54 minutes ago, TylerF said:

You act like all Law Enforcement in the United States is itching to shoot somebody.

 

" Why is it that OUR cops have to use deadly force..." Really? Speaking in generalizations much? Out of the ~800,000 LEOs in the United States, and the tens of thousands of LE contacts that happen on a daily basis, that's an awfully ridiculous statement.

 

huh? You're not making any sense. I was referring to the many situations in which the cops say that they "had to use deadly force" or "were forced to use deadly force" in order to stop someone wielding a knife. At no point did I act like they're itching to shoot people, but claiming that they are far quicker to use deadly force than police in the UK is a statistical fact.

 

 

54 minutes ago, TylerF said:

Besides, this is a good example of a goat rope. The officers here failing to use deadly force when presented with a deadly force scenario not only puts them and their co-workers as severe risk, but the public at large as well by failing to sufficiently and quickly stop the threat. If they can't protect themselves, they cannot protect the public. Also, the actions and reactions presented by the officers show a lack of training and mindset in dealing with a deadly force situation.

 

Not saying all UK Law Enforcement is like this, however it's a good counter to the broad claim of " while cops in the UK handle those situations without needing to? "

 

 

Yeah, we don't live in a black and white world. There's a spectrum of situations that warrants a spectrum of responses. But is anyone in that situation worse off because a gun wasn't involved? Is British society worse off because those officers didn't unload firearms into that deranged guy? I certainly don't think so. Plus, not having guns forced those officers to do something that US cops definitely rarely do when presented with a threat: retreat.

Edited May 24, 20178 yr by Riley24

41 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

huh? You're not making any sense. I was referring to the many situations in which the cops say that they "had to use deadly force" or "were forced to use deadly force" in order to stop someone wielding a knife. At no point did I act like they're itching to shoot people, but claiming that they are far quicker to use deadly force than police in the UK is a statistical fact.

 

 

Yeah, we don't live in a black and white world. There's a spectrum of situations that warrants a spectrum of responses. But is anyone in that situation worse off because a gun wasn't involved? Is British society worse off because those officers didn't unload firearms into that deranged guy? I certainly don't think so. Plus, not having guns forced those officers to do something that US cops definitely rarely do when presented with a threat: retreat.

 

 You did? You made no mention of the part bolded in the post I replied too. When you write in terms of absolutes, such as " Why is it that OUR cops have to use deadly force, while cops in the UK handle those situations without needing to?", then pardon me for taking what you wrote at face value.

 

FWIW, those officers were armed. They had Glocks in drop leg holsters.

 

And they didn't retreat, they fled. Backs turned to the subject, running. Leaving their compatriot alone behind screaming and cowering behind a brick pillar. Only when the one officer came back and made the extremely dangerous and risky move of engaging the subject in one on one melee with a extendable baton did the rest come back and were able to secure the subject.

 

They got lucky, nothing more. That could of easily ended up with an officer seriously injured or killed. Their bad tactics escalated the situation beyond where it should of gotten. They never should of been that close, they should not of used LtL without lethal cover, their complete lack of aggressiveness or proper mindset allowed the subject to control the situation once he started to advance, fleeing without cover, having visual of the subject or keeping tabs of your partners, and engaging in melee with an individual with a deadly weapon.

 

In use of force situations, officer safety is the number one concern. If you cannot safety do your job, it's not just you and your partners at risk, but the public at large. Proper OS will also minimize the escalation of force in UoF incidents.

Edited May 24, 20178 yr by TylerF

10 minutes ago, TylerF said:

You did? You made no mention of the part bolded in the post I replied too. When you write in terms of absolutes, such as " Why is it that OUR cops have to use deadly force, while cops in the UK handle those situations without needing to?", then pardon me for taking what you wrote at face value.

Is speaking in generalities expressly forbidden? Now that you've said that, I'm gonna keep an eye on everything you post here and make sure you never use generalities. And what I said was absolutely true, there have been many cases of even moderately questionable use of force in response to knife-wielding suspects.

 

10 minutes ago, TylerF said:

FWIW, those officers were armed. They had Glocks in drop leg holsters.

 

And they didn't retreat, they fled. Backs turned to the subject, running. Leaving their compatriot alone behind screaming and cowering behind a brick pillar. Only when the one officer came back and made the extremely dangerous and risky move of engaging the subject in one on one melee with a extendable baton did the rest come back and were able to secure the subject.

