Cops kill Costco pizza lady....

[BStrong]

The examples you have given are extremes. Being a police officer involves physical contact and that involves taking a few knocks. By that I mean not reacting to risk by killing to prevent any kind of knock.

It is not acceptable for the police to be assaulted. That is why AFAIK in most countries there is a specific crime to assault the police or resist arrest. That is the case in the UK. It is also the case in the UK that the police in the main deal with people with knives without guns. Instead they have batons, CS spray, stab proof vests, shields and access to armed officers and dogs trained to take out people with knives. The emphasis in the UK is on contain and negotiate.

That is where the US differs, as made clear here by many gun owner responses which is to shoot. Yet other armed police somehow manage to shoot only occasionally

In 2011 the armed police in Germany used 85 bullets between them with 36 being used to shoot at people. That is it.

http://www.theweek.co.uk/crime/46907/us-police-fire-more-bullets-month-germans-use-year

In 2011 the armed police in England & Wales fired in three incidents, which meat the authorisation of use of guns to actually firing them was in 0.00017% of incidents.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...file/183401/police-firearms-use-2010-2011.pdf

For me the evidence suggests the US police are suspect trigger happy and too quick to resort to use of their gun compared to others.

I have had a look, maybe you can do better than me in finding out how many times the Australian police shot people in 2011.

Nessie - might want to read this:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downlo...ypd_annual_firearms_discharge_report_2011.pdf

NYCPD 2011 Annual Firearms Discharge Report

 

[Nessie]

Guess what Nessie? It's irrelevant how they do things in other countries. People wipe their ass with their hands in some countries, should we try that too?

American exceptionalism, you think you have nothing to learn from others.

You're comparing black and white. Officers here are attacked on a regular basis. It's a societal problem. Not a gun problem like you want to make everything out to be. Your bias.....it's showing still.

Officers in Scotland are also assaulted on a regular basis. There is a knife problem in Scotland. Four officers have died from being stabbed in Scotland in the last 112 years. Without a police officer being stabbed or shooting anyone dead in 2009-10, 7,042 people were caught with offensive weapons of which 42% were knives.


I can understand why you want to say that is irrelevant because it shows up the US police in a bad light as they kill more frequently than elsewhere when confronted with someone with a knife.

I agree it is a societal problem, US society is more trigger happy than anywhere else.

 

[joesixpack]

There is nothing in a cop's job description that says it is acceptable for them to be assaulted on the job.

I beg your pardon? The very nature of cop's job is dangerous. Why do you think we pay them and why do you think they are trained as much as they are? Why are they allowed to use force? Why are they allowed to carry weapons in places other's aren't? Why do they wear bullet proof vests? Carry handcuffs? Show up in large numbers when called? It's not a question of "acceptable", it's expected.

 

[marplots]

With all this info on knife danger, I'm wondering why the police aren't just stabbing people instead of shooting them.

Tasers are great, but I'd like to see the cops with more less-than-lethal options. The argument that impresses me most is the one that asks why prison guards don't have to shoot. Should the police get more of the training that corrections officers get?

 

[Nessie]

Nessie - might want to read this:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downlo...ypd_annual_firearms_discharge_report_2011.pdf

NYCPD 2011 Annual Firearms Discharge Report

It has 102 pages, could you point to the relevant section and explain what it is?

 

[joesixpack]

I'm in agreement here. Nobody should go to work and be expected to "take a few knocks" unless your job is a boxer or punching bag.

Yeah, we should have used that rationale when I was in the armed forces. We would have gotten to stay home from that Beirut trip.

If a cop thinks he shouldn't have to take a few knocks in the course of his work, then he needs to find another job.

 

[joesixpack]

I'd expect the police to defend themselves against an attack with a deadly weapon with whatever tool necessary and appropriate. If that means shooting a person, well, then so be it. Don't want to get shot? Don't attack the police with a weapon Don't do anything that could be described in a police report as "moving towards the officer with a knife" . Plain and simple.

