• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The behaviour of US police officers

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeMorgue said:
Okay I see the bike path, I see the pedestrian path, I must have missed the path from "bike lanes" to "police murdering people in the street" this discussion took.
Click to expand...

We all get off track from time to time. I spent the last three hours trying to research "bot cyclist" based on lomiller's post and now I'm beginning to think it may have just been a typo.
 
lomiller said:
We have a lot of multi-use paths here. Basically extra wide sidewalks that are supposed to accommodate bot cyclists and pedestrians. I many cases I find them more dangerous than riding on the road. I've been hit more than once by cards that roll though the stop sign instead of stopping before the stop sign like they are supposed to. Car's almost never stop before the path. Pedestrians are also really unpredictable, walk in the center of the path and prone to weave in front of you as you try to pass them.
Click to expand...

This behavior has long fascinated (read: enraged) me.

One person can blockade entire store aisles, I have seen as few as 3 people dominate entire 20+ foot wide city sidewalk/building aprons.

I have taught myself to just stop. I now know why people stare at package labels or suddenly stop and rest on a flower planter. We're not curious about product directions or needing to catch our breath. We're counting backwards from 10 a few times and letting whoever get some distance ahead of us.

ETA: but yeah, police should stop murdering people.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Exactly. And I've always been annoyed that you are supposed to ride your bike on a dangerous street when there is a sidewalk. Some idiot idea that it was better the bike rider is at risk than a pedestrian on the sidewalk?
Click to expand...

I'm not a serious biker, but I sometimes ride to work in the summer. (10 minutes, by car, 20 min by bike, an hour by bus.) I used to think the same thing. Another biker explained to me that riding on the sidewalk is actually more dangerous (to the biker) than riding in the street.

If you are riding in the street, taking up the traffic lane, you might annoy the driver behind you, but he will see you. If you ride on the sidewalk, intersections become dangerous. When a driver checks for pedestrians for a right turn, he will turn his head enough to see walkers at the corner, but not far enough to see the biker further back, but moving at a higher rate of speed. The result is a high likelihood of the bike and car meeting in the intersection.

This is also why you have to be cautious when riding in those bike lanes on the side of the road. You are safer riding in the left side of the lane so you clock the car, but they can switch lane to pass you easily. (By law, drivers have to completely change lanes to pass a bike.)
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Post from the Chauvin murder thread, needed to be moved here.





It's a weird situation. The girl isn't coming at the cop with the knife, she's about to stab the girl next to her. It's hard to see when the action is going, even in slow motion (2nd half of the video). I think the cop could have shot the ground first. But I don't think you can call this one clearly murder by cop. I call it more, why don't these guys have better tools to deal with a situation like this.

And were 4 shots really necessary?
Click to expand...

I think that comes down to training and muscle memory. My understanding is that the police are trained to fire multiple shots then reassess. The reasoning, I think, is that a single shot may not stop, or may miss the target and you don't have time to reassess after one shot. Carefully aimed single shots are what snipers do. In quick reaction scenarios there isn't time for thought.
 
2, 3 shoots is one thing. This case (reserving the right to change my opinion later as new facts are presented) is at worst only vaguely problematic if we are looking at amount of bullets fired and nothing else.

Now the cases like Amadou Diallo where they shot him 41 times, does speak to a mentality/state of mind/whatever you want to call it.
 
JoeMorgue said:
2, 3 shoots is one thing. This case (reserving the right to change my opinion later as new facts are presented) is at worst only vaguely problematic if we are looking at amount of bullets fired and nothing else.

Now the cases like Amadou Diallo where they shot him 41 times, does speak to a mentality/state of mind/whatever you want to call it.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, that's one of the reasons one might credit the shooting of Daunte Wright as an actual mistake. She only shot him once rather than emptying the clip into him.
 
TomB said:
I think that comes down to training and muscle memory. My understanding is that the police are trained to fire multiple shots then reassess. The reasoning, I think, is that a single shot may not stop, or may miss the target and you don't have time to reassess after one shot. Carefully aimed single shots are what snipers do. In quick reaction scenarios there isn't time for thought.
Click to expand...

I think giving the police the best chance to inflict the maximum amount of damage they can before reassessing is a bad policy for the police
 
gnome said:
To my understanding it would be completely inappropriate to shoot at the ground--if lethal force is not called for, the firearm shouldn't be discharged at all.

Really there's no room for degrees in the use of the sidearm--either they should or should not use it, because you do not want police attempting to use their firearm for any other purpose.

In the absence of context, I think that shooting someone who is in the act of trying to stab someone else with a knife is probably a valid use of force. As more information becomes available that conclusion would obviously be subject to examination.
Click to expand...

