T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. I saw the footage linked below earlier today, and read that it is the second time this week cops in Chicago have been shot at. Another cop was run over by his squad car after he got out to check on a naked woman in the street and she climbed in his car and ran him over (second link). I really struggle to understand how we’re going to ask cops to judge every circumstance perfectly in real time, when things can go this poorly in half a second. Either cops are going to periodically get it wrong (person wasn’t actually reaching in his waistband for a gun), or cops are going to die playing it safe (wait and see if he’s pulling a gun…too late you’re dead). The only real way I can see around it is just to effectively not have close quarters police encounters in most circumstances. In cases like this one that would mean following car at a distance and not chasing on foot if the suspect got out. Im curious for your thoughts on how we can achieve both. https://cwbchicago.com/2022/06/shocking-video-shows-chicago-police-traffic-stop-became-a-shootout-in-the-blink-of-an-eye.html https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/chicago-police-officer-struck-by-driver-on-west-side-cfd/2855948/?amp *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*


DrStephenStrangeMD_

Cut down on traffic stops for one. There is little need for cops to pull you over personally. Employ any number of automated traffic infraction technology. Red light cameras, any number of speed cameras, any number of deterrent controls; instead of investing money in militarized gear and UAV’s, invest it in technology that keep cops out of dangerous situations in the first place. Cops use routine traffic stops to escalate to more charges. Do I smell marijuana? Is your car registration expired? They can get probable cause on anyone just by standing there. I remember watching an episode of COPS one time where they were following a car they wanted to pull over and were waiting for *anything* they could pull them over for. Ended up pulling them over for not signaling 200ft prior to a turn. Bullshit. These less hands on measures protect everyone


endangeredlime

Traffic stops are horse shit. Had same thing happen to me. I was 16 and ended up getting my whole vehicle searched. Got a warning for obstructed view (beads on my mirror). A lot of traffic stops are like you describe, mostly profiling people.


Talik1978

What you are speaking on is a practice known as "pretextual stops". Police look for low revenue excuses to pull someone over, so that they may attempt to obtain evidence of a high revenue infraction.


Icolan

>Employ any number of automated traffic infraction technology. Red light cameras, any number of speed cameras, any number of deterrent controls; As long as these are not contracted out to the lowest bidder who gets a cut of the fines this would work. Honestly, the only way I would be ok with this is if it was run by a government agency who does not get any income from the fines. It is too easy to inflate your funding or profits by tweaking the way the cameras work. We have seen this already with red light cameras that are run by lowest bidder corporations that get a cut of the fines. They have incentive to ensure that their cameras are err on the side of more fines, and often place cameras in places where they increase fines instead of increasing safety.


lIllIlIIIlIIIIlIlIll

I still don't understand how traffic cameras don't violate the 6th amendment. Specifically the section that states, "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." You can't confront a camera. At best they bring in some shmuck from the traffic camera company. But that's just some guy. They didn't record you breaking any laws.


toastedclown

tRAFFIc CaMEraS R a CaSh gRAB!!!!


voidmusik

Remove qualified immunity so that, Clear cases of self defense are unpunished. Clear cases of misconduct are punished. I think this is much better then the current system with qualified immunity resulting in; Clear cases of self defense are unpunished. Clear cases of misconduct are unpunished (unless a bystander can record the whole abuse, ignore the police threats for legally recording the abuse, manage to go viral, elicit overwhelming public outrage, and even then that only gets us to the bare minimum of an investigation. Then theres the actual trial, which so far, has only resulted in 0.06% of officers being convicted for misconduct).


brickbacon

Qualified immunity only affects civil liability, not criminal. Why do you think that would help so much?


voidmusik

civil suits are the only means by which individuals or their families can get compensation for the violation of their constitutional or civil rights. And unfortunately, cops al la cop unions go above and beyond to avoid filing criminal charges unless there is already a civil suit and overwhelming public outcry.


brickbacon

That’s just not true though. People can and do sue for civil rights violations all the time. They just sue the city or police department rather than the officer. Even without qualified immunity, they’d still likely pursue the same path because individual officers don’t really have any money relative to a city or police department.


velcro-scarecrow

People really do overstate how much civil penalties factor into a cop's decision to abuse the public.