Fixed it so it applied to the OP

 

[BStrong]

The part I've bolded brings up an issue that hasn't been mentioned, and shows the difference in the roles of police and non-police.

Let's turn the situation around and say a citizen is approached by an armed policeman who is threatening him. The citizen tries to cooperate but the cop is still acting aggressively and the citizen makes a reasonable judgment that this is a rogue cop who isn't constrained by the law, so simply cooperating won't stop the harm. Would the citizen be justified in shooting the cop to avoid potential harm to himself?

I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect that the bar is higher for a citizen to justify subduing a cop, then for a cop to justify subduing a citizen. If so, then police aren't just like any other citizens out on the streets defending themselves. With special privileges come special responsibilities.

In theory yes, in practice no.

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/05121101shd.pdf

Barnes v. Indiana

A jury convicted Richard Barnes of Class A misdemeanor battery on a law enforcement officer, Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement, and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct. Barnes contests that the trial court‘s failure to advise the jury on the right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers constituted reversible error and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. We hold that there is no right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers. We further hold that the evidence was sufficient and affirm Barnes‘s convictions.

The above case did bring about a change in Indiana state law that allows an individual to use force to resist law enforcement officers as part of the state castle doctrine law - but I don't know of any successful exercises of the law in court.

I'm aware of cases where the defense sought to portray LE actions in the light of unlawful use of force as a justification for their clients resisting, and in every instance that defense failed.

In theory, an individual is legally able to resist unlawful force used against them by anyone, but in the case of use of force by uniformed officers the presumption is that the use of force is lawful on it's face - and I'm hard put to think of a RW instance where a use of force incident was wholly unlawful.

There's this case:

http://www.examiner.com/article/incarcerated-dayton-cop-to-see-parole-board

But the officer involved was not in uniform, and to the best of my knowledge, the victims did not resist.

 

[squealpiggy]

With all this info on knife danger, I'm wondering why the police aren't just stabbing people instead of shooting them.

Tasers are great, but I'd like to see the cops with more less-than-lethal options. The argument that impresses me most is the one that asks why prison guards don't have to shoot. Should the police get more of the training that corrections officers get?

Prison guards cannot carry firearms because this would make them more likely to be overpowered in order for the gun to be stolen. Prison guards have a very different role than police.

 

[joesixpack]

I understand what you're saying, and it does add a twist of tragedy to it, but people who are targets (LEO's) should not have to put their lives unnecessarily in peril.

Ahem, that's actually what they're being paid to do every day. If they don't understand this then they clearly live in a fantasy world.(ETA, no one expects them to put their lives in peril unnecessarily. The objection is that their standard of "unacceptable risk" seems astonishingly and dangerously low (at least to the public at large) )

A person with a knife, can be very dangerous, even deadly, with minimal training.

Unless they are going up against someone with tools and extensive training for dealing with people with knives.

It's a delicate situation, and if in fact she did have some acute medical condition like hypoglycemia, it becomes a tragedy as she didn't intend to attack someone.

At this point there is no reason to believe that her behavior was NOT the result of a psychotic break.

 

[WildCat]

Ahem, that's actually what they're being paid to do every day.

You keep saying this, and you're still wrong. Or perhaps you've found a police exception in OSHA laws you'd like to share?

 

[Nessie]

I beg your pardon? The very nature of cop's job is dangerous. Why do you think we pay them and why do you think they are trained as much as they are? Why are they allowed to use force? Why are they allowed to carry weapons in places other's aren't? Why do they wear bullet proof vests? Carry handcuffs? Show up in large numbers when called? It's not a question of "acceptable", it's expected.

Furthermore there are specific laws to deal with those who assault the police and resist arrest which are there for additional protection for the police.

I agree the idea that police can kill to avoid injury is a nonsense. It like turning up for a job as a refuse collector, being given gloves and training and protective boots, then when told to pick up litter you refuse as you might catch something. A totally unrealistic expectation.

