Police Fire At Hostage & Use Human Shields

[Totenborg]

Replace "Cops" with "Black people" and you begin to realize how ironic the arguments being made are.

Yeah? I wasn't aware that black folks were able to gun people down in broad daylight with little or no consequences.
Wait, they're not? Then your argument makes no sense. At all.

[The Republic of Fore]

Disarming the police is of utmost stupidity. The strength of law is dependent on the strength of arms. Fear is what morality and the law are upheld by, take away their arms and no one will listen to the government, much less follow the laws.

Nations exist that have unarmed police officers. It's entirely possible to have law and order without arming cops.

---

so lets play a game say your in the LAPD and you roll up on to drugged up bank robbers wearing homemade head to toe body armor toting ak-47s and hk91's and they start firing at you are you just gonna sit there and let them kill you because you think police shouldn't be armed.

No, I'd floor and get the hell out of there. What would you do? Pop off a few shots with your 9mm and hope you can get an opening to get out of your car and get to the rifle in the back before you're killed?

instead of solving the problem you would be helping it get worse by disarming police. plus even the LAPD swat had a hard time during the North Hollywood Shootout and the SLA shootout in 74 hell the FBI had a difficult time during Waco what im trying to say is your idea is stupid. What happens if an armed gunman walks into your home and takes them hostage and you too far away are you gonna call your non-existent un armed police?

Yeah, and they would send in the highly trained firearms unit, which is exactly who I would want securing the safety of my family, not some dipshit who'd sacrifice their lives to kill the hostage takers or kill my neighbour with a stray shot.

---

Why is there no option to praise the police and give them more military equipment and power?

Judge Dredd option or martial law option.

1. Good for those countries. When they have shit holes like Detroit and Chicago that their police have to deal with then what they do or don't do will be relevant. Speaking of Chicago, a police officer there was beaten nearly to death because he was too scared of the backlash to draw his pistol.
2. Oh so you'd fail to do your job and allow the bank robbery to happen. Sounds like a great way to enforce law and order.
3. Have fun figuring out how to stay alive for the more than 15 minutes it takes US police forces to respond on average in major cities. If they even show up at all.
*Edit*
Also claiming you're more in danger from the police than criminals is extremely dishonest. There's been a few hundred people killed by the police in all of 2019. Most of whom were armed with a gun.

[Chernoslavia]

And that's a good enough reason to carry a firearm. You don't know the type of person you're going to be running into when responding to a call, the whole purpose of law enforcemnt is to respond to criminal actions afterall. If your law enforcement aren't trustworthy enough to carry a firearm then they shouldn't be in law enforcement PERIOD.

A lot of them probably shouldn't be in law enforcement.

The incident where all they had to do all along was shoot them in the foot. Also, this incident is the reason why patrol officers usually have a rifle in their cars. I swear you're like the only person who would look at an incident like this and think ''huh maybe patrol officers don't need guns afterall!''

Am I? Okay. And?

---

Who's the criminal going to use his limited ammo on, the cop hiding behind 2 tons of metal that may happen to have a civilian inside it or the cop standing out in the open in front of the vehicle that may happen to have a civilian inside of it?

I thought the criminals were a danger to the public that had to be killed immediately, but now you're saying that they were actually taking carefully aimed shots so as to conserve their limited ammo?

What is a lot of them? Most? Then funny how most of them are actually responsible with their weapons. Also I was referring to British police.

And so it's further proof that you shouldn't be able to decide what law enforcement carries in the line of duty.

[The Republic of Fore]

Replace "Cops" with "Black people" and you begin to realize how ironic the arguments being made are.

Yeah? I wasn't aware that black folks were able to gun people down in broad daylight with little or no consequences.
Wait, they're not? Then your argument makes no sense. At all.

They are, they do it every single day in our inner cities.

[Cetacea]

well, theres your problem right there then. In the highly armed and volatile USA you'd expect police to have much more training in firearms use and live fire situations. Having police officers using civilians for cover and being directly responsible for killing a bystander isn't acceptable.



you'd think the natural response would be to withdraw away from the shooter, not duck behind a civilian while trying to move in to shoot back

Civilian police forces aren't designed as a fighting force. Police respond to calls and determine if a law may have been infringed, their weapons are primarily for self defense.

