Fixing Police Abuse

[NoStateofMind]

Requiring state mercenaries to wear body cameras would be a start but that by itself wouldn't be enough. IMO there should also be some sort of 'community police council' in which they have the authority to fire police officers and bring charges against them. The current method of allowing them to investigate and punish themselves isn't working. What say you?

 

[Kadarin]

What needs to be implemented is a solution with enough teeth to break the police gang mentality.

 

[SandEagle]

raise the required minimum to be a police officer. a required college degree would weed out the losers.

 

[Oyeve]

Put cops back on the beat. All the driving around makes them fat and lazy where they shoot instead of chase you. Also give them back the batons, better beat with a stick than shot in the back. Or just give everyone a gun and level the playing field.

 

[Fern]

I think the policy of deadly force needs to be reexamined.

There needs to be some balance between police protecting themselves and protecting us. Do they really need to empty the magazine? Do they really need to shot at only center mass? Do they really need to confront, or can they contain and wait for reinforcements until they have overwhelming force?

I was in the Red Light district in Amsterdam one time and a US Merchant Marine pulled a knife on a hooker. The police gathered around the front of the building (possibly the back too) and tried to him into calming down. He didn't calm down but when a sufficiently large crew of police had gathered instead of shooting him 6 or 8 times in the chest they just 'charged' him and took away the knife. They didn't even beat him up, just cuffed him and put him the cruiser. Are they that better trained than our police that they don't need to shoot the heck out of people?

Fern

 

[Vapid Cabal]

I think the policy of deadly force needs to be reexamined.

There needs to be some balance between police protecting themselves and protecting us. Do they really need to empty the magazine? Do they really need to shot at only center mass? Do they really need to confront, or can they contain and wait for reinforcements until they have overwhelming force?

I was in the Red Light district in Amsterdam one time and a US Merchant Marine pulled a knife on a hooker. The police gathered around the front of the building (possibly the back too) and tried to him into calming down. He didn't calm down but when a sufficiently large crew of police had gathered instead of shooting him 6 or 8 times in the chest they just 'charged' him and took away the knife. They didn't even beat him up, just cuffed him and put him the cruiser. Are they that better trained than our police that they don't need to shoot the heck out of people?

Fern

Indeed, but how many police were present?
1 on 1 versus 7 on 1 greatly impacts how the situation was handled.
But I agree, shoot to kill in EVERY situation is wrong.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If an act by an officer is found to be proper then there is no penalty. If on the other hand an officer is found to be in gross violation then he or she faces the same punishment that an ordinary citizen would. To protect against abuse on the part of those who would set the police up, anyone who falsely accuses an officer is sentenced as if he had perpetrated the alleged crime.

 

[The Merg]

I think the policy of deadly force needs to be reexamined.

There needs to be some balance between police protecting themselves and protecting us. Do they really need to empty the magazine? Do they really need to shot at only center mass? Do they really need to confront, or can they contain and wait for reinforcements until they have overwhelming force?

I was in the Red Light district in Amsterdam one time and a US Merchant Marine pulled a knife on a hooker. The police gathered around the front of the building (possibly the back too) and tried to him into calming down. He didn't calm down but when a sufficiently large crew of police had gathered instead of shooting him 6 or 8 times in the chest they just 'charged' him and took away the knife. They didn't even beat him up, just cuffed him and put him the cruiser. Are they that better trained than our police that they don't need to shoot the heck out of people?

Fern

Yes, you do need to shoot center mass. The idea or though that you can shoot someone to wound them sounds great, but it is not feasible. In a high stress, high adrenaline situation, it is just not possible to shoot at the person's arm or leg and wound them. Along with the fact of how fast a person can move their arm or leg, officers are responsible for every round they fire. They are supposed to be aware of their target and what is beyond. The only way to be sure of that is to shoot at the biggest target possible, which is center mass.

As for emptying the magazine, officers are trained to shoot until the threat is stopped. That could be 1 shot or it could be multiple rounds. You'd be surprised at the number of people that can be shot multiple times and still continue to be a threat. I'm not sure what type of round was used by the officer in the Ferguson case, but many departments are going away from the 9mm as it is not effective in stopping someone.

With regards to the case in Amsterdam, power to them. If seven guys want to jump on a guy with a knife, they surely have guts. But, it is way to easy for that subject to easily harm those officers. As for shooting him, I don't know if that would be necessary, but this could have been a prime example of trying to use less-lethal tools like a Taser or beanbag rounds. In both of those cases, you still want someone there with the deadly force option as the subject can still perform serious bodily injury or death. That being said, sometimes you don't have the time to wait for the less-lethal options to arrive before action is needed as in the second St. Louis shooting of the knife-wielding subject.

- Merg

 

[master_shake_]

I second higher education.

Put the idiots who can't make back at the mall as security guards.

 

[SandEagle]

I think the policy of deadly force needs to be reexamined.

There needs to be some balance between police protecting themselves and protecting us. Do they really need to empty the magazine? Do they really need to shot at only center mass? Do they really need to confront, or can they contain and wait for reinforcements until they have overwhelming force?

I was in the Red Light district in Amsterdam one time and a US Merchant Marine pulled a knife on a hooker. The police gathered around the front of the building (possibly the back too) and tried to him into calming down. He didn't calm down but when a sufficiently large crew of police had gathered instead of shooting him 6 or 8 times in the chest they just 'charged' him and took away the knife. They didn't even beat him up, just cuffed him and put him the cruiser. Are they that better trained than our police that they don't need to shoot the heck out of people?

Fern

balanced and calm. yes, like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8rQQiaQgcI

 

[The Merg]

I second higher education.

Put the idiots who can't make back at the mall as security guards.

Higher education is actually a big thing in departments now. Many departments require a bachelor's degree (or military experience) to achieve certain ranks and some even require master's degrees to obtain ranks of command.

I do agree that if can be difficult to believe that a 21 year old has the maturity to make like and death decisions. Many times, they are just leaving home for the first time and are on their own to begin with. And now we expect them to handle these high-stress situations.

- Merg

 

[master_shake_]

balanced and calm. yes, like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8rQQiaQgcI

Bet american cops just shoot him dead.

 

[The Merg]

balanced and calm. yes, like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8rQQiaQgcI

That's insane! And the guy in the blue shirt is absolutely crazy...

- Merg

 

[SandEagle]

That's insane! And the guy in the blue shirt is absolutely crazy...

- Merg

not really insane. police in other parts of the world aren't pussies like american cops. even the finnish cops aren't afraid to engage without firing a weapon:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M6-NLm0GBM

 

[The Merg]

Grabbing a guy that is swinging around a machete in an aggessive manner is pretty crazy. It has nothing to do with being a pussy or not. It has all to do with wanting to be sure that you go home at night. While that cop was able to grab his arms and tackle him, a split second difference could have meant that cop getting severely injured or worse.

- Merg

 

[SandEagle]

cops also need to be retrained and reconditioned to lose the mentality that they have the most dangerous job in the world. no you don't. being a police officer doesn't even make it to the top 10 list of dangerous professions. they are given a free pass because the public believes that lie.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2014/01/15/these-are-the-top-10-most-dangerous-jobs-in-the-u-s/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2013/08/22/americas-10-deadliest-jobs-2/

The 10 Deadliest Jobs:
1. Logging workers
2. Fishers and related fishing workers
3. Aircraft pilot and flight engineers
4. Roofers
5. Structural iron and steel workers
6. Refuse and recyclable material collectors
7. Electrical power-line installers and repairers
8. Drivers/sales workers and truck drivers
9. Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers
10. Construction laborers

 

[The Merg]

cops also need to be retrained and reconditioned to lose the mentality that they have the most dangerous job in the world. no you don't. being a police officer doesn't even make it to the top 10 list of dangerous professions. they are given a free pass because the public believes that lie.

I'll give you that it might not be the deadliest job, however, none of the people in the jobs on that list go to work where their "customers" might be trying to kill them. Officers routinely need to deal with people that try to get away and have weapons on them and will do anything they have to in order to get away. A farmer doesn't have to deal with that.

I would also gather that most of the deaths related to those professions occur due to accidents or negligence. In the case of police officers, the majority of deaths are intentionally caused by someone else's hand.