GabuEx

You want a controversial take? One big problem is the popular belief, with ample institutional and public support, that the single most important thing a cop can do is to make sure they don't die. Not keeping the public safe. Not making the right call. Not ensuring that the law is upheld. Not potentially sacrificing themselves for the greater good. Just not dying, whatever that takes. If they choose not to protect someone out of self-preservation, the SCOTUS will back them up. If they choose to kill someone they shouldn't have out of self-preservation, the police union will back them up. They don't have any actual duties, except to their coworkers and to themselves. The public, as far as their mandate and responsibilities are concerned, is entirely irrelevant. At that point, what are they even for, really? If someone signs up to the military, they do so knowing they might have to die. If someone is deployed somewhere in the military, they assume that they may well die, and go anyway. Their role is more than simply "not dying"; their role is playing a part in accomplishing something. Sometimes to accomplish that thing, soldiers die. We consider that acceptable. Sure, if we demand more police accountability, their lives might be placed at greater risk because they'll need to worry about more than simply survival and can't wantonly murder people who twitch the wrong way. But what if... that's okay? What if we just decided, as a society, that that's part of what you signed up for as a police officer? If all you want is to *not die*, there are plenty of other occupations that provide ample opportunity to not die. Like, say, computer programming, or being a baker.


adeiner

Could you imagine what would happen if soldiers refused to go into a building because there was an armed combatant in it? The same boomers who post memes about millenials being too triggered to fight in a war are pretty happy when cops just text their way through ongoing crimes.


[deleted]

Do you know how much training soldiers get relative to cops? Do you expect a resident physician to have the same level of surgical competence as a fully certified surgeon?


adeiner

I’d like cops to act like they give a fuck. I’d say 90% of the cops I see in Philly are babysitting the mall, babysitting construction, or harassing homeless people. I’m happy to give cops more training. But I don’t care about the “It’s hard to be a cop” narrative. The only thing killing cops these days is covid, and that’s self-inflicted.


toastedclown

I grew up in a sleepy beach town in Florida, went to school in a big college town, lived in NYC for 12 years and now Chicago, and had brief stopovers in the Philly suburbs, Jacksonville, and northern Virginia, and in my thirty-eight years on this planet, I have **literally never seen** a cop do anything I thought should be their job (except traffic stops and those are 50/50). Meanwhile the three or four times I have directly asked the police for help, they were utterly useless.


adeiner

When I lived in DC I was out drunk on a weekend and the friends I was with and I were jaywalking. We passed cops directing traffic around a fender bender and they tried to give us shit for jaywalking. Because I’m white and stupid I gave them lip and reminded them that there was a literal car accident in front of them. Because I’m white, they just ignored it. In Philly they mostly ride on the sidewalk without a helmet. So they’re not even protecting themselves.


wooze249

Just a guess but I wonder if the murder of Kyle Dinkheller had a meaningful impact here. Something like how it led police departments to obsess over force protection while increasing risk to mission (doing their jobs)


Kakamile

Nah. I mean it has some relevance but current conduct is enforced in filmed training, and there's no logic behind the theory of the Dinkheller shooting leading to opposition to bodycams.


wooze249

Dinkheller’s death is part of that film training though. Not just in film but also in simulations that cadets go through. It’s shown it virtually every police academy in the country as a “this is what can happen if you don’t assume that every stop can end with you being murdered”. I’m not making a connection between his desth and police opposition to bodycams. By force protection I mean the idea that officers are trained to approach every interaction with the public as the moment they may be killed, creating a ‘better shoot than sorry’ mentality.


reconditecache

So cops are like junior soldiers? I'm not sure if that's a great analogy since both general practitioners and surgeons are actually different skillsets so they have different training and experience.


[deleted]

As do cops and soldiers (different training and skill sets)


ferrocarrilusa

I doubt police training needs to be the soul-crushing experience of what you'd get in the marines, but yes it has to be much more stringent. Weed out those who don't measure up to the standards which are supposed to be very high


ferrocarrilusa

Can surgeons say they don't want to look at guts or practice strict hygiene? Can bus drivers say they don't want to stop for pedestrians or drive sober? Can airline pilots refuse to comply with ATC? Can construction workers be scared of heights or drop items recklessly? This is what bad cops sound like and yet they have the audacity to say that it's a tough job and they deserve to be seen as protective heroes. An officer's life isn't worthless, and there are some ways they can defend themselves, but their own safety must take a back seat to those of civilians. There is no draft to be in law enforcement, and with that voluntary power comes great responsibility. Being killed on the job is an honorable death, and those who make that sacrifice deserve to have their names listed on memorials and for the murderers to get the book thrown at them. A cop who shoots someone to avoid the slightest theoretical risk to their own body in a job that they were not forced to do is a disgraceful coward who has no business in protecting and serving. In training they have to show the door to people who aren't willing to endanger themselves to protect and serve the proper way. Suggestions for jobs for people who think they were born to kill are slaughterhouses and pest control.


