Police and excessive force

[Darth Avlectus]

You're familiar with these sorts of situations, obviously, a person with a knife, with no training, can still kill a person. Kevlar doesn't do jack for a knife. Give 'em a little speed and they may go through half a dozen people before they're stopped. Heck you can put a few bullets into a guy on speed and it won't slow 'em down, and they might be armed with nothing less than their own two hands.

 

So, how many cops should I sacrifice to stop one kid without killing them? Honestly, there are lots of kids in the world, and there will always be more, people are pretty apt at making new ones, and pretty good at not teaching them jack so there will certainly be more kids who end up in situations like this.

 

There will not however always be more cops, cops are something the world takes for granted, yet they are not a given in life. Sure, there will always be people who want to protect others, and there will always be people who want take the law into their own hands. There will not however, always be people who are willing to undergo intense physical and mental training, and restrain themselves in most situations in order to protect the most amount of people the greatest amount of time.

 

At some point you tie the hands of the cops to the point where people no longer want to be cops, and situations like these are solved by me killing the kid for threatening me with a knife instead of a cop doing it. And ya know what, in most of the reasonable world, if I have a way to defend myself when somebody threatens my life, they're pretty OK with me doing whatever it takes to protect myself. In recent years, AUS, and a good deal of Europe+the UK, have failed to understand this as self defense is generally regarded as just a egregious a crime as unprovoked assault and battery.

 

In any case I digress, how many of my limited cop resources should I utilize to stop a kid with a knife? Should I lose one? Two? Six? Hey maybe the kid will get a bright idea and steal the cop car since the cops are only trying to stop him by running interference. Maybe he'll mow down some people, the emotional trauma to the cops could cause me to lose even more. The screwed up AUS court system would likly cost me some the higher ups, guys who've stuck with the system instead of quit early.

 

So, I'll ask one more time because repetition is good for learning, and I'll apologize for seeming to be rude but I'm tired of this attitude that any action cops take to stop a person is bad. And trust me, you say "shooting bad" I'll find you a dozen instances of "tackling bad" "hitting bad" "restraining bad" and so on. I, like you, know cops, ex-cops, military, ex-military, and everyone in between.

 

So, my question: how many cops should stopping one kid cost?

 

My opinion? None. One or two if the kid is heavily armed. But when it comes to armed and violent offenders, I prefer my cops to stop them cold rather than risk their lives on foolish measures that may kill them because the people they're protecting and the system they serve think that they're the criminals.

 

To your more specific question, since you're familiar with cops, you are clearly familiar with the intense training they go through. You or I with a little gun training are the danger, not guys who are forced day in and day out to learn how to use weapons properly. Is the average 23 year old trained enough to carry a gun? No. Is the average officer trained enough to carry a gun? Yes.

 

Also: your title of this tread is somewhat offensive. Cops are indeed "everywhere" and as are the people they end up killing. Cops are not however, randomly mowing down kids in the street, this isn't South Africa and this isn't Apartheid. You know this, I know this. You're not scoring any points here by making cops out to be violent maniacs. As someone familiar with "ex-cops" and "ex-cons", you should know that's not the truth.

 

THANK YOU! You score *MAJOR* points with me. Also, just because something is outlawed or banned doesn't mean it will disappear. Criminals will only become more clever with obtaining and using guns.

 

While I suppose I could jump out of a tree like a ninja with my sword and decapitate one or two marauding gang members with guns, if they have numbers in the distance watching their back, well, my katana is not a lightsaber and I'm pretty much screwed. I'd much rather use cover and range. I mean, I'd like to survive by the best chances possible. If cops are cut down because the opposition had guns and they didn't...well, it would come to that colorful scenario above if guns were not allowed.

 

I think the fact that criminals carry guns (at least in this country) kinda automatically negates any sort of philosophical discussion we could have as to whether or not police officers should have them.

something about discriminant careful selection of persons according to field

<snip>

To summarize my rather lengthy answer: there is no quick fix for this problem.

 

Before I step off my soapbox, I think that I should disclose that my father was a career police officer and I that I briefly majored in Administration of Justice with the intent to follow in his footsteps. Hopefully that will allow you to clearly identify any bias which may be present in my opinions as I have expressed them. Thanks for reading.

 

I have an uncle who has had a career of prison security, from guard (and I know he has broken a few convicts across his knee), to counsellor, to security advisor. There are some really despicable vile people who will kill you if you are not careful. They need to know they are not in charge. Hanharr is one example of the mentality.

