There is no reason why a department should have to remind someone to think before they act. I am not yet a LEO but isn't that a basic requirement?

You'd think so.

Here's the thing: In the US, the way this *actually* tends to go is:

Officer: What are you doing?

Man doing something that looks mildly shady: Just ---

Officer: *draws* Don't move! *shoots* Stop resisting!

...later...

Police department: "That man had XYZ arrest record, so was clearly a risk. The officer made a split-second decision because he felt his life was at risk. Policing is a very dangerous job, and the cop had the right to go home for dinner."

 

This, basically: 

 

 

Gladly the man wasn't fatally injured, but I mean, the cop asks for his driver license, and when he goes for it, he gets shot at, what's the possible positive outcome with such cops?

< snip >

Edited June 23, 20241 yr by tobeymaguire

Maybe, if police were taught to disable the subject only, that would leave the ones who would have been fatally killed only injured. Now, I'm not saying this is a great thing but it's improvement on top of what is put into place. Then, if you can apply the whole stay-calm thing that this topic is discussing, it would be better. Put in body cameras, tad bit more. Doing more than one thing would begin to give both sides equal power, and possibly keep the one side (police) calmer and less deadly. With all the reported shootings, more people want more guns to protect themselves or get "revenge" for what an officer has done. The people are afraid and they're just doing what they think is best, so the officer comes back with more force. At least, that is my understanding. But if we can stop the officer's force in the first place everyone would be happy campers.

 

What exactly do you mean, maybe if the police were trained to disable the subject only? They aren't trained to pull out their guns in every situation, the gun is usually the last resort. So aren't they already trained to disable the subject (ie. taser or baton that most cops don't use), until the option of lethal force is necessary?

< snip >

Edited June 23, 20241 yr by tobeymaguire

See, if we're going of all the "split second decisions" of what I was on with CP, it's that the officers don't pull out those kind of things when they're in these situations. They go straight for the gun because they feel the person several feet away is dangerous. So if you can't stop them from pulling their gun instead of something else, more training to keep them calm with their gun as a back up would be great. At least this is how I think.

Ah ok problem is how do you train them to do it? All these non lethal options are not perfect. I do agree with you that cops should be trained to go for the less lethal option more, but I think overdoing would put the officers at too much risk. Human instinct will always take over imo. I also believe that training should go both ways, teach people what movements are threatening towards police officers (like reaching towards waistband). It shouldn't be a one way street, teach the public as well.

Ah ok problem is how do you train them to do it? All these non lethal options are not perfect. I do agree with you that cops should be trained to go for the less lethal option more, but I think overdoing would put the officers at too much risk. Human instinct will always take over imo. I also believe that training should go both ways, teach people what movements are threatening towards police officers (like reaching towards waistband). It shouldn't be a one way street, teach the public as well.

Here's my issue with "train the public:" Police volunteered to take a job. That job has some amount of risk. It's not the job of everyone else to adjust to them so that police don't feel threatened -- if something *could* be a threatening motion but could very well not be, it's the job of the police to deal with the confusion. There are some situations where it's reasonable for police to feel threatened (if you're pulled over and jump out pointing a BB gun at the police, expect to get shot), but in general it's the job of the police to adjust to what everyone else does. There's a balance between putting cops at risk and putting everyone else at risk; having it all the way on one side or the other is obviously ridiculous, but it should really be more on the side of putting at risk the police who signed up for the risk and are paid to take it.

I prefer the turn around and count out loud which is being taught by the LAPD now.
http://www.callthecops.net/lapd-institutes-turn-around-count-loud-policy-de-escalate-tense-calls/
(If you can't tell, it's a satire new site and isn't actually being put into place)