Police Fire At Hostage & Use Human Shields

[Greater Cesnica]

As a gun owner myself, can confirm there are a bunch of us. However, lots of gun owners are quite frankly dumbasses. Living in Canada, I had no choice but to take a firearms safety course to get my PAL, so perhaps I'm slightly more qualified?

Here in the States, it varies by jurisdiction, though most are pretty loose. I've never been asked to show I was qualified, just that I was old enough and not a criminal.

Hence why American gun laws are special. If you need licensing to drive a car, why not to own a gun?

[Totenborg]

Funny, that's what I've been thinking about you.

Okay let's be real, how many of the posters on NSG are firearm owners, have served in the military, or are otherwise qualified to talk about such subjects as gun safety, firearms training, policing and military tactics, etc. etc.?

I own a few of them, and I've been shooting for about 28 years. That being said, I'm not claiming to be any sort of authority on firearm combat. However, I can recognize ignorant bravado when I see it.

[Diopolis]

As a gun owner myself, can confirm there are a bunch of us. However, lots of gun owners are quite frankly dumbasses. Living in Canada, I had no choice but to take a firearms safety course to get my PAL, so perhaps I'm slightly more qualified?

Here in the States, it varies by jurisdiction, though most are pretty loose. I've never been asked to show I was qualified, just that I was old enough and not a criminal.

I can confirm that even in Texas demonstrating qualifications makes it dramatically easier, though.

[Aureumterra]

Funny, that's what I've been thinking about you.

Okay let's be real, how many of the posters on NSG are firearm owners, have served in the military, or are otherwise qualified to talk about such subjects as gun safety, firearms training, policing and military tactics, etc. etc.?

A lot more than you think

[Totenborg]

Here in the States, it varies by jurisdiction, though most are pretty loose. I've never been asked to show I was qualified, just that I was old enough and not a criminal.

Hence why American gun laws are special. If you need licensing to drive a car, why not to own a gun?

Agreed.

[Diopolis]

Hence why American gun laws are special. If you need licensing to drive a car, why not to own a gun?

Agreed.

To note- US courts have generally held that shall issue gun licenses are constitutional. It’s hard to imagine a genuine reason or may issue scheme which wouldn’t fail the arbitrary and capricious test, however, and registration is unconstitutional except as a process by which to inconvenience gun owners.

[Northwest Slobovia]

Agreed.

To note- US courts have generally held that shall issue gun licenses are constitutional. It’s hard to imagine a genuine reason or may issue scheme which wouldn’t fail the arbitrary and capricious test, however, and registration is unconstitutional except as a process by which to inconvenience gun owners.

This is getting a bit far removed from the incident, so could I ask people to take it to the gun control thread?

[Nouveau Quebecois]

Funny, that's what I've been thinking about you.

Okay let's be real, how many of the posters on NSG are firearm owners, have served in the military, or are otherwise qualified to talk about such subjects as gun safety, firearms training, policing and military tactics, etc. etc.?

Considering the poll, we're entering the negatives here, chief.

[The Republic of Fore]

There's no reason to disarm police officers. law abiding citizens usually don't interact with the police. So whether we have a right to own a gun is irrelevant. If you don't want to get shot by the police, you can try not breaking the law. I hear that works pretty well. Preventing a few accidents isn't worth causing far more problems by allowing criminals to operate freely. Personally, I shed no tears for idiots like the teenager in St. Louis who thought it was a good idea to shoot at the swat team.

The people who were recently gunned down in their own homes by cops might disagree with your assessment. As would the UPS driver who was taken hostage by the jewel thieves. As would the other innocent bystander who died in this incident.

There's exceptions to literally every rule. How many people were gunned down by criminals in the last week? I'd rather have a few unfortunate incidents than criminals getting to run freely.

[The Republic of Fore]

There's no reason to disarm police officers. law abiding citizens usually don't interact with the police. So whether we have a right to own a gun is irrelevant. If you don't want to get shot by the police, you can try not breaking the law. I hear that works pretty well. Preventing a few accidents isn't worth causing far more problems by allowing criminals to operate freely. Personally, I shed no tears for idiots like the teenager in St. Louis who thought it was a good idea to shoot at the swat team.