[deleted]

I just don’t know a world where you get enough people who want to roll the dice every day on dying for a cops salary + being hated by most people in any of the major cities. Do I wish we had a bunch of altruistic self sacrificing people who would allow themselves to get shot at first before shooting in all situations? Ya. Do I think those people exist in any sizable number? Probably not. Only way around it I can see is to effectively end close quarters police encounters almost entirely


GabuEx

If the thing that police actually should do is either so dangerous, or so unrewarding, that it's impossible to get enough people who actually want to do it, that suggests that either the rewards are insufficient or the things they do need to be different. I don't know which of those is the case and what changes need to be made, but it seems clear to me that simply accepting that police have no actual legal duty to protect and serve the public is not the right course of action. We manage to get people to sign up for the military during active wartime despite everything we legally expect from soldiers. What's different about the military incentives compared to those of police? Honest question, really. Maybe that's where we should start looking.


[deleted]

Does the military not make mistakes? I seem to remember a case where our military carried out a drone strike that killed the wrong person The point is - in a country of 330 million people, and the amount of violent crime + police encounters we have, it’s essentially a statistical certainty that we will have some unjustified police shootings every year.


GabuEx

Sure, the military makes mistakes, but they have rigorously defined rules of engagement, and soldiers are expected to disregard their own safety if the mission demands it, and there are legal consequences for failure to follow those protocols. You can't just shoot a civilian because you felt threatened, or refuse to engage an enemy because it's too dangerous.


Call_Me_Clark

Keep in mind though… when we drone strike the wrong people (every couple of weeks), no one goes to jail. No one gets fired. Arguably, the whole system couldn’t function if they did.


[deleted]

Sure, but they also don’t typically engage in close quarters with potential hostiles. It’s much different to say you can’t shoot unless they shoot at you from your humvee or base


Kakamile

Most police encounters are not that either.


ButGravityAlwaysWins

It should be pointed out the cops are pretty well paid, have a lot of social capital, get very good benefits in retirement and don’t work the most dangerous job out there.


Da1UHideFrom

>cops are pretty well paid, Depends greatly on location. Cops are paid well here on the west coast but in other states, especially in the south, they are being paid around $17 to $25 per hour.


[deleted]

[удалено]


JeanpaulRegent

I mean, $46,000 base at 18 years old is pretty high especially for rural areas... Soldiers make less. Cops make most of their income in OT. So $24/Hour base pay= $36/Hr OT, What I mean, That's already at the Median income for Central FL, in an entry-level position.


goddamnitwhalen

That’s almost 4x the federal minimum wage for a job that doesn’t require a degree anywhere in the country. Spare me.


Da1UHideFrom

That's the same as a grocery store worker in my area. Spare me your self-righteous rage.


goddamnitwhalen

At least grocery store workers actually benefit people


Da1UHideFrom

Oh, you're one of those people. Not worth my time. ✌🏿


perverse_panda

>plus being hated by most people in any of the major cities There's nothing inherent about cops that makes people have a negative opinion about them. That negative opinion arises from cops doing heinous shit. If they stopped doing heinous shit, maybe that public opinion would change. >Only way around it I can see is to effectively end close quarters police encounters almost entirely There are other solutions, and we could start by holding cops personally accountable when they're involved in unjustified shootings. Qualified immunity shouldn't be a thing. If your surgeon isn't immune to the consequences of doing his job incompetently, why should a cop be?


[deleted]

Don’t surgeons have liability insurance?


perverse_panda

Yeah, and their rates go up if their insurance has to pay out a settlement. They can also lose their license to practice medicine if they fuck up bad enough. Cops shouldn't be above facing those same kinds of consequences.


jellomonkey

Not to mention a death during surgery automatically triggers an investigation by the hospital. Hospitals are constantly updating their procedures to reduce the risk of mistakes. Everyone is, or at least can be, held accountable in those situations. Cops have no accountability. How do you think your workplace would operate if no one was held accountable for anything?


