Not everyone who needs state intervention is a deadly threat.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

Police are often summoned when a situation is beyond the control of the people involved in a situation or those encountering the situation are acting prudently to avoid liability. However, the situation is no/low threat given proper training and protocol.

Yet, it seems the first resort from the state is a level of force that involves the sustained infliction of pain or outright deadly force.

Do I expect officers of the state to assume personal risk in the conduct of their duties?

Well, yes.

If they operate under the assumption that their persons are the highest good rather than the best, most humane outcome in any given situation then the outcome is inevitable: the state will consider itself higher than the people and then we will be treated as subjects to be herded and controlled rather than citizens to be served.

We own the state, the state does not own us. If those who wish to carry the instruments of state power are not willing to assume risk in the name of service then they are not serving they are a threat in their own right.

[Jackpine Radical]

1. I really love your perspective here.

You have beautifully defined the proper frame for viewing a critical issue as it connects to the larger relationship between the government and the citizenry.

[nomorenomore08]

35. +1

Completely agree with you.

[Ed Suspicious]

2. I have tried to articulate this so many times and it usually comes out as "why are the police lives

more valuable than ours?" Mine doesn't quite get to the point. Yours does perfectly.

If they operate under the assumption that their persons are the highest good rather than the best, most humane outcome in any given situation then the outcome is inevitable: the state will consider itself higher than the people and then we will be treated as subjects to be herded and controlled rather than citizens to be served.

Thank you for putting to words what I only could manage to inarticulately belch out.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. I see no error in your framing.

Sometimes others don't want to understand.

[Dawson Leery]

3. Stated well.

[Lee-Lee]

4. Then sign up, do the training, and accept the risk

Demanding only others accept the risk is easy talk.

Where do you draw the line? Ok to get stabbed? Ok to get punched, bitten, etc.

I have seen people here post that officers should accept getting stabbed instead of stopping the person attempting to stab them. What then?

One thing is for sure- if you push this idea that cops must accept more personal harm and a higher death rate on the job you won't have any cops to worry about.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. We own the state. We make the laws for our society not their power.

We want our society to treat the mentally ill, not gun them down. We want to preserve life, not make lethal force the act of first resort.

I don't know what society you want but I want no part of it.

[Lee-Lee]

28. You need to step back

Police officers make decisions in the heat of the moment, usually with little or no background in the person.

But if a person is running at you with a knife, the reason is irrelevant until you deal with that immediate threat. Vindictive, high on something, mentally ill, idiot sovereign citizen- it doesn't matter why.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

30. Yet, many instances exist where a situation, viewed in hindsight, shows deadly force was not needed

A moment more would have relieved the "heat of the moment."

Our judicial system is based on the idea that it is better to let a guilty man go free than convict an innocent man. Yet, somehow killing someone -- a thing that cannot be reversed on appeal -- is defended with seemingly blind acceptance.

If a better way exists then the state is obligated to pursue it. We are not obligated to meekly accept the unnecessary killing of our family, friends and neighbors.

[nomorenomore08]

36. "...killing someone... is defended with seemingly blind acceptance."

And that right there is really the heart of the problem. People unquestioningly defer to authority even when they shouldn't.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

9. Stop, sure, kill, no.

Why aren't our police using more non-lethal force? How about bean bag guns, or even tranquilizer dart guns, rather than bullets?

The object should be the *least possible* use of force, not the automatic use of lethal force.

[HooptieWagon]

16. Agreed.

As the country has transitioned to a militerized police, it seems the only response the police are capable of is deadly force. When you are only equipped with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. I don't see a future change in police tactics, so at this point I'd have to recommend families learn how to deal with a problem member, and avoid calling the police. Perhaps an enlightened city can form a crisis intervention team especially trained for these instances, thay would be a model for the country.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. The police are becoming militarized because they are incorporating the latest technologies.

We cannot get that djinn back in its bottle. What we can do is create a culture of service over subjugation.

[Lee-Lee]

32. They do every day, hundreds of times

All kinds of less lethal methods are employed all the time.

Police departments run into these kinds of things hundreds of times every day across this country. The vast, vast, vast majority are resolved and nobody is shot.

But in rare circumstances it is unavoidable.

You will always see those in the news. You never see reports on the 99.99% that don't involve a shooting.

So the medias sensationalism is clouding your view.

[X_Digger]

5. There's quite a large gap between 'assume personal risk' and loss of life.

Do I expect officers to assume personal risk? Sure.

Do I expect them to take a beating rather than use force? No.

Do I expect them to take a stabbing rather than use force? No.

Do I expect them to place others' lives above their own? No.

You'd end up with cops that are either suicidal or idiots with martyr complexes.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. We expect soldiers in foreign lands to employ minimal force in times of war.

I see no rationale to giving the police a freer rein.

[X_Digger]

8. Err.. shoot at a soldier at war and you'll likely get return fire.

Not sure what conflict you seem to think involves soldiers playing clay pigeons for the enemy.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. You're responding to arguments I never made.

[X_Digger]

15. 'minimal force'? What situation that soldiers find themselves in is analogous here?

Since you brought them up, what force continuum response is analogous?

If you rush at a soldier with a knife on a battlefield, do you expect a response any different than a cop?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

19. A violent criminal seeking to harm someone is vastly different from a troubled person who can be

taken care of without violence. If those who presume to carry the instruments of state power cannot trouble themselves to understand the difference and act accordingly then they are more of a threat than the criminals they claim to protect us from.

No person has the right to be a cop. They are not owed. They ask our permission to enforce the laws we set for ourselves. They serve at our pleasure. If that is too much they are free to pursue a different career.

[X_Digger]

21. Answer the question, please. What situation that soldiers find themselves in is analogous?

Or was that just a red herring?

A disturbed individual wielding a deadly instrument is as dangerous to the general public (or officers) as a violent criminal wielding a deadly instrument. Heck, they may be less amenable to see reason and calm down.

The stab to the gut or sliced artery is the same in both cases.

Yes the situations differ, but the response to both has to be predicated on protecting the general public first.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. Your question is predicated on the assumption that the threat is actually a threat and I seek to

deny an appropriate response. Your question is based on an argument I never made. I would not prohibit an appropriate response, I am speaking to what constitutes appropriate and when.

If a family has a troubled family member we want them to call the authorities for help. If the default response is lethal force people will stop calling, patients will go untreated until the opportunity is lost. If a troubled person can be contained and/or a properly trained professional can bring about a resolution with little or no force then that is the state's obligation.

They are obligated to the public. We are not obligated to them.

[X_Digger]

24. A person waving around a knife and lunging at people isn't a threat? How's that work?

Does one have to be a mind-reader to ascertain that, or do you want that to be the default position when a police officer engages a person?

"Oh, the family said the magic word, 'disturbed', therefore there's no threat in that knife being waved around."

As if no disturbed person ever hurt anyone with a knife, right?

A police officer has multiple, sometimes competing, edicts that they must go by. First and foremost is to protect the public, even if that means harming a disturbed person who is also a member of 'the public'.





P.S. You still haven't answered about the soldier.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. You want to play games with questions engineered to elicit specific answers.

I have repeatedly acknowledged situations exist where deadly force is appropriate. Yet, you seem loathe to even consider non-lethal opportunities to resolve ANY situation. It is this cop-first, people-if-we-feel-like-getting-around-to-it mentality that I am speaking about.

If we proles are too stupid and ungrateful to appreciate being shot dead then perhaps we are unworthy of our masters and they should leave us to our own devises.

[X_Digger]

27. What criteria do you suggest police use in making that determination?

Please define "proper training and protocol" for me, would you?

How does the officer know that "the threat is actually a threat"-- or not?