 

This happened a few days ago in a suburb near me.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/teen-shot-dead-by-police-20081211-6wtt.html

 

I'm ex-security, mates are ex-cop or ex-con and we all reckon England had it right with no firearms for regular patrol cops.

[/Quote]

 

I beg to differ.

 

Here's the reasoning. You've got a gun. Kid has knife. If you're going to arrest kid with knife and you've got gun, you have to shoot kid with knife to stop kid from getting gun.

 

Simple answer: you can't afford to have a scuffle with armed offenders when carrying a firearm. So don't bring a gun!

We say: the primary weapon of policing forces is the radio. With it you have instant numbers. Who cares about a knife when you've got thirty two-hundred pound blokes jumping the feller?

[/Quote]

 

And how about if similar incidents are happening in 29 other places in town.

I know this is only theory and supposition however, you asked for it. But to maintain respect here is perspective:

While you have 30 apes with badges beating down one kid, you have 29 others with knives or worse running amok. Where are the cops? Still arresting the one kid and doing their after-gloating.

 

Also consider: You cannot always wrest a knife from another's grip. My uncle broke a con's arm in a similar situation and the guy still didn't let go of the knife so his fellow guard had to take a baton and whack the knife out of the guy's grip--yes, breaking the con's hand.

 

Regardless how well trained you are you may not always succeed. Shooting or breaking that arm may need to be done. Which is something that the cop failed to do, admittedly.

 

So. I understand many yanks love guns like women. They love cops with guns, girls with guns, they'd never stop laughing or loving life if furry animals carried guns.

[/Quote]

 

Oh, gee, THANKS. I really love being called a biggot redneck because I like guns. Thanks a lot.

Am I also a weaboo because I like kendo? or asian things?

A conqistadore? or crusader brute because I like fencing too?

 

Opinions. Are 23 year olds who get scared by teens with steak knives, really responsible enough, or commonly well trained enough, to carry guns?

 

It depends, and it sounds like you forgot to factor in EXPERIENCE--so often overlooked when referencing thuggery.

Maybe the kid came from a rough neighborhood and had to fight every day of his life--while the cop came from the suburbs and lived a little more relaxed so his training is all he has. Just one view to consider.

 

What he said. I can understand being upset about the fact that your father died, but picking up knives and threatening to kill a policeman with them is crossing the line. Major-league crossing the line. He probably brought it on himself.

And, BTW, not all us yanks are the type to love anything with a gun.

Lastly, your title is misleading.

 

I agree.

 

 

Yeah, he made a threat and was holding a knife. But shooting him to death is a little excessive, don't you think?

[/Quote]

Could be excessive, could be right on. None of us were there, so we don't really know.

Shooting to kill isn't well trained. You are trained to kill only if it is the last resort.

 

<snip>

 

Do some people pretty much ask to be shot? Yeah, but when necessary.

 

<snip>

 

I'll suspend judgment until I see a better detailed article.

I called a group of people "backwater rednecks" once in a gun thread, and quickly realized that it made me and my argument look plain ignorant.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee

 

From your speech, I'm going to go under the assumption that you are not American (Correct me if I'm wrong). The term Yank is often a derogatory word, even if it is not meant to be. I know it is a common word for Americans outside the US, but the word has a history of bad taste and while it may be normal speech for you, it is derogatory term towards Americans.

I could care less about it, but I'm just pointing this out to you so you don't discredit yourself further by purposefully, or mistakenly placing insults in your posts. Also, work on your thread title.

 

Insightful. And experienced. True, the end result is rather extreme. Were there other things that could have been done? Probably so.

 

Vanir, I wasn't offended, but I certainly hope I have (with all due respect to you) "advised a slight lack of appreciative endeavor" --vanir.

I know you weren't calling me a yankee--but take care not to ire and alienate people against you.

 

 

You don't have to provide any information unless he gives you his name, department/police station and such.

When a policeman says jump, you ask for his information.

 

Unless he has reason to believe you are in the act of committing a felony or has probable cause. They have the right in those circumstances to stop you first and ask later.

 

I'll admit in the latter case of probable cause I have had my fair share of cops who picked on me for awhile. I do fit a sort of "rough" profile. I got in quite a few bad fights as a minor too.

 

However, since I was reported to be breaking into a car (my own because I locked my keys inside) the local scene has piped down on me since I'm not a troublemaker...at least to their eyes. The one cop just joked with me and called me a poor bastard.