 

[joesixpack]

You keep saying this, and you're still wrong. Or perhaps you've found a police exception in OSHA laws you'd like to share?

Considering how dangerous it is responding to a simple domestic dispute, and the frequency with witch LEOs do so, I'd say that by itself would be grounds for closing down every police agency in the nation. Call OSHA and get on that right now. Please get back to us on how that phone call goes down.

 

[Nessie]

You keep saying this, and you're still wrong. Or perhaps you've found a police exception in OSHA laws you'd like to share?

Is there any injury you would say a police officer should risk? Or is it shoot all the time?

 

[triforcharity]

American exceptionalism, you think you have nothing to learn from others.

More US hating, and missing the point.

Officers in Scotland are also assaulted on a regular basis. There is a knife problem in Scotland. Four officers have died from being stabbed in Scotland in the last 112 years. Without a police officer being stabbed or shooting anyone dead in 2009-10, 7,042 people were caught with offensive weapons of which 42% were knives.

Irrelevant.

I can understand why you want to say that is irrelevant because it shows up the US police in a bad light as they kill more frequently than elsewhere when confronted with someone with a knife.

No, it's because it's irrelevant as to what happened in this incident.

I agree it is a societal problem, US society is more trigger happy than anywhere else.

Whatever floats your ignorance boat...

 

[triforcharity]

Yeah, we should have used that rationale when I was in the armed forces. We would have gotten to stay home from that Beirut trip.

If a cop thinks he shouldn't have to take a few knocks in the course of his work, then he needs to find another job.

Military =/= police. However, if attacked, were you allowed to shoot back? I bet you were....

Fixed it so it applied to the OP

It was completely relevant in context to what I was speaking about.

 

[triforcharity]

Ahem, that's actually what they're being paid to do every day.

No, read again. Read all the words.

If they don't understand this then they clearly live in a fantasy world.(ETA, no one expects them to put their lives in peril unnecessarily. The objection is that their standard of "unacceptable risk" seems astonishingly and dangerously low (at least to the public at large) )

No, it seems you're not well versed in police work whatsoever.

Unless they are going up against someone with tools and extensive training for dealing with people with knives.

Irrelevant. Even an untrained citizen can get a leg up on an officer on occasion. It's not unheard of.

At this point there is no reason to believe that her behavior was NOT the result of a psychotic break.

Psychotic break doesn't excuse her apparent behavior.

 

[Nessie]

More US hating, and missing the point.



Irrelevant.



No, it's because it's irrelevant as to what happened in this incident.


Whatever floats your ignorance boat...

The point here is were the officers justified in shooting the woman? The answer is we do not have enough information to come to a proper conclusion.

Meanwhile, due to limited info on the topic the discussion has broadened to arguing what is reasonable or not when confronted by a knife. So in that context it is relevant to point out to those who say shoot that many police officers manage to deal with knife wielders without shooting them.

Fact is the USA is more trigger happy than elsewhere such as the UK, Germany and Canada, here is the evidence

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/jul/22/gun-ownership-homicides-map

This is just like the long thread about the cop who shot the naked unarmed student on drugs. You are more sympathetic towards the police shooting people than I am. You accept a lower level of risk than I do when it comes to using deadly force. As a result of that people are more likely to die around you than me as you will shoot them whereas I will use other means. Scale that up to a national level it reflects on why people are more likely to die in the USA than the UK.

 

[triforcharity]

More irrelevant ranting having no basis in this discussion, and attempting to put a square peg in a round hole. Cool story bro.

 

[BStrong]

Ahem, that's actually what they're being paid to do every day. If they don't understand this then they clearly live in a fantasy world.(ETA, no one expects them to put their lives in peril unnecessarily. The objection is that their standard of "unacceptable risk" seems astonishingly and dangerously low (at least to the public at large) ) Unless they are going up against someone with tools and extensive training for dealing with people with knives.At this point there is no reason to believe that her behavior was NOT the result of a psychotic break.

And there is no evidence that a psychotic break precludes an individual from being a threat.