Yes which should mean the first thought should be defend civilians and withdraw to safety

It should not but use a car as a shield, put the civilians in the car into the line of fire, shoot back

[Telconi]

Civilian police forces aren't designed as a fighting force. Police respond to calls and determine if a law may have been infringed, their weapons are primarily for self defense.

Yes which should mean the first thought should be defend civilians and withdraw to safety

It should not but use a car as a shield, put the civilians in the car into the line of fire, shoot back

Yeah, the first action being to find some sort of cover is normal and reasonable.

[Jebslund]

Replace "Cops" with "Black people" and you begin to realize how ironic the arguments being made are.

Replace "People who choose a particular line of work" with "People with an immutable physical characteristic that in no way factors into or is indicative of their personality" and you begin to realise OEP is comparing apples to oranges.

Also, do you plan on saying anything relevant to the discussion, or are you going to just keep posting the same flawed argument about generalisations over and over until you get the attention you seek?

[Loben The 2nd]

Replace "Cops" with "Black people" and you begin to realize how ironic the arguments being made are.

Yeah? I wasn't aware that black folks were able to gun people down in broad daylight with little or no consequences.
Wait, they're not? Then your argument makes no sense. At all.

Never been to south side of Chicago have you?

[Vassenor]

Clickbait OP

Got any meat for this nuclear take?

[Ifreann]

Replace "Cops" with "Black people" and you begin to realize how ironic the arguments being made are.

Do please expand upon this concept. Exactly why is that a useful thought experiment.

---

Police officers are being taught that they are warriors whose duty is to kill evildoers, sheepdogs who must kill the wolves to protect the sheep

Well, yeah. The US approach to social issues has created a lot of criminals, and this is not a reversible process. The issue won't be resolved until they're all dead or in jail.

It is a war crime to take cover behind civilians, but here are cops doing exactly that

Have them executed, then. But let's not blame militarization for something fundamentally at odds with the military.

How is America going to deal with this threat they face from their own law enforcement officers? My position remains, as it has long been, that the police should be disarmed. Ordinary cops do not need guns. Situations requiring an armed response can be handled by dedicated firearms units.

And by the time they show up, the criminals will have killed everyone in their path. Fear of being shot is the only thing holding American criminals back.

Maybe consider the possibility that criminals aren't all insane killers.

---

A lot of them probably shouldn't be in law enforcement.


Am I? Okay. And?

---

I thought the criminals were a danger to the public that had to be killed immediately, but now you're saying that they were actually taking carefully aimed shots so as to conserve their limited ammo?

Perhaps you should consider why that is. The majority of police shootings are justified.

According to who? The police?

If the majority of police officers are capable of handling their weapons responsibly and only using them to defend themselves then there would seem to be little reason to strip most of them of their weapons. You're advocating for a solution to a problem that does not exist.

Except it is a problem, even if you're right and most police shootings are justified. That means the police are still unjustifiably shooting people. Why should the American public accept that some of them will be killed by the police as the cost of having a police force?

Either prove that most cops are actually using their weapons irresponsibly or otherwise there is no reason to take anything you've said seriously,

Imagine that tomorrow morning we learned that overnight 49.9% of police officers in the US had unjustifiably shot someone. Would you tell me that since that's not a majority, there is no wider problem?

especially when considering how clickbaity and inaccurate your OP has been proven to be.

Well unless more than half of it is wrong there's no problem, right?

---

Nations exist that have unarmed police officers. It's entirely possible to have law and order without arming cops.

---

No, I'd floor and get the hell out of there. What would you do? Pop off a few shots with your 9mm and hope you can get an opening to get out of your car and get to the rifle in the back before you're killed?

Yeah, and they would send in the highly trained firearms unit, which is exactly who I would want securing the safety of my family, not some dipshit who'd sacrifice their lives to kill the hostage takers or kill my neighbour with a stray shot.