- Merg

 

[SandEagle]

I'll give you that it might not be the deadliest job, however, none of the people in the jobs on that list go to work where their "customers" might be trying to kill them. Officers routinely need to deal with people that try to get away and have weapons on them and will do anything they have to in order to get away. A farmer doesn't have to deal with that.

I would also gather that most of the deaths related to those professions occur due to accidents or negligence. In the case of police officers, the majority of deaths are intentionally caused by someone else's hand.

- Merg

good point. you should participate here more often.

 

[The Merg]

good point. you should participate here more often.

Mostly been a lurker for the past 12 years or so...

- Merg

 

[JEDIYoda]

Yes, you do need to shoot center mass. The idea or though that you can shoot someone to wound them sounds great, but it is not feasible. In a high stress, high adrenaline situation, it is just not possible to shoot at the person's arm or leg and wound them. Along with the fact of how fast a person can move their arm or leg, officers are responsible for every round they fire. They are supposed to be aware of their target and what is beyond. The only way to be sure of that is to shoot at the biggest target possible, which is center mass.

As for emptying the magazine, officers are trained to shoot until the threat is stopped. That could be 1 shot or it could be multiple rounds. You'd be surprised at the number of people that can be shot multiple times and still continue to be a threat. I'm not sure what type of round was used by the officer in the Ferguson case, but many departments are going away from the 9mm as it is not effective in stopping someone.

With regards to the case in Amsterdam, power to them. If seven guys want to jump on a guy with a knife, they surely have guts. But, it is way to easy for that subject to easily harm those officers. As for shooting him, I don't know if that would be necessary, but this could have been a prime example of trying to use less-lethal tools like a Taser or beanbag rounds. In both of those cases, you still want someone there with the deadly force option as the subject can still perform serious bodily injury or death. That being said, sometimes you don't have the time to wait for the less-lethal options to arrive before action is needed as in the second St. Louis shooting of the knife-wielding subject.

- Merg

So what can be done about Police abuse??
All you did was defend the Police which in this thread need no defending@!

 

[JEDIYoda]

I'll give you that it might not be the deadliest job, however, none of the people in the jobs on that list go to work where their "customers" might be trying to kill them. Officers routinely need to deal with people that try to get away and have weapons on them and will do anything they have to in order to get away. A farmer doesn't have to deal with that.

I would also gather that most of the deaths related to those professions occur due to accidents or negligence. In the case of police officers, the majority of deaths are intentionally caused by someone else's hand.

- Merg

so you still have not addressed what can be done about Police abuse?
Unless your just a lurker who is paid to post on forums defending the Police...hmmm

 

[JEDIYoda]

Training and more training and more training!
Walk the damn beat!! Get to know the people, interact with the citizens....
Mandatory college degree!

 

[SandEagle]

every police should have a camera attached on them that live broadcasts to a website that the public can see. like bambuser app.

fyi, download the bambuser app on android. you can livestream and save your video online in case cops decide to destroy your cell phone. :sneaky:

 

[The Merg]

so you still have not addressed what can be done about Police abuse?

I answered questions that Fern put out there. I also stated my thoughts on education as well.

Unless your just a lurker who is paid to post on forums defending the Police...hmmm

I could only wish!

(Most of my time has been spent in the tech forums.)

- Merg

 

[davmat787]

I think the policy of deadly force needs to be reexamined.

There needs to be some balance between police protecting themselves and protecting us. Do they really need to empty the magazine? Do they really need to shot at only center mass? Do they really need to confront, or can they contain and wait for reinforcements until they have overwhelming force?

I was in the Red Light district in Amsterdam one time and a US Merchant Marine pulled a knife on a hooker. The police gathered around the front of the building (possibly the back too) and tried to him into calming down. He didn't calm down but when a sufficiently large crew of police had gathered instead of shooting him 6 or 8 times in the chest they just 'charged' him and took away the knife. They didn't even beat him up, just cuffed him and put him the cruiser. Are they that better trained than our police that they don't need to shoot the heck out of people?

Fern

And to contrast, here in the U.S. police are routinely taught that a person with a knife and acting in a threatening manner within 20 feet of an officer is to be considered a deadly threat that warrants deadly force in return.

I will say that I have seen videos that show just how quickly someone from 20 feet can be on you, way quicker than any were able to pull their sidearm and aim, the knife guy won every time.