The people who were recently gunned down in their own homes by cops might disagree with your assessment. As would the UPS driver who was taken hostage by the jewel thieves. As would the other innocent bystander who died in this incident.

There's exceptions to literally every rule. How many people were gunned down by criminals in the last week? I'd rather have a few unfortunate incidents than criminals getting to run freely.

[The Republic of Fore]

There's no reason to disarm police officers.

It'll stop them shooting people.

law abiding citizens usually don't interact with the police.

Law abiding citizens have plenty of interactions with the police.

So whether we have a right to own a gun is irrelevant. If you don't want to get shot by the police, you can try not breaking the law. I hear that works pretty well.

And fails with tragic consequences.

Preventing a few accidents isn't worth causing far more problems by allowing criminals to operate freely.

Criminals don't operate freely if cops don't have guns. Cops don't just shoot criminals, that's not what policing is.

Personally, I shed no tears for idiots like the teenager in St. Louis who thought it was a good idea to shoot at the swat team.

I'm sure you don't.

1. Sometimes they need to. If you want to avoid being shot by the police you can try not breaking the law. Tends to significantly reduce your chances.
2. Not nearly as many as criminals. And they tend to be pretty passive.
3. Sure, in a few extremely rare exceptions. Nothing is perfect. You can get lung cancer without smoking. Doesn't change that not smoking vastly increases your chances of avoiding it.
4. They can get away with a lot more if they know that the police aren't carrying guns. Just ask London, where disarming cops has worked so well that last year was the first time ever they've had a higher murder rate than New York. What are disarmed police supposed to do when they show up to a situation with an armed suspect? Loudly shout stop that?
5. Don't shoot at people then cry if they shoot back. Anyone with a functioning brain should be able to understand that.

[Agend]

If it keeps public order then I'm fine with sacrificial as many lives as possible. Just not enough to where the state has no one to rule over.

Try not to cut yourself on that edge, mate.

I already did...

[Salandriagado]

Sure, and that's relevant if it's a human sprinting at you. It's not relevant if it's a human sitting in a car with the doors closed stuck in traffic.

That's ~4 car lengths. Or... about 2 seconds away.

In a traffic jam?

[Deus Regem]

Back off. Simple as that.

Neither side were shooting at the uninvolved so if the police get out of range then the shooting stops and a conversation can begin.

Back off? Let the suspects get away with a hostage so they can possibly kill him? Allow the suspects to get into another vehicle and elude custody? Sure they had a helicopter. But what do you think the suspects would've done to that hostage when he was no longer a pawn for them? If your wish is to stop needless deaths then they couldn't have backed off.

I know someone who was a former police officer and she agrees (plus she was a judge)

[Salandriagado]

Back off. Simple as that.

Neither side were shooting at the uninvolved so if the police get out of range then the shooting stops and a conversation can begin.

Back off? Let the suspects get away with a hostage so they can possibly kill him?

As opposed to shooting the hostage? Yes.

Allow the suspects to get into another vehicle and elude custody?

If necessary, yes.

Sure they had a helicopter. But what do you think the suspects would've done to that hostage when he was no longer a pawn for them?

Would never have come up if this was handled competently: track them from a distance while getting specialist teams on-hand, then eliminate or arrest them without danger to the hostage.

[Galloism]

That's ~4 car lengths. Or... about 2 seconds away.

In a traffic jam?

Given there was a chase that dead ended at a traffic jam, it's extremely unlikely for private citizens to pull their cars between police and the pursued vehicle, especially with police having their lights and such on.

And if they didn't have their lights on, they would be negligent for the citizenry to not know there was an emergency due to lack of emergency lights.

And if the citizenry did pull in the middle even with the lights on, that would be a crime (and stupid and dangerous).

Even in the middle of a traffic jam, there will be open space between the police and the pursued vehicle - even at 20 yards (as can be observed in the video with all the open space around the pursued vehicle).

[Ifreann]

But then, nor have you proven them to be based on anything at all. So we don't really know what the criteria are here.

I'd invite you in that case to use the keyboard at your fingertips to read it and see for yourself. I've already presented my evidence. The burden of proof lies with you to prove any flaws you might think the study has. Put up or shut up, as they say.

It isn't on me to prove your claims false, it is on you to prove them true.

Rather depends on the situation, doesn't it? Or do you think that the police were justified in shooting at people holding a hostage? Because that would mean that the police can justifiably shoot a person who is not armed, not a threat, not even suspected of being a criminal, and in fact known to be an innocent victim. At which point the concept of a justified shooting is clearly worthless.

Yes, I do because the officers themselves were being shot at. Self-defense is a universal human right, and police officers are still human last I checked. I don't think that any officers should have to unnecessarily risk their own lives to save the lives of criminals.

As I said, if the police can justifiably shoot someone known to be innocent victim then the concept of a justified shooting is clearly worthless.

The problem is that you are expanding the findings of the study far beyond what was actually found. The statement you quoted said that most police shootings were of people who were armed and posed a threat or had fired at officers. You have continually expanded that "most" to represent an ever more exaggerated majority, and have expanded that "shootings being justified" to mean "responsible in all uses of their weapons".

Because police officers are only supposed to actually use their weapons in serious circumstances, such as their lives being in danger. If most police shootings are justified then the only logical conclusion to draw is that the officers are using their weapons for the intended purpose.

That's not logical at all. As I later explain, police officers could be doing very irresponsible things with their weapons that do not constitute an unjustified shooting.

I'm not back-pedalling at all. I still think that the police pose a threat to the American public. I am not basing that assessment on the percentage of police officers who are responsible with their weapons. I have never suggested that my position was based on the percentage of police officers who are responsible with their weapons. But you clearly do think that way, you brought this up in the first place, you keep saying that there is no problem because most officers are, you believe, responsible with their weapons. You shouldn't assume that I am using the same reasoning as you just because I am asking you about your reasoning.

And yet the evidence would seem to indicate that they don't actually pose any serious threat to the public.

The evidence like them shooting at members of the public while hiding behind members of the public.

You have not presented a single shred of evidence that indicates that we are under any sort of serious threat from the police that would justify disarming them and putting them in harm's way.

Disarming the police does not put them in harm's way. They are in harm's way by virtue of being police officers whether they are armed only with an asp or they are toting a fucking M60.

You've failed to meet any reasonable burden of proof. You were initially relying on your OP, but that fell through the cracks, eh?

What, do you think that the footage of this shootout was faked?

A study claiming that most police shootings were of someone who was armed and posed a threat or had opened fire on officers doesn't mean that the overwhelming majority of officers behave responsibly. This really should be obvious, but just in case you aren't deliberately exaggerating the scope of the study you cited I will explain. Would it be responsible for a police officer to use their baton to beat someone who had already surrendered and was not resisting arrest or posing any kind of threat? Obviously not. Would that behaviour constitute an unjustified police shooting? Obviously not. But maybe you'll now say that by "weapon" you only meant "gun". Would it be responsible for a police officer to get drunk at a bar while still carrying their gun? Obviously not. Would that behaviour constitute an unjustified police shooting? Obviously not.

I'm basing that conclusion on the study that was mentioned before and on your continued inability to actually present any amount of evidence showing serious abuse by police officers.

There are stories about police officers killing innocent people almost constantly. The percentage of police officers responsible for this is not the point, it's happening all the time, you shouldn't need me to tell you about it.

I would like there to be zero police shootings. I trust that isn't a controversial position.

Then, again, that would require not having any police force at all. And that seems like a much worse option.

You can greatly reduce police shootings by disarming the police.

Obviously.

It is self-evident that taking their guns away would stop the police from shooting people, so there you go, evidence that disarming police would do something other than putting police officers at risk.

You conveniently ignored the latter part of that bit. Where's your evidence that it would not unnecessarily put officers at risk?

Whether a risk is necessary is a matter of opinion, not objective fact. But a police officer is not in more or less risk based on the weapons they are carrying. Having a gun doesn't make you safer, it gives you the option to shoot someone. That can be useful, obviously, but it is also dangerous.

Furthermore, I would again point out the fact that the vast majority of police shootings are justified. You've also yet to prove that it would affect that number in any meaningful way.

How the police gonna shoot people when only a handful of them have guns any more?

I've never said that the US is reflective of any other country.

Good.

If you need me to prove that stopping the police from shooting innocent people is necessary then I don't know what to tell you, man, maybe consider that people being alive is good?

Because you've still yet to prove that it's necessary and that it wouldn't threaten the safety of officers. And by "necessary" I mean justifying the risk that it would pose to them. Debate in that context, if you would.

Like I said, having a gun doesn't make you safe, it just gives you the option to shoot someone.

---

It'll stop them shooting people.

Law abiding citizens have plenty of interactions with the police.

And fails with tragic consequences.

Criminals don't operate freely if cops don't have guns. Cops don't just shoot criminals, that's not what policing is.

I'm sure you don't.

1. Sometimes they need to. If you want to avoid being shot by the police you can try not breaking the law. Tends to significantly reduce your chances.

And when the police need to shoot people you can have dedicated firearms teams respond, teams that have no other policing duties and can thus be highly trained to respond to dangerous situations.

2. Not nearly as many as criminals. And they tend to be pretty passive.

Law abiding members of the public probably have more interactions with the police than criminals. I've been talking with the police multiple times in the last few months, twice because there was a crime nearby and they wanted my help gathering evidence, once because a local cop was just letting me know they'd be around over Christmas.

3. Sure, in a few extremely rare exceptions. Nothing is perfect. You can get lung cancer without smoking. Doesn't change that not smoking vastly increases your chances of avoiding it.

And yet you insist on the police having cigarettes.

4. They can get away with a lot more if they know that the police aren't carrying guns. Just ask London, where disarming cops has worked so well that last year was the first time ever they've had a higher murder rate than New York.

The practice of British police officers not being armed dates to the formation of the Metropolitan Police Service in 1829. Even during World War II police officers did not carry guns, except when protecting 10 Downing Street or the Royal Family. And London still has armed officers on its streets, because the city is the seat of government.

Also, in 2018 London had 137 homicides and a population of 8.9 million, whereas New York City had 289 homicides and a population of 8.3 million, so you're just wrong.

What are disarmed police supposed to do when they show up to a situation with an armed suspect? Loudly shout stop that?

If they thought it would help, sure. Or they could retreat, direct members of the public to safety, and call for better trained and equipped backup. This would avoid situations of morons blasting at people sitting in traffic because they had the misfortune of a criminal pulling up beside them.

5. Don't shoot at people then cry if they shoot back. Anyone with a functioning brain should be able to understand that.

So if someone on that highway had pulled a pistol from their glove box and shot back at the police, you'd be fine with that?

[Salandriagado]

In a traffic jam?

Given there was a chase that dead ended at a traffic jam, it's extremely unlikely for private citizens to pull their cars between police and the pursued vehicle, especially with police having their lights and such on.

And if they didn't have their lights on, they would be negligent for the citizenry to not know there was an emergency due to lack of emergency lights.

And if the citizenry did pull in the middle even with the lights on, that would be a crime (and stupid and dangerous).

Even in the middle of a traffic jam, there will be open space between the police and the pursued vehicle - even at 20 yards (as can be observed in the video with all the open space around the pursued vehicle).

All of which is completely irrelevant if the police aren't moving into that space.

[Galloism]

Given there was a chase that dead ended at a traffic jam, it's extremely unlikely for private citizens to pull their cars between police and the pursued vehicle, especially with police having their lights and such on.

And if they didn't have their lights on, they would be negligent for the citizenry to not know there was an emergency due to lack of emergency lights.

And if the citizenry did pull in the middle even with the lights on, that would be a crime (and stupid and dangerous).

Even in the middle of a traffic jam, there will be open space between the police and the pursued vehicle - even at 20 yards (as can be observed in the video with all the open space around the pursued vehicle).

All of which is completely irrelevant if the police aren't moving into that space.

Which, at 20 yards, puts them... ~2 seconds away. In the middle of a traffic jam.