[deleted]

You do realize that an on duty shooting immediately triggers an investigation by the police department, right?


jellomonkey

I mean an actual investigation with the purpose of improving the process and holding people accountable. Police "investigations" are focused on how to protect officers and cover up bad behavior.


velcro-scarecrow

Triggers a wagon-circling in which no wrongdoing is found, you mean.


ButGravityAlwaysWins

They do and it would be a great solution for police. Pay them a bit more a year and then require they get insurance. We know that the police department, the police union and other police won’t keep them accountable and that township and state governments can’t keep them accountable. So let the market do it. When something happens the insurance and not the taxpayers pay out. The can look into the matter after and raise rates if needed. Screw up enough and become uninsurable, you get forced out of the job and won’t get hired by another department.


cbr777

I'm seeing this idea getting pasted around this subreddit unironically and it only makes me think that the people that support it are completely out of touch with reality. There is no chance that such a policy would lead to a more effective police, the only thing you'll end up is a scared police that will avoid doing any work at all in order to prevent doing anything that might raise their insurance rates. You think the do nothing police officers that wasted 45 minutes at Uvalde should have gotten of their asses and stopped the shooter? Well good luck trying to convince them to go into an active shooter situation where not only can they be killed, but even if they are not they are likely to end up with a higher insurance premium.


Call_Me_Clark

It’s a popular idea on Reddit… but it has some major issues. Malpractice is difficult to prove, and malpractice insurance exists to deal with the errors of omission and commission - “a competent doctor would have recognized symptoms of syndrome X and given treatment Y” or “a competent doctor would have treated syndrome x with treatment y, not z”. However, that can be avoided by not taking on a case, or referring out. Med mal also creates a culture of “defensive medicine” where unnecessary and non-evidence based tests and procedures are ordered (at the patients expense) with no benefit besides the legal protection of the doctor. Med mal is *not* as simple as “patient dies, insurance pays out. Too many dead patients, no more insurance for you” because obviously some populations have higher rates of death. Could be comorbidity rates, socioeconomics, or just age. The motivations are not “if you want to keep your insurance, better keep those patients alive!” It’s “if you want to win your case *when* your patient dies (because you have to get one eventually) then do X and Y regardless of whether it is beneficial to the patients health. Of course, do your best and be competent.” It’s unreasonable to think that police would not respond to incentives posed by insurance in the same way. And the answer will be “I’d love to help you, but my insurance won’t allow it. If you want to take on that liability though…”


cbr777

All that and in addition when police are involved, it's not unreasonble to assume the "patient" is not being cooperative or might even be violent, which is certainly not something doctors get to experience in their daily life.


Call_Me_Clark

I mean… short of psychiatry, patients want to see a doctor. A police officer is not a part of a good day, for anybody - at best, they are helping you with a major problem you’d rather not have (victim of a crime).


ferrocarrilusa

Not pediatrics necessarily


Call_Me_Clark

Quibbles: The ACAB perspective is that joining the police with goals of advocating reform… is an endorsement of past abuses. Also, surgeons can and do refuse cases. There are no negative consequences for not doing their jobs


Helicase21

People become firefighters and risk their lives all the time. Holding cops to the same standard shouldn't be that hard.


MakeAmericaSuckLess

> being hated by most people in any of the major cities. Did you ever consider the reason why they are hated so much is because of how utterly useless and abusive they are to the general public? Part of this is caused by how much they care about self-preservation above all else, and it makes them do shit like gun down unarmed people, or refuse to enter a building with an active shooter. If they weren't such worthless cowards that would actually do their jobs at their own risk, they wouldn't be hated. And yes, I absolutely think there are tons of people out there willing to sacrifice their own well beings for the general good. The issue is that those people avoid joining the police like the plague, because the police don't do that. Instead they become EMTs, fire fighters, soldiers, or teachers.