 

They got lucky, nothing more. That could of easily ended up with an officer seriously injured or killed. Their bad tactics escalated the situation beyond where it should of gotten. They never should of been that close, they should not of used LtL without lethal cover, their complete lack of aggressiveness or proper mindset allowed the subject to control the situation once he started to advance, fleeing without cover or keeping tabs of your partners, and engaging in melee with an individual with a deadly weapon.

 

In use of force situations, officer safety is the number one concern. If you cannot safety do your job, it's not just you and your partners at risk, but the public at large.

Why are you talking so much about that one incident? I quite frankly don't really care. The situation was messy and not preferable in a lot of ways, but I would prefer a messy situation in which no one is killed over a messy situation where someone is killed. The job of the police is to protect the citizenry, officer safety is not the most important thing when looking at those incidents. Their mindset was "lets bring this guy in without killing him", and they did JUST THAT. Very rarely do I see someone monday morning quarterback bodycam videos with perfect endings and try to argue that someone who's alive should be dead. Very peculiar argument you've tried to make.

Edited May 24, 20178 yr by Riley24

3 minutes ago, Riley24 said:

Is speaking in generalities expressly forbidden? Now that you've said that, I'm gonna keep an eye on everything you post here and make sure you never use generalities. And what I said was absolutely true, there have been many cases of even moderately questionable use of force in response to knife-wielding suspects.

 

Why are you talking so much about that one incident? I quite frankly don't really care. The situation was messy and not preferable in a lot of ways, but I would prefer a messy situation in which no one is killed over a messy situation where someone is killed. The job of the police is to protect the citizenry, officer safety is not the most important thing when looking at those incidents.

 

Heh, if you want to archive my posts, be my guest.

 

You raised questions about the incident, I gave you my overview in detail.

 

And regards to your last sentence see: Warren v. District of Columbia

9 minutes ago, TylerF said:

 

Heh, if you want to archive my posts, be my guest.

 

You raised questions about the incident, I gave you my overview in detail.

 

And regards to your last sentence see: Warren v. District of Columbia

I didn't want to spark an entire conversation about the video you shared, there's not enough relevant material there to discuss.

 

And go start a thread about Warren v. District of Columbia if you want to discuss that, because it holds no relevance here.

 

Edited May 24, 20178 yr by Riley24

The job of Law Enforcement is to enforce the law. That is the public service they provide to the public at large. In doing so that protects the individual, but that is a secondary result of their primary mission.

 

Anywho, claw hammer guy was quite on topic to the whole discussion of "lethal force" as far as I'm concerned.

Interesting that when discussing the allegedly excessive usage of force by American cops, the first argument (usually) is that UK police is mainly unarmed. To me this is strange because a) most European police is armed, b) the UK is a very special country with its special traditions and ways of life. Unarmed police is more a tradition than a practical need. 

 

At the same time I'd agree with Riley on that one. To me it's strange that in the US in most cases I'm aware of (thanks to the news) gun is a first (and obviously last) resort. The last case with officer Betty Shelby totally stunned me (for the reference - https://www.yahoo.com/news/tulsa-braces-protests-officer-acquitted-killing-unarmed-man-170822982.html

 

I believe that lethal force may be justifiable for a knife, for a boulder and even for an unarmed person -- if there's a clear and present danger. For example in the above video I would never question the use of deadly force. However, the whole concept of justifying the use of legal force "if an officer feels threatened" is completely incomprehensible for me.

For what it's worth, Officer Safety is different from UoF. They are related, but they do not cancel each other out.

21 hours ago, Riley24 said:

Here's what I don't get. Patrol officers in the US have guns, officers in the UK do not. Cops in the US have guns because we have a ridiculously well armed populace, and cops in the UK dont have guns because guns are very uncommon.

 

But when it comes to knives, the logic doesn't apply. Both countries have knives, and crazy/dangerous suspects that weild them. Why is it that OUR cops have to use deadly force, while cops in the UK handle those situations without needing to? We should expect more restraint and patience from our cops, instead of just using deadly force simply because they have it. 

 

As far as why we "have" to use deadly force...we don't always use deadly force against suspects with knives.  We are given the privilege to protect ourselves from great bodily harm or death.  Speaking from my own experience, I have come up against at least 3 suspects armed with knives and I didn't shoot them.  So to say that we cops in the US need to show more restraint: you're simply stereotyping us (because, we do show a ton of restraint).  

On 5/23/2017 at 7:19 AM, Hastings said:

Is that a statutory definition or from a policy of a particular PD? 

 

By the way, how the UOF is regulated in the US? Is there a law at least on a state's level or it all goes down to court practice and policies of departments? 