---

Judge Dredd option or martial law option.

1. Good for those countries. When they have shit holes like Detroit and Chicago that their police have to deal with then what they do or don't do will be relevant. Speaking of Chicago, a police officer there was beaten nearly to death because he was too scared of the backlash to draw his pistol.

If the police are in particular danger in certain parts of the country then all officers there could be routinely armed. The alleged shit-hole-ness of Detroit or Chicago doesn't make any difference to police forces distant from those cities.

2. Oh so you'd fail to do your job and allow the bank robbery to happen. Sounds like a great way to enforce law and order.

Yes, I would allow a bank robbery to happen rather than try to fight off two heavily armed and armoured assailants with the handgun the force issued me. I would allow a hundred bank robberies to happen rather than futilely get myself killed trying to stop them, and I would expect the same of any law enforcement officer. Fall back, get backup, don't just run in on your own and die, that's stupid.

3. Have fun figuring out how to stay alive for the more than 15 minutes it takes US police forces to respond on average in major cities. If they even show up at all.

So increase their funding so they can have more people available, spread out over the cities, to improve response times.

*Edit*
Also claiming you're more in danger from the police than criminals is extremely dishonest. There's been a few hundred people killed by the police in all of 2019. Most of whom were armed with a gun.

Americans have the constitutional right to be armed with a gun.

[Salandriagado]

About as wrong as it's possible to be, actually (NRA Range Safety Officer, NSRA Club Instructor). Not that it has any relevance, because the point is to stay far enough away that you don't spook them into starting to shoot in the first place.

>NRA Safety Officer
>60 feet is so far away it doesn't spook people into shooting

Hmm.

It's not a statement about firearms, it's a statement about human psychology: 60 feet away is "they're getting close, but they aren't here yet" as a matter of instinct.

[Salandriagado]

They're cops.

Doesn't matter, tunnel vision during a fire fight is common.
Also to note, police are given very basic firearm training, force on force training is also bare minimum.

Which is why they should be kept out of firefights.

[Satuga]

No crystal ball needed.

Psychopaths who get off on harming people are RARE. For the VAST majority of criminals (murderers who set out to commit murder obviously excluded), killing is not the goal, but a means to an end, for one very simple reason: Risk vs benefit. Criminals are, in the VAST majority of cases, looking to benefit somehow from a crime. Robbers especially.

Sadly not as rare as you might think, where I live there was a robbery nearby at a gas station. The employee gave the robber the money, yet the sadistic fuck still shot and killed the poor employee. People who have the capacity to kill anyone will always have that capacity. Which becomes even more dangerous when you realize that it's uneducated sewer people who have said capacity. They don't care about anyone other than themselves and possibly those they "love" and will kill just for a quick buck without a care in the world.

[Ifreann]

A lot of them probably shouldn't be in law enforcement.


Am I? Okay. And?

---

I thought the criminals were a danger to the public that had to be killed immediately, but now you're saying that they were actually taking carefully aimed shots so as to conserve their limited ammo?

What is a lot of them? Most?

I dunno.

Then funny how most of them are actually responsible with their weapons. Also I was referring to British police.

You get that I'm not British, yeah?

And so it's further proof that you shouldn't be able to decide what law enforcement carries in the line of duty.

If that's what you think, that's what you think. Weird reasoning, but whatever.

---

1. According to who? The police?

2. Except it is a problem, even if you're right and most police shootings are justified. That means the police are still unjustifiably shooting people. Why should the American public accept that some of them will be killed by the police as the cost of having a police force?


3. Imagine that tomorrow morning we learned that overnight 49.9% of police officers in the US had unjustifiably shot someone. Would you tell me that since that's not a majority, there is no wider problem?

4. Well unless more than half of it is wrong there's no problem, right?

1. According to actual academic studies that have been done on the matter.

In the vast majority of cases, the person killed was armed and posed a threat or had opened fire on officers, Cesario said.

Does that mean those shootings were all justified?

2. Because that risk exists with having any police force, and not having any police force is a much worse alternative.

You can greatly reduce the possibility of the police unjustifiably shooting people if you take away their guns.