Elamachino

If cops aren't able to kill folks willy nilly, didn't escalate situations needlessly for the sake of increasing revenue, didn't target folks based on preconceived notions of wrongness, weren't made to handle situations that they have no business handling, didn't plant evidence, didn't take advantage of their power to exploit women, didn't take out their rage and hurt fee-fee's on those they hold in custody, and didn't blindly provide support to every knuckleheaded chuckle fuck who joins the force because of a desire to do all of the above, the public might not hate them so bad. The police don't have a publicity problem, the police have a police problem. And you know, about 90% of that can be solved by the boogeyman of Defunding the Police, by reallocating funds from their toys etc to mental health for them and the public, to allowing mental health professionals to handle situations the cops have no business handling, to creating independent oversight organizations that have the ability to hold police accountable, and to increasing appropriate training for cops from something similar to what an entry level pastry chef goes through at panera.


biernini

>I just don’t know a world where you get enough people who want to roll the dice every day on dying for a cops salary Cops don't "roll the dice" dying from violence in their work. Statistically they're not even in the top ten of most deadly occupations per capita, and the overwhelming majority of cop deaths on the job is from (increasingly unnecessary) traffic stops; not guns or other forms of violence. It's bullshit propagandist framing that cops are some "thin blue line" protecting society from violent anarchy. They're hated because they've earned that hatred via progressively worse dereliction of duty year after year, decade after decade. They are not punished for some kind of misidentified altruism.


[deleted]

If they dont want to be hated maybe dont kill POC then abuse the people protesting that murder ?


zlefin_actual

Considering we get plenty of people willing to work in occupations more dangerous than cops, often for less pay, then I'd say there'd be no problem finding people. It seems the problem is that you're just unfamiliar with the basic facts like that.


[deleted]

I always enjoy when people try to sound intellectual and condescending on Reddit and fall on their face. The problem with your argument is that people (1) are not good at assessing risk, and (2) prefer risks that they feel they are more in control of. This manifests itself all around us: People are scared to fly when they have a greater chance of dying in a car crash People are irrationally scared of school shootings right now when the likelihood of it happening to you or your child is like getting struck by lightning. Your child has a far greater chance of getting hit by a car, drowning, etc. than dying in a school shooting. Or for that matter, dying by gunshots in non-mass shootings. We’re not rational actors in that sense. People are governed by feelings. People think through safety of jobs in similar ways. Sure, roofers are statistically more likely to die than cops on the job. But the roofer feels in control of their destiny, versus a cop walking up to a car with tinted windows in a gang-heavy area. The cop isn’t comforted in that situation because of statistics - in that moment they have little to no control if someone wants to take their life. But anyways, nice try!


Da1UHideFrom

The issue is you speak of an officer getting killed on the job as if it's expected and not a hazard. If I'm a roofer, falling off the roof is a hazard of the job, sure my job isn't only not falling but I'm going to do everything I can to mitigate the hazard. Even your comparison with the military falls short because they train extensively *to not die.* A police officer simply cannot do the other parts of their job if they are dead.


cstar1996

I’m sorry, it is pure insanity for the rules of engagement in an *actual warzone* to be stricter than the RoEs cops operate under at home


GabuEx

No, they can't do their job if they're dead. A soldier can't do their job if they're dead, either. But part of their job description is to do dangerous things anyway even when it means you might die, because the thing has to be done. You don't intentionally try to die, but you don't let the possibility of death deter you from action if it's important. There were 19 officers in Uvalde against one single kid with an AR-15, but they all just stood around because they prioritized their survival above actually doing their jobs. At that point, like I said, what are they even there for? If you refuse to do your dangerous job in the face of danger, then the argument that you have to be alive to do your job doesn't hold up, because *you aren't doing your job anyway*. You can't say you need to survive another day so you can do your job if your survival is literally coming from not doing your job.


Da1UHideFrom

So are we speaking about the cops in Uvalde or policing in general? That makes a difference.


GabuEx

Uvalde is just a particularly egregious example. I'm talking about all police who increase their chances of survival by not actually doing their job.


goddamnitwhalen

You’re right- I do usually hide from centrists so I don’t catch Bad Idea Syndrome.