I know about these rules, I think it's time to reconsider them. Not every case of drawing that weapon is a black and white. Don't shoot unless your life is in danger turns out to be unrealistic. This is a case in point.

It would have been tragic if the victim had killed the other with all those cops there to stop it. But is this not one of those situations where the mantra of shoot to kill or don't shoot at all applies. And it is a bad or at a minimum a bad choice in this circumstance.

Reform should start with that.
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
Oddly enough, that's one of the reasons one might credit the shooting of Daunte Wright as an actual mistake. She only shot him once rather than emptying the clip into him.
Click to expand...

Oh the shooting of Daunte Wright absolutely was a mistake.

Where I get into pissing contests with the "intent" fetishist in the "Law and Order" fandom is that a mistake can be egregious enough to be as bad as intent.
 
JoeMorgue said:
...

"At the time the police chose to use lethal force, was the person in question reasonably presenting a viable threat that justified lethal force?" is the only question to be asked.
Click to expand...
The answer is yes given that was the only resource available at the time. What if he had had the option of rubber bullets?
 
dirtywick said:
I think giving the police the best chance to inflict the maximum amount of damage they can before reassessing is a bad policy for the police
Click to expand...

Except that there is good reason for this, as explained. This isn't the movies, where you can shoot limbs or inflict flesh wounds on command, or where a single bullet kills 100% of the time. If you have to shoot, you do it to stop the threat, and so you don't take chances.

Of course the actual issue here isn't the number of bullets, but the ease with which police decide to resort to violent or deadly force.
 
Dave Rogers said:
There's a cycle path near me a bit like that, that's shared with the pedestrian path in places. It's set back from a major road, and there's a series of side roads into residential areas that the cycle path crosses a few feet back from the side of the main road. As a result, cyclists have to pretty much stop dead at every side road and check traffic from in front, to the side, and behind, because cars turning into or out of the side roads have right of way. All it takes is one car forgetting to signal and you're on the deck, or worse. Staying on the road, which as far as I'm aware is perfectly legal despite the occasional counter-claim by drivers of white vans, is a hell of a lot safer even if you don't factor in the sections that are shared with pedestrians.

Dave
Click to expand...

That sounds similar, but in my case the path is along a main road so every side street has a stop sign for the cars crossing the path, so cyclists\pedestrians have the right of way unless there is specific signage on the path. Having the right of way doesn't help though because cars don't stop where they are supposed to. Instead they drive past the path and stop before crossing or turning on the main road.

There is a either a back lane or a residential street every 100 feet (typical length of a lot in this area) so even if the law required it stopping at every single one isn't practical.


Dr. Keith said:
We all get off track from time to time. I spent the last three hours trying to research "bot cyclist" based on lomiller's post and now I'm beginning to think it may have just been a typo.
Click to expand...

yeah typo. Not 100% sure which post, but probabaly I meant to say "both cyclists and pedestrians.
 
Last edited:
TomB said:
I think that comes down to training and muscle memory. My understanding is that the police are trained to fire multiple shots then reassess. The reasoning, I think, is that a single shot may not stop, or may miss the target and you don't have time to reassess after one shot. Carefully aimed single shots are what snipers do. In quick reaction scenarios there isn't time for thought.
Click to expand...

Here's an example of why that matters:



There's no ambiguity in this one, the suspect was attacking the cop with a knife. Shooting him was completely justified. But it took multiple gunshots to stop him, and in the heat of the moment, several of her shots missed completely, even at short range. Had she stopped after the first one to reassess, she might be dead.
 
Belz... said:
Except that there is good reason for this, as explained. This isn't the movies, where you can shoot limbs or inflict flesh wounds on command, or where a single bullet kills 100% of the time. If you have to shoot, you do it to stop the threat, and so you don't take chances.

Of course the actual issue here isn't the number of bullets, but the ease with which police decide to resort to violent or deadly force.
Click to expand...
And their lack of training and ability to use nonlethal options.

That cop shot almost point blank and didn't hit the girl who was entangled with the victim. I think he could have hit her legs and effectively stopped her had the cop not been trained the only option with one's gun is a kill shot.

The kill shot training needs to be reevaluated.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Oh the shooting of Daunte Wright absolutely was a mistake.

Where I get into pissing contests with the "intent" fetishist in the "Law and Order" fandom is that a mistake can be egregious enough to be as bad as intent.
Click to expand...
Oh, I quite agree, and so, it seems do some authorities at least. The mistake was bad enough to be chargeable, and to end her police career, as well it should.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom