Police and Use of Force

[Saggy]

Is anyone else bothered by the circumstances in which law enforcement officers are authorized to use force?

 

I'm from the states, so of course this post mostly pertains to the U.S.

 

For example, when the police have boxed in a suspect in a vehicle. If the vehicle begins to ram the cars in an attempt to get away, instead of allowing the suspects to get away, and get themselves out of harm's way, they are authorized to shoot and kill the suspect. This type of scenario happens quite often, and I believe that police are trained to be too aggressive in scenarios like these.

 

Another example of what really irks me is the take-downs that they use. On far more occasions than necessary, I've seen an officer lunge on a suspect that's been involved in some kind of fight, without effectively making their presence known. They shout, "Police!" and tackle into them a less than a second later, not accounting for the fact that this will next to always invoke a fight or flight reaction in someone that's involved in an altercation. The person is then charged with resisting arrest to add insult to injury--some of those charges are resolved in court, but they could be avoided altogether. The easiest solution to this is simply more defined protocol on how to approach that kind of situation. It's not fair to the civilian to make that charge on them for an officer's poor training; and it's not fair to the officer to receive that poor training that puts them even more at risk of a suspect turning on them.

 

 

Now, the biggest argument that people have when question arises about the how much force the police are allowed to use is that police are apparently somehow overwhelmed, under-armed, out-numbered and for all intensive purposes out-matched, and I don't think that the truth could be any further from that mentality.

 

Standard equipment for officers, in my area at least, constitutes of: A flashlight, handcuffs, a side-arm and tazer, a bulletproof vest, pepper spray, and an assault rifle or shotgun in their patrol car. Nearly every police officer carries a radio that can quickly call for backup, and many also ride with partners. They have trained for at least two years, graduated from a police academy, and have specialized training in their profession.

 

Not only do you factor this in, but you then consider the fact that one police department can quickly call for help from other Law Enforcement agencies, the National Guard, etc. Should things ever get that intense. Though, this isn't "Rambo", so moving...

 

 

I don't think that with all the training officers are getting, and the equipment they're using, that gross over-use of power simply in the name of multiplying the safety factor increase several-fold for themselves. It is to protect and serve the community, not protect and serve thyself, isn't it? I'm not advocating that the officers forget their own safety, but I do believe that scenarios like the ones I've mentioned here could be far better resolved than with the use of firearms or force.

[Vercetti21]

I think its less of giving the cops too much power and more of them abusing it. Seriously, the power-hungry dick officers: we all know them, and chances are we'll all come across one sometime in our lives. The guys who think the world revolves around them and that they can arrest anyone they like as often as they please. Their use of force is not what bothers me, as (most of the time) they only use force when necessary. I am more bothered by their intentions.

 

 

For example, when the police have boxed in a suspect in a vehicle. If the vehicle begins to ram the cars in an attempt to get away, instead of allowing the suspects to get away, and get themselves out of harm's way, they are authorized to shoot and kill the suspect. This type of scenario happens quite often, and I believe that police are trained to be too aggressive in scenarios like these.

If a guy is ramming patrol cars and putting officers' lives in danger, I have no problem with cops using force to take him out. Any action which endangers a cop's life should allow the necessary precautions to prevent such from happening. Officers are trained to be highly defensive, and I'd much rather have a defensive police force than a lazy one.

[Saggy]

If a guy is ramming patrol cars and putting officers' lives in danger, I have no problem with cops using force to take him out. Any action which endangers a cop's life should allow the necessary precautions to prevent such from happening. Officers are trained to be highly defensive, and I'd much rather have a defensive police force than a lazy one.

The problem is that this isn't a defensive action. Running away, is a defensive action. Shooting a couple of bullets into a 2 ton tin can while it's barreling toward you isn't really a great strategy to stop it anyway, and I'm sure that if any one was seriously aiming that car towards an officer, and they shot him dead, the car would indeed still be careening toward him. He would still need to get out of the line of the vehicle. They're always justified to defend themselves, but again, I'm questioning the training, not the officers themselves. Why are they taught to send a huge piece of lethal steal, controlled by a suspect, into an uncontrollable one? That does it make it safer for them in anyway, and it either A) Neutralizes the suspect, perhaps killing them or B) Makes them run faster and harder.

 

As well as that, people quickly forget the life of the suspect in these questions. I think it's easy to assume that any person in this situation is a "criminal" and has done something "wrong", and I'm sure there are more than a handful here that would go far as to be the judge jury and execution and say that they deserve to die, but what if this person is some kind of mental patient, a child, a confused old grandmother with tinted windows... In any one of those circumstances, the training that leads officers to shoot the second a car is backed towards them recklessly endangers both the life of the suspect and the officer, not to mention any innocent bystanders that may be around. Not only that, but if you question the intentions of officer's, I would question the policy in which they can justify shooting people.

 

 

I think that in situations like this, less than lethal or non-lethal weapons should be made to address the needs, which is neutralization of the suspect, stopping the car, and protecting the lives of both the suspect and the officer, but I think that training methods could also be improved. Officers should be taught how to avoid putting themselves into the line of a moving vehicle, and especially avoid putting themselves between the line of their vehicles and the suspects. I'm very sure that with the training police have, that they could accommodate something like this, and not need to use lethal force, but instead truly defend themselves. I'm sure that they could at least be taught how to end pursuits in a way that does not leave such an excessive amount of room for the suspect to even move their car. I believe that'd be the simplest approach. Of course that's not only optimal, and I think in that situation, with all the other equipment in an officer's vehicle, there should be a non-lethal device, perhaps bean-bag rounds for their shotgun or teargas.

 

 

I think tazer guns are a pretty good non-lethal weapon to address how to approach a fight situation, though it seems that an officer's intentions comes into play even with this, as there have been many seemingly rash tazings as they've become more popular. I think everyone remembers the incident where a girl was tazed because she was misbehaving at school. However, once again, I think a simple revision in training protocol could be adjusted for stuff like this. I mean, perhaps just a simple announcement on a speaker or bullhorn of the cruiser that you are the police, as you role up and see them fighting. This would only make the officer's job easier, I think, because it would only make it that much more discernable if a person just doesn't care that they're police, or that they're really charged up and ready to go. The main thing, is to actually get their attention. The most foolish thing I've seen, and I see it mostly on COPS, is an officer goes up, and immediately tries to grab their hand, and detain them, telling them, "Police" as they are doing it. This is just completely foolish; they should be taught to get the suspect's attention by other means first, so that they are not startled and the officer is not percieved as a threat. Again, something that is simple, and would only serve to keep both the suspect, the officer, and everyone else safe.

 

 

 

To just be blunt, officers don't seem to be using their pistols as a last resort. Perhaps I am just wrong in assuming they should.

[StanMarsh]

 

The problem with the, "Running away is a defensive option." thing is that it can be applied anywhere. If I'm held up on the street by some gangsters and a squad car rolls by, isn't running away a defensive option for them? But at the same time, it is their duty to protect the community. These men see the cops roll by and point their guns at them- are the police now allowed to fire by your logic, or should they run? At what point does doing their job come into play? Does it matter how many gangsters there are? Does it matter how

At what point does lethal force become a viable option for the officer in any situation? Do they have to be attacked? What defines attacking?

 

Cops are trained to use their firearms as a last resort. At the point that they are nearly being run over, that is vehicular assault. That is an attack. They have a right to defend themselves- hell, if I have a concealed weapons permit and I carry a glock and someone tries to run me over, I'm allowed to fire. Denying that right to officers is, in my book, wrong. The only difference is that I'd have a tad harder time explaining why I had to defend myself

 

Almost any officer I've ever heard of would rather shoot at the tires than at the individual, and this includes my roomie's brother who is a cop. They'd also rather jhave the suspect not be a dumbass and after being PITed, stop. Officers are trained on how to not get into the line of a vehicle, but it still happens. They are trained on how to leave as little room as possible at the end of a pursuit, but you are leaving out one crucial variable:

The suspect is a living, breathing human who is making as many decisions as the officer. The suspect him/herself is what makes the pursuits so unpredictable- and he will render almost any driving training moot if he/she has sufficient will. All they sometimes need is an inch, and no matter how well you train officers there will always be that inch.

 

Tear gas is fine for riots, but in this scenario how would it be used? How would it be launched into the car with enough accuracy to make it work? How would you make sure that the suspect stops before he swerves into oncoming traffic with no idea what is going on, hitting a minivan? Teargas has nothing but poor uses in this scenario. Beanbags are slightly better- but the issue becomes, are the officers also issued live shells in case they need them? Are live shells ever even needed? If not, must they be utterly defenseless in certain situations where a handgun serves little purpose?