And how does an officer apply said magical criteria before harm comes to another member of the public or themselves?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

29. Where I live police are trained to deal with service members suffering from PTSD who are in crisis.

That includes instances where they may be armed. If we can help trained, experienced combat soldiers without resorting to violence then opportunities exist. If you don't see the opportunity I can't help but think it is because you don't want to.

[X_Digger]

31. You didn't really answer my question.

What criteria should police use to differentiate between a disturbed individual waving a knife who is a threat to oneself and others and one who isn't?

There's no magical criteria- no "if they touch their mouth more than three times in a 60 second period they're no threat", no "if they stutter, they're a threat"-- nothing like that.

A competent therapist frequently takes multiple sessions, or consultation with a colleague to determine if someone in crisis is a danger to themselves or others.

And you think a cop can do this in the middle of a volatile situation?

No offense to 'where you live', but if that's what you've been told, someone's blowing smoke up your ass.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

33. Your carefully constructed self-affirming hypotheticals do not trump reality.

[X_Digger]

34. Nor does your magical 'my people are trained' schtick.

Having worked extensively with the individuals in crisis, both with diagnosed and undiagnosed mental conditions, I can tell you that any police training session purporting to impart such abilities- is a fucking joke.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

37. And this is a perfect example of the self-righteous unimaginative ossification that diminishes law

enforcement. You imagine yourself better than us but you aren't. You aren't our keeper. We don't need you and we certainly don't want the presumptive arrogance that comes with you. We can manage just fine without you. You on the other hand, rely on the consent of the governed. Our society, our laws, our taxes.

[X_Digger]

38. Free hint: I'm part of your 'us'; but I've worked both with law enforcement and mental health pros.

I've known more people that society looks over, disparages, ignores, or is terrified of- than you ever will.

So you can jump right off your pretty high horse and come back to reality any time you like.

Those of us actually serving, counseling, helping, and generally looking after the mentally ill will still be here plodding along.




p.s. -- you still never did answer- either about the soldiers or the criteria for cops.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. Except it's not a question and as you've shown as soon as an answer falls outside your

preconceptions you reject the answer. You seem determined to deny the possibility that unjustified killings are a matter of concern. Yet, many people do. You dismiss their concerns and act as if under siege. It's not your infant taking a flash grenade to the face or your distraught family members being gunned down. If it were you wouldn't be making excuses and denying uncomfortable facts.

[X_Digger]

40. No, I don't dismiss anything. I was simply asking, "How?"

And you've just thrown up your hands and said, 'training and stuff!'.

If you can't even give the most basic answer, why should anyone give any credence to what you're saying?


From the OP:

However, the situation is no/low threat given proper training and protocol.

What proper training and protocol turns a mentally disturbed individual, armed with a weapon, into a 'no/low threat'?

[TheKentuckian]

11. Seems it is the cops most often shooting first and last.

The danger of the job is overstated and what is there is chiefly created by money driven vice enforcement which creates the dangerous element that is the threat.

Corporations need law enforcement, actual free people need the peace kept to make sure the next person's freedom does not impede someone else's. It is the mission that generates the most risk to the police, to our neighborhoods, and our liberties.

[X_Digger]

18. Cops using their tasers don't often make the news.

Less so for cops who don't have to use force at all. So you don't hear about the majority of police encounters.

So what it 'seems' may not be actually true.

[smallcat88]

13. My dad was a cop

I asked him once why he joined the police, he said to make the world safer for me and my brother. But I also overheard conversations with the adults when I was a kid where he was complaining about fellow officers who's main reason for joining the force seemed to be that they liked 'roughing people up'. We need a stricter screening process for joining police forces to weed out these jerks.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. Your father sounds like the sort of officer a just society can take pride in. nt

[MrScorpio]

17. Excellent statement. I couldn't agree more. nt

[Savannahmann]

22. I'm disappointed.

I could only rec it once.

[cali]

26. This is an excellent post. beautifully stated.

[alp227]

41. "the state will consider itself higher than the people and then we will be treated as subjects"

Hmm isn't that a common right wing/libertarian talking point?