[Chernoslavia]

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 actual academic studies that have been done on the matter.

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?

Well lemme give you an answer, it's very little. And using this one incident to justify disarming police isn't a good argument.

Do you not reside in Northern Ireland?

Lol no...weird reasoning is looking at the North Hollywood shooting and thinking that police should be disarmed.

[Ifreann]

I dunno.

You get that I'm not British, yeah?


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

---

Does that mean those shootings were all justified?


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


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

Well lemme give you an answer...

I'm afraid that I don't believe that you have an answer. Perhaps you have a guess, or perhaps you believe that since the status quo isn't hurting you then surely almost all officers are well-suited to policing. But I don't find your guesses or beliefs very convincing.

Do you not reside in Northern Ireland?

I do not.

Lol no...weird reasoning is looking at the North Hollywood shooting and thinking that police should be disarmed.

Weird reasoning is saying "I've never heard anyone make this argument before, so your ideas are bad and should be ignored". You might not agree with me, but I think that my reasoning is perfectly straightforward. The North Hollywood shoot out showed that ordinary officers are not able to deal with extreme threats. As such, SWAT teams were formed. All I am proposing is further specialisation. Leave the gunfights to officers specially trained for exactly that, and have ordinary cops do ordinary policing, not at the point of a gun, but by the consent of the people.

[Satuga]

Weird reasoning is saying "I've never heard anyone make this argument before, so your ideas are bad and should be ignored". You might not agree with me, but I think that my reasoning is perfectly straightforward. The North Hollywood shoot out showed that ordinary officers are not able to deal with extreme threats. As such, SWAT teams were formed. All I am proposing is further specialisation. Leave the gunfights to officers specially trained for exactly that, and have ordinary cops do ordinary policing, not at the point of a gun, but by the consent of the people.

Do you not realize it takes SWAT members time to prepare? Cops are first responders because of this, if there was no one able to arrive at the scene immediately it would give shooter free reign of the entire area for as long as it takes SWAT to arrive. The cops are there to at minimum, limit the places the shooter can freely go, this is especially important for places where there are many residency's, where the shooter can go from one building to another to kill more people. Forcing police to pull back on a situation will only lead to more innocent deaths.

[Satuga]

Oh this also gives a good look at this situation:

[Chernoslavia]

Okay let's be real, how many of the posters on NSG are firearm owners, have served in the military, or are otherwise qualified to talk about such subjects as gun safety, firearms training, policing and military tactics, etc. etc.?

However, I can recognize ignorant bravado when I see it.

Care to provide evidence on that claim? Also, explain how I don't qualify to talk about armed combat based on what I've said so far.

[Chernoslavia]

Well lemme give you an answer...

I'm afraid that I don't believe that you have an answer. Perhaps you have a guess, or perhaps you believe that since the status quo isn't hurting you then surely almost all officers are well-suited to policing. But I don't find your guesses or beliefs very convincing.

Do you not reside in Northern Ireland?

I do not.

Lol no...weird reasoning is looking at the North Hollywood shooting and thinking that police should be disarmed.

Weird reasoning is saying "I've never heard anyone make this argument before, so your ideas are bad and should be ignored". You might not agree with me, but I think that my reasoning is perfectly straightforward. The North Hollywood shoot out showed that ordinary officers are not able to deal with extreme threats. As such, SWAT teams were formed. All I am proposing is further specialisation. Leave the gunfights to officers specially trained for exactly that, and have ordinary cops do ordinary policing, not at the point of a gun, but by the consent of the people.

https://www.dolanconsultinggroup.com/wp ... -Force.pdf And I'll ask again, if regular police shouldn't be trusted with firearms then what makes you think they should even be law enforcement officers?

No, I've heard the likes of you making this bullshit argument countless times, the fact remains that it's a bad idea for the reasons me and others have already stated. Ordinary cops can still be armed and not point guns at people to enforce laws, that's for self defense. What people who advocate for this crap forget is that cops are also supposed to respond to reported criminal activities especially ones that are dangerous. And please elaborate on what this ''specialized training'' should be.