, and the number of months that have gone by without a police death, the odds of my being killed in this encounter are 1253 to one." Just because places like Detroit and Chicago have a greater number of murders, doesn't mean that Salt Lake doesn't have people who pose a danger to police. A police officer answering a domestic abuse 911 call has reason to be concerned, no matter what city (or town) he lives in.

Honestly, any person who is irrational enough to resist arrest is a threat, and depending on circumstances, a potential deadly threat. Normal people don't fight with police. Normal people don't threaten police. Normal people don't get beat up or shot by police.

For the Salt Lake City case, the guy wasn't armed and didn't resist. He simply didn't instantly comply, and made a motion towards his waistband.

Cops make all kinds of probability based decisions, they're just not doing it consciously. It's baked into their training, their experience, and is hugely informed by their biases. This stuff can be influenced by altering training and tactics. It's been demonstrates in cities across the country, and does result in decreased violence by the police.

As far as the "normal" people thing,
http://www.cato.org/raidmap

"Normal" people don't have SWAT get the wrong address and bust into their house on a no-knock drug raid and injure their baby with a flashbang. Oh. Wait.
Quote:
It's easy to criticize the actions of police officers when you have no experience at all with their day to day experiences. However, if your day to day routine doesn't ever include having to fight with people or wonder if the people you interact with may try to kill you, then maybe you should give the police the benefit of the doubt when second guessing their decisions.

No one should give the state the benefit of the doubt when it comes to killing citizens on the street. We should always be questioning and always be skeptical. That's not to say we should enforce unreasonable standards or send cops to jail for defending themselves, but "Trust us we're the police and we've seen some shit" doesn't fly in a free society.

And the bolded line is exactly the point. Cops vastly overestimate how likely any civilian they run into is to kill them. Violence against police keeps decreasing, but police are killing more citizens. I'm confident this is not because citizens are suddenly changing their actions, it's because police has changed their mindsets and are falsely judging risk in lethal situations.
post #2420 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

The number of Stop and Frisk encounters (for example) that ended in violence is incredible,

Especially when one uses a definition of "violence" that's so broad as to render the statistic meaningless. Remember?
post #2421 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai View Post


People fight with cops on a regular basis.
It's not uncommon for cops to use intimidation, threats of violence or other forms of bullying, or harassment as a default mode of dealing with people. What a surprise that people fight with them!
post #2422 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

It's not uncommon for cops to use intimidation, threats of violence or other forms of bullying, or harassment as a default mode of dealing with people. What a surprise that people fight with them!

Exactly.

I've known many cops in my life. There are those with no egos that handle things in a non-escalating manner and there are cock of the walks that swagger into every interaction. I would bet the mortgage that if we could classify a police force into those two groups, and track the incidence rate for violence being used, there would be a stark difference between the two sets. People usually respond in a predictable manner based on how they are being treated by the other party; no reason to think that will be any different in a police/civilian interaction.
post #2423 of 6095

A little quick on the trigger finger!

http://chicagoreporter.com/video-chicago-cop-opens-fire-on-black-teens-in-car/

Article says the car was stolen. Civil settlement has been reached.
post #2424 of 6095
Cop uses military pistol with high capacity magazine to gun down and kill a non violent senior citizen with history of heart disease, diabetes, and high blood pressure who was just trying leave:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/06/19/brooklyn-officer-stabbed-released-hospital/
post #2425 of 6095
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/lapd-shoots-man-appeared-pointing-concealed-weapon-article-1.2264894

LAPD shoots unarmed man who appeared to be pointing concealed weapon: cops (WARNING — GRAPHIC VIDEO)
post #2426 of 6095
post #2427 of 6095
I think we need a second thread where news stories of cops getting hurt on the job is the topic.

We can follow that up with healthcare workers getting attacked while trying to deliver care and why this has led to a rash of nurses shooting unarmed patients.
post #2428 of 6095
Not necessary. The chances of a police officer being injured or killed in the line of duty are minuscule. There wouldn't be enough stories to justify a thread on that topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I think we need a second thread where news stories of cops getting hurt on the job is the topic.

We can follow that up with healthcare workers getting attacked while trying to deliver care and why this has led to a rash of nurses shooting unarmed patients.
post #2429 of 6095
Just so it's clear. I don't believe in giving the police a free pass on everything they do.

Here's an example of some seriously messed up actions by the police:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Kenneth_Chamberlain,_Sr.
post #2430 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

I think we need a second thread where news stories of cops getting hurt on the job is the topic.

We can follow that up with healthcare workers getting attacked while trying to deliver care and why this has led to a rash of nurses shooting unarmed patients.
I read "unarmed patients" as "unnamed patients" for some reason and was wondering if they were shooting newborns.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?