Each state has their own use of force guidelines for their police.  That one that I quoted is the justification for the use of deadly force for my state.  As far as determining if it's reasonable, we are governed by the same law as a citizen (self defense).  We don't get to use higher levels of force just because we are cops.  

15 hours ago, SpiderCenturion said:

Each state has their own use of force guidelines for their police.  That one that I quoted is the justification for the use of deadly force for my state.  As far as determining if it's reasonable, we are governed by the same law as a citizen (self defense).  We don't get to use higher levels of force just because we are cops.  

This is a really interesting point you made. I heard and saw a lot about "officer felt threatened" as a ground for the use of force. It seems really vague to me because it's a concept that is absent in my country's legal system (here it's all about proving there was violence dangerous for life or health). So in your state the standards of determining whether the deadly force was reasonable are the same for law enforcement as well as civilians?

5 hours ago, Hastings said:

This is a really interesting point you made. I heard and saw a lot about "officer felt threatened" as a ground for the use of force. It seems really vague to me because it's a concept that is absent in my country's legal system (here it's all about proving there was violence dangerous for life or health). So in your state the standards of determining whether the deadly force was reasonable are the same for law enforcement as well as civilians?

It doesn't matter if someone is unarmed, unarmed does not mean not dangerous.  And yes, officer self-protection holds to the same standards as civillians.

On 5/4/2017 at 3:22 AM, Hastings said:

Guess that would be a risk only in the US or another country where people like suing the state, because apart from negative court decisions and damages, what's the matter? It's not like shooting the suspect is better than stabbing, considering that US cops aim for the center of mass.

 

In my country they do things differently partially because they have no tasers, partially because the DA would be glad to lock a cop up if he kills a suspect with a slightest procedural violation. So, legs and arms shots (if the danger is not imminent, that is)

You know how hard it is to hit a moving target, especially with a sidearm?

1 minute ago, OfficerRoguTure said:

It doesn't matter if someone is unarmed, unarmed does not mean not dangerous.  And yes, officer self-protection holds to the same standards as civillians.

I sorta know a bit about unarmed and dangerous, thanks.

 

By the way, is this only in certain states or is this a general rule in the US?

Just now, Hastings said:

I sorta know a bit about unarmed and dangerous, thanks.

 

By the way, is this only in certain states or is this a general rule in the US?

It's a general rule in the US, although among certain states there may be biased rulings in the justice system. 

On 5/25/2017 at 3:19 AM, Hastings said:

This is a really interesting point you made. I heard and saw a lot about "officer felt threatened" as a ground for the use of force. It seems really vague to me because it's a concept that is absent in my country's legal system (here it's all about proving there was violence dangerous for life or health). So in your state the standards of determining whether the deadly force was reasonable are the same for law enforcement as well as civilians?

"Felt threatened" is what the media likes to say, but the justification is the same (death or great bodily harm).  If a guy threatens us, we can't just shoot them...so 'felt threatened' really isn't accurate in the states.  A citizen who faces the threat of death or great bodily harm is afforded the privilege of deadly force then too.  You hear about cops using deadly force more obviously because we are put in those situations more often than a normal citizen. 

*Deleted*

Edited June 11, 20178 yr by Warwick

Asking whether lethal force is justifiable in response to _________ is pointless.

Lethal force is always and only justified when faced with the immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm.

It doesn't matter what that harm is coming from, it could be a gun, it could be a knife, it could be a really sharp broken teacup held to your throat; it doesn't matter.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-attack-single-police-officer-took-terrorists-armed-baton-borough-a7772251.html

Well...

 

Quote

A British Transport Police officer took on all three London Bridge attackers armed only with a baton, it has been revealed.

The officer was one of the first responders to the scene and received stab wounds to his face, head and leg, while attempting to stop the van and stabbing rampage in a busy area of the city.

If he had a gun, he might not end up in the hospital in a severe condition. I sincerely hopes this officer will recover. He's obviously a very brave and honest person, one that people can count on.

*Deleted*

Edited June 11, 20178 yr by Warwick

2 hours ago, Warwick said:

British Police are a joke, even if its not their fault.

They're actually very skilled at general policing, and even in extreme cases like this, managed an effective response within eight minutes of the attack happening.

 

What exactly do you consider funny about them? If it's the pointy helmets, I'd be willing to agree, but otherwise....

2 hours ago, Warwick said:

British Police are a joke, even if its not their fault.

 

Can't wait to see a US cop trying to fight crime with no weapon other than a baton, we'll see how they perform. That, will be a joke. But British police is clearly the opposite of that.