 

Also, if the occurences of officers/bystanders being hit by a vehicle with a wounded/dead suspect at the wheel were common, then tactics would change. The problem with your scenario about firing not helping safety is that it is based on theory and not fact.

 

A last resort means that you have exercised every other reasonable option. At that point in a chase, I can only assume that spike strips have been used, PIT moves have been used, they have fired at the tires, and other police tactics have been used. If all that has happened and an officer finds himself in the path of a vehicle, he has every right on this planet to fire. This person hos shown a disregard for his/her safety, the safety of the officers, and the safety of the public at large. Better he/she gets shot than he/she continue and hit a mini-van and kill a kid.

 

All of this may be moot in a few years though- there has been talk of implanting devices on cars that would enable the police to bring your car to a screeching halt. If that happens, then the lethal force in this scenario would only be applicable if the person is armed and has shown his/her intentions of fighting.

 

 

Onto takedowns:

 

I haven't seen too many cases where the police tackle someone who isn't presenting a threat, not being cooperative, and plain old being a hassle. The problem with your initial post and how you have phrased is that you make it sound like this:

Suspect got into a fight. The fight is over. The cops arrive. Without saying a word, the police attack Suspect as he offers them tea and biscuits(I have to have something funny in my post.). He tried to defend himself and is charged with resisting arrest and gets a year added to his sentence- a year spent being butt pounded by a 340-pound black guy named Laurence.

 

Problem here is that if you aren't presenting a threat at all, they don't take you down hard. This might shock you, but the police aren't trained to tackle and fight everyone they meet.

Also, if someone can't hear the siren, can't see the lights, and can't hear loud car door slams, then I doubt a bullhorn to announce their presence every single time would do anything.

I watch COPS often and I don't see officers just walking up to people and arresting them before they say a word very often.

 

In closing, officers do use lethal force as a last resort. The problem is that in such a violent society with hightened media attention to officers using any kind of force, it seems like a far bigger issue problem than it is. It seems as if they are using deadly force more often times than not- but they hardly use deadly force. Let us take the NYPD- they open fired 60 times at people in 2006. Only 60- and that is in a city of many millions. And that isn't counting the likely thousands of times they may have ben legally allowed to use lethal force and didn't. That is just one example- there are worse areas and far better areas, but considering the reputation some give the NYPD I thought it would be a good example to show that officers do not engage in shootouts as often as one might think.

 

Also, I heard a report some time back that there were around 350 cases where a suspect was killed by officers in 2005 or 2006 and 55 officers were murdered, so it isn't like thousands of people are being killed by trigger happy officers...and this is with more than 660,000+ cops who are in a job where they face tough decisions that have a far higher chance of ending in violence than your average person.

[Seachmall]

 

If the vehicle begins to ram the cars in an attempt to get away, instead of allowing the suspects to get away, and get themselves out of harm's way, they are authorized to shoot and kill the suspect.

Over here if somebody is being chased by police and refuses to stop the police hold back. They keep their distance as not to aggrevate the driver and only make a move when its safe to do so and there are enough cars to block the driver when they do move (although there was a case where a detective opened fire on a run-away bus in the middle of a city). If they keep close to the car the driver will speed up and put more lives at risk but once he leaves high-pedestrian areas its all go. Our police don't have guns (although detectives have mac11 type guns, sub-machine guns? Not 100% sure of the correct name) and so they have to be even more careful in these situations.

On far more occasions than necessary, I've seen an officer lunge on a suspect that's been involved in some kind of fight, without effectively making their presence known. They shout, "Police!" and tackle into them a less than a second later, not accounting for the fact that this will next to always invoke a fight or flight reaction in someone that's involved in an altercation.

If they shout 'Police' and give the suspect time to react there is no telling what he/she might do, its best to take them down and don't give them time to react. Its a high-pressure situation where people get real-stupid-real-quick.

 

There have been 2 cases over here in the past couple of years (that I'm aware of) where unarmed cops stopped and arrested armed suspects, one involving an AK47 and another involving 2 shotguns. It sounds fantastic, police prove lethal force is unnesscary but one of our cities is named murder capital of western europe because our police don't have guns. There are places where the police refuse to go into because they can garuntee they will be attacked and its completly ridiculous. People don't want them there because it raises tension and so its safer for all to keep them out of these high-crime places. It is rare that by-standers become victoms but it happens and the police don't have enough of a presence and enough force to do their job.

 

Less than lethal weapons are becoming common in the police force but guns are becoming even more common in the criminal underground, you can't expect an officer to walk into a neighbour hood armed with a tazer when there are a dozen guys with assault rifles watching him.

[Vercetti21]

The problem with the, "Running away is a defensive option." thing is that it can be applied anywhere. If I'm held up on the street by some gangsters and a squad car rolls by, isn't running away a defensive option for them? But at the same time, it is their duty to protect the community. These men see the cops roll by and point their guns at them- are the police now allowed to fire by your logic, or should they run? At what point does doing their job come into play?

Exactly. A cop's number one priority should be to protect innocents, which is why police are trained not to fire on criminals in highly populated areas.

 

SagaciousKJB, I didn't read your entire post due to its long-windedness, but I did read you basic points, so forgive me if you've addressed something I mention in the following. I stand with my original point that it's okay for police to open fire on someone ramming their vehicles to escape, for two reasons:

 

1) During a chase, if the criminal knows he can escape from a box-in maneuver without endangering his life, he'll do it. By your logic, what happens if the cops just back off? Sure, you can use spikes and such but by limiting the different ways police can control a criminal, you're ultimately just endangering more innocent lives.

 

2) Police are aggressive for many reasons, one of which includes intimidating the criminal. An intimidated criminal is more likely to back down and surrender to police, as opposed to a handful of cops who will just run away if they are fired upon, thus giving the criminal a chance to escape and do more harm on innocents.

 

I don't stand for an oppressive police force, but I do stand for the right to defend oneself and, in a cop's case, the right to defend others. If a guy pulls a gun on me with every intention of pulling the trigger, I have the right to pull my own weapon and fire on him. If someone puts my life in danger, I want to be able to protect it, not just escape. Same scenario with a cop: he should be able to protect the lives of those around him without being questioned of his right to do so.

[Saggy]

@StanMarsh

 

Well, I wasn't suggesting that "Running Away" was a viable defensive strategy, just pointing out that if they were truly interested in defense, then it seems something along those lines would be more suiting than opening fire on a vehicle. I've already explained that I feel this way because shooting up a car doesn't really stop it; it renders it uncontrollable, and certainly doesn't stop whatever momentum it already has. However on the other hand, I think if a cop were to simly "run away", he would only make himself a target.

 

 

As far as police walking up and tackling people instantly, that's not what I'm talking about. I am talking about seeing the police announce their presence, and then attempt to arrest the suspect without ever getting their attention or really give them enough time to think, "Okay, this is the police, they're going to detain me, don't hit them." I don't find it as serious of an issue as the other, but in terms of what puts an officer's life more at risk, I think that this is definitely something that would fall under that category. I've heard the arguments about reaction time, and allowing the suspect to react... However, what is better, allowing the suspect to react while you're within striking distance of him trying to cuff him, or while you're a couple of feet back and can more easily rely on your equipment to response to whatever reaction? After all, you're going to provoke the same reaction regardless of which tactic you use, the only difference in my opinion is keeping an officer safer, and making resisiting arrest, assault on officer cases, and etc. far more clear cut.

 

 

 

Now, I suppose I'm going to need to revise my question... Are police properly taught what establishes their side-arm as a last resort?

 

Also, just to clarify, the scenario isn't involving a moving vehicle. We're discussing a vehicle that's already been boxed in and has no where to run, and thus decides to start ramming the police vehicles to try to get out.

 

 

1) During a chase, if the criminal knows he can escape from a box-in maneuver without endangering his life, he'll do it. By your logic, what happens if the cops just back off? Sure, you can use spikes and such but by limiting the different ways police can control a criminal, you're ultimately just endangering more innocent lives.

 

2) Police are aggressive for many reasons, one of which includes intimidating the criminal. An intimidated criminal is more likely to back down and surrender to police, as opposed to a handful of cops who will just run away if they are fired upon, thus giving the criminal a chance to escape and do more harm on innocents.

 

 

Warning shots. If you had read my entire post, you would have seen that I mentioned them. However, I didn't elaborate ( felt it was already long-winded enough ). Waning shots will serve to intimidate the suspect, and allow them to be fully aware that their life is at stake if they continue, however I speculated whether this would have the opposite effect of making the suspect run harder.

 

 

With tear gas, I don't think that it would be unable to use in this scenario, because once again, we're talking about a vehicle already boxed in and unable to really go anywhere. The suspect may be determined at this point to try to drive it over a cop car or push one out of the way, but if a teargas cannister is fired into the vehicle, the suspect would probably quickly leave it. There are launchers that can easily fire these into cars, and they've been used in SWAT stand-offs before, I'm simply stating that I believe the standard patrol officer should have access to them to use them in the same circumstances.

 

In terms of "theory" instead of "fact", I don't think that we can find a lot of studies or scientific research that concludes one way or the other whether it's quicker to stop a car by shooting a suspect or by other means, and whether that further put's an officer's life in danger. However, thinking logically... If the car is already moving towards an officer, and that officer shoots at the car, and kills or injures the suspect, then what will stop that car from continuing on its path toward him? The suspect might hit the breaks, but more likely than not he will stop operating the vehicle altogether. Going by Murphy's law--anything that can go wrong, will go wrong--shouldn't they have better training for this? I mean, this is highly speculative, but happens when the suspect is caused to punch the accelerator after being shot, and only makes the situation that much more dangerous. Basically, I foresee officer's themselves losing their lives to lousy training like this, and the prospect of anybody losing their life to this when there seems to be other options doesn't reign as a "last resort" to me, or even that acceptable past the fact that it's the only training they have to do their job.

 

 

 

Now, I'm not really arguing about the officer's right to use force in this situation, but what I'm questioning whether they should be trained to use force in this situation. I think to insinuate that loading a car full of tear gas would cause it to go out of control, I don't know how much better shooting the suspect would be. However like you say it might not matter in the future with technology and some cars being able to be stopped remotely, but in the mean time we still have officers that are being forced into this situation, without a proper way to stop it in my opinion. They may stop the pursuit this way, but it's really not a very safe option, and I doubt that other options have been exhausted or really even explored.

 

 

sh*t, I guess I can't manage to not be long-winded even when I try.

Edited June 28, 2008 by SagaciousKJB

[Vercetti21]

Warning shots. If you had read my entire post, you would have seen that I mentioned them. However, I didn't elaborate ( felt it was already long-winded enough ). Waning shots will serve to intimidate the suspect, and allow them to be fully aware that their life is at stake if they continue, however I speculated whether this would have the opposite effect of making the suspect run harder.

But criminals catch on to police tactics. If police are only trained to fire warning shots, what exactly are they warning the criminal of? If we don't allow them to follow through with the threat, and the criminal knows they won't, it obviously won't affect him. He isn't intimidated by the threat of being shot, he's intimidated by the knowledge that he will be shot if he doesn't do what the cops want.

[Saggy]

 

Warning shots.  If you had read my entire post, you would have seen that I mentioned them.  However, I didn't elaborate ( felt it was already long-winded enough ).  Waning shots will serve to intimidate the suspect, and allow them to be fully aware that their life is at stake if they continue, however I speculated whether this would have the opposite effect of making the suspect run harder.

But criminals catch on to police tactics. If police are only trained to fire warning shots, what exactly are they warning the criminal of? If we don't allow them to follow through with the threat, and the criminal knows they won't, it obviously won't affect him. He isn't intimidated by the threat of being shot, he's intimidated by the knowledge that he will be shot if he doesn't do what the cops want.

I'm not advocating they be trained to use only warning shots, that would contradict the fundamental concept of the warning shot; it precedes shots that are meant to kill, and issues the opportunity to stand down. This is what magnifies my questioning of whether shooting to kill is really a last resort and whether it's the best option at all in this situation.

 

Unfortunately, I think warning shots are even more impractical than tear gas. For one, how is the suspect supposed to determine what is a warning shot and what is just simply a miss? Secondly, officers can't necessarily just fire their guns in the air in residential areas, the bullets will come down and possibly injure others.

 

This touches upon another thing that is a slippery slope, but I"m not sure that the majority of people that are shot in this fashion had any intention to attack an officer, and probably didn't realize they could be shot for doing this. I'm relatively sure that if more people knew that police protocol allows them to shoot in this circumstance, then they wouldn't engage them like this in the first place. Kind of the same way most people don't point a gun towards an officer because they know the officer can then kill them.

Edited June 28, 2008 by SagaciousKJB

[Breaking Bohan]

An automobile can be a powerful weapon and if a suspect attempts to run you down or ram you with said weapon shooting them is clearly a case of self-defense. What else could the cops do? Let the criminal smash into things until the car dies and then take him into custody? I just don't see it happening.

 

 

[Saggy]

An automobile can be a powerful weapon and if a suspect attempts to run you down or ram you with said weapon shooting them is clearly a case of self-defense. What else could the cops do? Let the criminal smash into things until the car dies and then take him into custody? I just don't see it happening.

Have you not read the whole thread? The point has been made that it's not questionable whether it is a tactic of self-defense, but in my mind at least a questionable tactic in terms of safety, and I've already put forth a couple of scenarios of "What else could the cops do?"

 

To be brief, since apparently people of GTAForums are now allergic to reading too much, non-lethal weapons and better or more training for these situations could rectify the need to use lethal force.

[Breaking Bohan]

An automobile can be a powerful weapon and if a suspect attempts to run you down or ram you with said weapon shooting them is clearly a case of self-defense.  What else could the cops do?  Let the criminal smash into things until the car dies and then take him into custody?  I just don't see it happening.

Have you not read the whole thread? The point has been made that it's not questionable whether it is a tactic of self-defense, but in my mind at least a questionable tactic in terms of safety, and I've already put forth a couple of scenarios of "What else could the cops do?"

 

To be brief, since apparently people of GTAForums are now allergic to reading too much, non-lethal weapons and better or more training for these situations could rectify the need to use lethal force.

Well it looks like I'm not alone in being unable to extract the essence of your posting - nevertheless, I am certain that most people are in favor of non-lethal force whenever it is feasible. Cops - like most people - do not want to shoot anyone ... I am sure there are review boards, oceans of paperwork, etc. that all follow a shooting even if it clearly is self-defense.

Traffic stops are dangerous - if someone tries to run me down with their car I will 1) get out of the way; and/or 2) attempt to stop them by any means necessary.

Are you saying you'd like to see some more creative methods of restraining suspects who are fleeing from police?

[Ronnyboy]

I realize what you are saying. The fact is though Police are human. You could train for 5 years not to shoot people, yet when some one tries running you down, you panic and shoot them. You know you can grab onto the car, or try and pull him out, but it's a hell of a lot easier to just shoot them. Your body knows this, even know you know not too.

 

But you do it any ways because, A) You are guaranteed to stop him. B) It's easier to do and safer for you and the public (unless it is in a residential area) C) An officer doesn't know if the suspect is armed or not. Usually Police are trained to fight in hand to hand type of combat. However, if someone is assualting a Police officer, it seems sutuible he wants this cop dead, presuming he is dangerous and gives reason to fire at him.

[Teqila]

Fun fact: In defensive shootings you shoot stop not to kill. Warning shots are useless. You either have to aim the weapon at a bad guy and talk them down or attempt to shoot them. If they don't surrender when drawn upon and take a violent course of action and you have to shoot, you shoot to stop them. There is no "warning shot" or " "wounding shot". That's how it goes for a basic on-foot confrontation. If they're in a vehicle speeding away you don't use lethal force to stop them. If they are firing at you as they drive or try hit you with the vehicle while you are on foot the police may consider shooting to stop if it doesn't endanger anyone near them to be the correct choice. Edited July 2, 2008 by Teqila

[Seachmall]

There was a case this week where an unarmed Irish man was shot dead by a police officer in Oregon. I was listening to it on the radio and apparently the officer was responding to a burglary, saw this guy walking on the street, told him to get on the ground and opened fire, 6 shots, killing him. The police officer has since been suspended with pay and the police department are refusing to comment on it. Over a 100 locals have protested outside the police station because they felt the killing was unjust and wanted to know why lethal force was used as the man was unarmed and seemingly unconnected to the robbery. All Oregon officers have access to Tazers (I'm not sure if that means the carry them or they have access to them at the station) so why was this guy shot? And why 6 times?

 

I'm all for lethal force but only when its justifiable i.e. the suspect is armed or has put another life in danger, any other circumstances and a tazer should be used as maximum force.

 

Heres an article on it,

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaki.../breaking25.htm

 

Regarding warning shots,

People reportedly die from 'celebatory gunfire' where shots are fired into the air and fall back to earth so I don't think warning shots should even be considered let alone recommended, what goes up must come down and if fired at an angle the bullet can kill you (although if fired straight up apparently it doesn't fall fast enough to kill someone).

Edited July 3, 2008 by Seachmall

[Teqila]

Gun shots are loud. A warning shot will likely leave you with hearing damage and fail to stop the threat. Bullets would have to be fired at a perfect angle to come down with no possibility of wounding. Aiming and holding the gun at a perfect angle while pulling the trigger is almost impossible. Edited July 3, 2008 by Teqila

[HomoUniversalis]

 

People reportedly die from 'celebatory gunfire' where shots are fired into the air and fall back to earth so I don't think warning shots should even be considered let alone recommended, what goes up must come down and if fired at an angle the bullet can kill you (although if fired straight up apparently it doesn't fall fast enough to kill someone).

 

First of all, warning shots can be shot into the ground/brick wall/innocent bystanders. As for not falling fast enough to kill someone -- yeah, I wouldn't want to be the guy to get one on my head (seen what a coin from the Empire State Building can do?)

 

[Seachmall]

First of all, warning shots can be shot into the ground/brick wall/innocent bystanders.

Which can richochet. (innocenct bystanders? ).

As for not falling fast enough to kill someone -- yeah, I wouldn't want to be the guy to get one on my head (seen what a coin from the Empire State Building can do?)

If fired at 90 degrees up they won't kill you but if fired at an angle they can. Warning shots will almost always be fired at an angle too because if you do fire 90 degrees straight up you've taken your sights off the suspect and left yourself wide open.

 

The question is is it worth having lethal force when accidents (or misconduct) will occur or do the benefits of lethal force (killing suspects who put others at risk) outweigh these negative occurances?

[Teqila]

Does everybody completely ignore my posts? Bringing up myths that have been disproved.

[HomoUniversalis]

 

If fired at 90 degrees up they won't kill you but if fired at an angle they can.

 

How do you know this? I know gravity is one of the weakest forces in the cosmos, but that doesn't mean that catching a bullet with your head is a riveting experience. Now, I'm not saying here the bullet will drop down in the same place - that's obviously not the case. I'm just curious how you know it won't kill the person it drops on.

[Saggy]

Does everybody completely ignore my posts? Bringing up myths that have been disproved.

Yeah, let's not explore the "do bullets kill you when they come down" question. They do, there are cases of it.

 

As to your posts, you're talking about what policy is at this point, without regard to whether it should be changed. Since apparently many can't understand me well enough, I'll lay it out in an extremely simple, patronizing manner, but just to be clear.

 

Scenario: Police have a suspect's car boxed in and immobilized, and are trying to approach on foot.

 

Here are the cold-hard facts of some of the cases I've seen and am trying to address.

 

1. Suspect is in a large, fast vehicle, perhaps weighing several tons, perhaps disabled and already malfunctioning.

2. The suspect is not thinking rationally, is filled with adrenaline, is likely trying to find anyway possible to get out.

3. The suspect will inevitably try to find another way to try to get out, in these scenarios, the suspect tries ramming the cars that have them boxed in to get away

 

Once we get to this point, the officer has already observed 1-3 and

 

4. The officer takes action to stop the chase

 

 

The only thing I am saying is that I think lethal force always deserves to be the last resort, and I don't think that officers use it as a last resort in cases with this sort of scenario. On top of that, I don't think that those circumstances make it safe to use lethal action. There is no way to prevent the suspect from keeling over and pounding on the accelerator. They already know that shooting a suspect dead while the car is moving is a very bad idea, so what makes them believe that shooting them dead is a good idea while they're in this situation? I'm really looking for a justification of it being a last resort.

 

 

It seems that other people are suggesting that the police should use lethal force in this case. I don't think that is right. We can't predict the ways criminals are going to behave, however, we can understand basic psychology in those circumstances, and we know the way things like the "fight or flight" instincts effects human instinct. The difference is that, police are trained to be consistent, and are trained to try to block that "fight or flight" instinct and rely on protocol to keep them alive. I think that the protocol should be changed, to try to preserve all life, not just the lives of the officers.

[lloydo]

I feel that strong force by police is a necessary thing, not because i have witnessed constant scum and their daily degrading of society, but because, if society witnesses a strong police at work they will recognise what to do and not to do. If we had extremer laws maybe we wouldnt have rapists leaving prison just to repeat their crimes, no random violence. What modern society needs is a strong goverment to supress crime brutally and reintroduce a strong sense of community to the world.

[Apoloniar]

We have cops to cops in every where of this f*cking planet.

It was last year i think. i was searching in a Blog service and i found a guy complaining 'bout cop's behavior. i read whole his post and was shocked cuz his sh*ts were so senseless and foolish. he said that he was going to university with sunglasses on. a cop stopped him on walkway and asked him with offensive tone, why he has put on his sunglasses. he wanted to answer but the cop slapped him and asked him again, slapped him rapidly and hard and his sunglasses were broken because of this.

I knew he was making it more hot than it was, but after a bit i understood that it's not impossible. what do you think when you see a cop slapping someone? the guy robbed something, bothered people, etc but no one even thinks that cops are hitting someone cuz of his sunglasses. so they're free to do everything. even shoot a shopkeeper that was cleaning his shoutgun, a report fake. no one asks.

 

absolute power of cops comes more clear in some 3rd world countries. a thief that wears a cop suit can easily break into a home for checking up, then steal money and worthy things from that home. most of residents won't even ask why they're there, or asking for credit.

 

yes that's it and we have to accept it.

[Seachmall]

SagaciousKJB,

I think what the suspect is being stopped for should also be accounted for. If it was a routine stop that lead to a police chase and the scenario you explained the police should be a little skeptical about using lethal force, perhaps its just a couple of college kids smoking dope that got freaked. On the other hand it could be a murder with nothing to loose in which case take him out if he tries to do anything. Of course he is innocent till proven guilty but in such a situation I wouldn't hesitate taking the shot and I don't think anyone should.

 

HomoUniversalis,

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a950414b.html

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/04/episode...ed_up_vo_1.html

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question281.htm

http://www.local6.com/news/4084756/detail.html

http://www.nola.com/news/index.ssf/2007/12...gs_renewed.html

[Gouveia]

DISCLAIMER: All examples here are posted by a person from Brazil, that doesn't know too much about another countries laws and police enforcement.

 

In Brazil it looks like the police don't use force. Better yet, it looks like there are no police at all. The number of robberies that there was cops held as hostages and that the thieves were using plastic guns are ridiculous. At least here, I think that the police should need a better training, and needs to use force, like in the verb, enforce the law. In Rio de Janeiro, another city in Brazil, there's this special group - B.O.P.E. - that makes things look like Iraq. That's not the ammount of force I'm talking about, since there are a lot of news about civilians dying there. I'm talking about reacting and killing the bad guys.

 

Most people, at this point, says "Why kill them? They are human beings for gods sake!". OK, they are human beings, but still, they can't live in the civilization, they can't follow the rules, they can't be workers, they always want to find a short cut out of anything, be it money problems or issues with another person. They don't have the right to kill another person, they need to be punished. If they don't want to be punished, they'll face the consequences, and police need to have the rights to take the target down without harming any civilians

 

As far as I can remember, police in some of the U.S. has the right to take down any suspect that is resisting arrest. But seriously, if the person is inside a bank full of hostages, why can't the officer kill him? It's not like it's that hard to make a plan so you can position some officers to take the suspects down, all they need is the right to bring order to chaos, and some time. Is it really that awful?

 

One thing that people may find completely off topic, but it involves officers enforcing the law, is a case that happened here in Brazil. There was a young man, he was considered a serial killer, and the officer killed him. On the next day, the press was saying he was the worst officer in the world, because he just couldn't kill the suspect and all those guys from Human Rights just sued him. He obviously lost his life, but we, Brazilians, back him up. We defend officers killing suspects, even as a mother said when she saw that her son killed a boy "The lord and the world can be mad at me for this, but if the officers don't send him to jail or kill him, I'm going to jail for killing him myself".

 

Just my two cents.

[Mr. Mcreary]

If anything, I wish we had cops like GTA.

[Seachmall]

I just found a video on YouTube with the exact circumstances being discussed here. Cops (swat) open fire on a car trying to run them down in a residental area. I think this was a bit OTT. The cop also says its difficult for a bullet to pierce through a car which is why so many shots were fired, although I'm not sure, anyone want to clarify?

 

The video,

 

 

A 12guage will go straight through '79 ford, which has panels alot thicker then any car found nowadays.

 

And I see atleast 1 shotgun in that clip so that shoot-out gets even more ludacris and dangerous.

Edited July 30, 2008 by Seachmall