3. Lol, that's so semantically ridiculous. Of course 49.5% would be a problem. Even 30% would be a problem, but that's not the case. The vast majority of police shootings are justified.

So how many people can the police wrongly kill before there's a wider problem? How many deaths are you willing to accept?

[Satuga]

2. Because that risk exists with having any police force, and not having any police force is a much worse alternative.

You can greatly reduce the possibility of the police unjustifiably shooting people if you take away their guns.

You also greatly increase the chance of police being killed doing that. As well as them being unable to respond quickly in a dangerous situation.

[Ifreann]

No crystal ball needed.

Psychopaths who get off on harming people are RARE. For the VAST majority of criminals (murderers who set out to commit murder obviously excluded), killing is not the goal, but a means to an end, for one very simple reason: Risk vs benefit. Criminals are, in the VAST majority of cases, looking to benefit somehow from a crime. Robbers especially.

Sadly not as rare as you might think, where I live there was a robbery nearby at a gas station. The employee gave the robber the money, yet the sadistic fuck still shot and killed the poor employee. People who have the capacity to kill anyone will always have that capacity. Which becomes even more dangerous when you realize that it's uneducated sewer people who have said capacity. They don't care about anyone other than themselves and possibly those they "love" and will kill just for a quick buck without a care in the world.

Your anecdote about a local crime doesn't refute the claim that psychopaths who get off on harming people are rare. Something can be both rare and happen in your locality.

[Satuga]

Your anecdote about a local crime doesn't refute the claim that psychopaths who get off on harming people are rare. Something can be both rare and happen in your locality.

Except literally every murderer or serial murder gets off to it. And if you didn't realize people will sometimes get murdered over the stupidest shit. My anecdote was simply there to show that this kind of thing does still happen, and can happen anywhere.

[Telconi]

Sadly not as rare as you might think, where I live there was a robbery nearby at a gas station. The employee gave the robber the money, yet the sadistic fuck still shot and killed the poor employee. People who have the capacity to kill anyone will always have that capacity. Which becomes even more dangerous when you realize that it's uneducated sewer people who have said capacity. They don't care about anyone other than themselves and possibly those they "love" and will kill just for a quick buck without a care in the world.

Your anecdote about a local crime doesn't refute the claim that psychopaths who get off on harming people are rare. Something can be both rare and happen in your locality.

Police murdering people is also rare.

[Galloism]

>NRA Safety Officer
>60 feet is so far away it doesn't spook people into shooting

Hmm.

It's not a statement about firearms, it's a statement about human psychology: 60 feet away is "they're getting close, but they aren't here yet" as a matter of instinct.

I'm going to need some kind of a source on that - the average human sprints at about 29 feet per second, so sixty feet is just a hair over 2 seconds away.

That's "here" to me.

[Satuga]

The army seems to manage pretty well. Fuck, countries with specialist armed response police forces seem to manage to keep them well trained enough to not do stupid shit like this. All of the available evidence seems to point to you talking out of your fucking arse.

Seeing how I apparently missed you, I will respond to this. Not only are police training and military training incredibly different, but even with the extensive training the military goes through there are still people in the army who, when they get shot at or see people around them die start to freak the fuck out. So sure while the army is certainly better at these situations, they also specifically train these people to get shot at, because that's kinda the major thing that happens during war. While police need to learn different things, like apprehension, cuffing, rights, etc. So comparing the training of the military to police is stupid. Should the police have more training? Yes definitely, training is always a good thing. Will that prepare someone being shot at in a real life or death situation no, and likely never.

[Ifreann]

Your anecdote about a local crime doesn't refute the claim that psychopaths who get off on harming people are rare. Something can be both rare and happen in your locality.

Except literally every murderer or serial murder gets off to it.

That seems extremely unlikely. I would expect that most murderers had some other motive than just enjoying killing.

And if you didn't realize people will sometimes get murdered over the stupidest shit.

Yes, sometimes. But that doesn't mean that those murderers are all psychopaths who get off on harming people, nor does it mean that such people are not rare.

My anecdote was simply there to show that this kind of thing does still happen, and can happen anywhere.

But you said it's less rare than we might think.

[Satuga]

That seems extremely unlikely. I would expect that most murderers had some other motive than just enjoying killing.

Yes, sometimes. But that doesn't mean that those murderers are all psychopaths who get off on harming people, nor does it mean that such people are not rare.

But you said it's less rare than we might think.

Sure there can be "other motives" like they looked at me funny, or he didn't pay me back 20 bucks. Doesn't make these types of people any less of murder loving psychopaths.

People kill others over money, hell even their husbands or wives for it. A piece of fucking cloth, is more valuable than another person to these people. I would say while they don't exactly get off to killing they certainly don't think it matters which is just as fucking bad.

That was a statement to go with the anecdote, not just for the anecdote itself.

[Jebslund]

No crystal ball needed.

Psychopaths who get off on harming people are RARE. For the VAST majority of criminals (murderers who set out to commit murder obviously excluded), killing is not the goal, but a means to an end, for one very simple reason: Risk vs benefit. Criminals are, in the VAST majority of cases, looking to benefit somehow from a crime. Robbers especially.

Sadly not as rare as you might think, where I live there was a robbery nearby at a gas station. The employee gave the robber the money, yet the sadistic fuck still shot and killed the poor employee. People who have the capacity to kill anyone will always have that capacity. Which becomes even more dangerous when you realize that it's uneducated sewer people who have said capacity. They don't care about anyone other than themselves and possibly those they "love" and will kill just for a quick buck without a care in the world.

And where I live, a politician got shot in the head. Doesn't mean that politicians everywhere are getting shot, or even that I will see it happen again in my lifetime.

Again, it is RARE for someone, even a killer, to kill for thrills like that. That something happens near you does not make it no longer rare. The smart thing to do in a robbery, going back to your example, is still to cooperate, not to fight back because, "Oh, he'll just kill me anyway.".

[Ifreann]

That seems extremely unlikely. I would expect that most murderers had some other motive than just enjoying killing.

Yes, sometimes. But that doesn't mean that those murderers are all psychopaths who get off on harming people, nor does it mean that such people are not rare.

But you said it's less rare than we might think.

Sure there can be "other motives" like they looked at me funny, or he didn't pay me back 20 bucks. Doesn't make these types of people any less of murder loving psychopaths.

If people aren't killing for the love of murder then what makes you say that they are murder loving psychopaths?

People kill others over money, hell even their husbands or wives for it. A piece of fucking cloth, is more valuable than another person to these people. I would say while they don't exactly get off to killing they certainly don't think it matters which is just as fucking bad.

But clearly not what is being talked about.

This is starting to seem like you're arguing that anyone who commits murder must be a psychopath because they committed murder, and that's not particularly good reasoning.

---

1. Does that mean those shootings were all justified?


2. You can greatly reduce the possibility of the police unjustifiably shooting people if you take away their guns.


3. So how many people can the police wrongly kill before there's a wider problem? How many deaths are you willing to accept?

1. Yes.

Really? Even if the police could conceivably have managed the threat and arrested the person alive without shooting them? Even if the threat was perceived but not real?

2. Which there isn't really much of a reason to do considering the police are behaving responsibly in the overwhelming majority of cases where they have to use their weapons.

You've taken a study about racial bias in police shootings to mean that the overwhelming majority of police uses of a weapon are responsible. That's quite the stretch.

3. What's the number that you're going for?

You're the one telling me that the police wrongfully killing people isn't a problem beyond the behaviour of those individual officers until there's some threshold hit, some percentage of all killings that are unjustified.

[Alvecia]

It's not a statement about firearms, it's a statement about human psychology: 60 feet away is "they're getting close, but they aren't here yet" as a matter of instinct.

I'm going to need some kind of a source on that - the average human sprints at about 29 feet per second, so sixty feet is just a hair over 2 seconds away.

That's "here" to me.

I don't know that I'd hold a door open for someone who was 60 feet away