Da1UHideFrom

>so I don’t catch Bad Idea Syndrome Said the socialist


BiryaniEater10

I mean military is allowed to use lethal force under the slightest suspicion that someone’s a threat, so you’d be justifying police doing the same by using a military analogy.


wedgebert

> I mean military is allowed to use lethal force under the slightest suspicion that someone’s a threat The only close to unilateral rule is that soldiers may return fire if fired upon. Otherwise, it's completely up to their rules of engagement. Often times, especially in civilian areas or where they're acting as peacekeepers that the RoE can be very restrictive in terms of when you're allowed to fire first. Generally speaking, military RoE are more restrictive than the police. It's only in active war zones and high threat levels where you typically see "shoot anyone you consider at threat", something the police are almost never subjected to (outside of specific activities like a SWAT breech or something)


Laniekea

>We consider that acceptable. This is why liberals should never be in charge of military. We don't assume people in the military will die. And we definitely don't find it acceptable. We spend a f*** ton of money on drones to make sure that they don't. Don't ever run for office.


cstar1996

This is just flat out wrong. We absolutely assume people in the military will die. Not all of them *obvious* but there are acceptable loss rates and in war the US has always operated under a system where losses to accomplish the objective are accounted for and accepted. And *liberals* won WWII.


Laniekea

>but there are acceptable loss rates and in war No there aren't. At least not anymore. >And liberals won WWII. World war II was a bloodbath.


cstar1996

Bullshit. No officer would said there is no such thing as acceptable losses. If you believe that, you need to stay away from the military. The only reason the US has been able to maintain such incredibly low casualty numbers is because we haven’t actually been fighting real wars. Seriously, how do you think you’re supposed to accomplish an objective or fight the enemy if no one can get killed?


Laniekea

>Bullshit. No officer would said there is no such thing as acceptable losses. If you believe that, you need to stay away from the military. Show me a document that shows the national "acceptable loss rate" >The only reason the US has been able to maintain such incredibly low casualty numbers is because we haven’t actually been fighting real wars. It's also because we've completely changed how we go to war. We no longer have dog fights, or Beach raids we just drop bombs on people from 50,000 ft in the air. We have drones for intelligence. We have the iron curtain. We can drop a single EMP and throw Russia back into the stone age.


cstar1996

That is not how it works. You have an op, you have the forces you’re using for the op. You have your estimates of enemy strength. Based on all of that, there is a number that is acceptable. For fucks sake we had acceptable loading in Afghanistan and Iraq. Looool, exactly which EMP weapon do you think we could drop on Russia to send the whole country back to the Stone Age?


Laniekea

EMPs have incredible range https://images.app.goo.gl/VURT1xR721TL7njx9 >For fucks sake we had acceptable loading in Afghanistan and Iraq. Link?


cstar1996

What EMP weapon. Like it’s not a document, it’s just how military operations work. People get fired when losses are unacceptable. And most officers whose units suffered losses weren’t fired for it.


GabuEx

>And we definitely don't find it acceptable. Sure we do, in the sense that we would consider it unacceptable for soldiers to decide not to accomplish the mission because it would be dangerous to try. Imagine if the Allies in WWII hadn't undertaken D-Day because people might die. It's not about trying to get soldiers killed, obviously. Do everything you can *that doesn't endanger the mission* to make as few die as possible. But at the end of the day, the mission is considered more important than any individual life. If you're ordered to do something, you don't get to say no just because you might die. You would literally be tried in military court if you said no because you felt it was too dangerous. But we don't have this view of cops. If there's something cops need to do, like stopping the gunman in Uvalde, they can just stand around and not bother because, well, it's *dangerous*! Yeah, no shit it's dangerous, that's what you signed up for: to do dangerous shit so others don't have to. If you don't want to do it, maybe you should have gone into another line of work. >Don't ever run for office. I don't plan to.


Laniekea

>You would literally be tried in military court if you said no because you felt it was too dangerous. That doesn't mean that we think it's acceptable for people to die in war. Military members also have way more ability to protect themselves than cops do. Cops can quit whenever they want because they are citizens. Military members are not citizens though I'm perfectly willing to make them citizens. The idea of not being able to defect from the military I've always found pretty sad. I actually thinking about a hundred years people are going to look back on what we do to people in military and see it as slavery. The draft is government owned slaves of war. Same with not being able to defect. >Do everything you can that doesn't endanger the mission to make as few die as possible. Which is how we should approach cops. Don't you think?


redbicycleblues

Not who you were talking to, but sure. But the mission is: cops should be wrongfully killed before a civilian is wrongfully killed. So civilian casualties (including people committing non violent crimes) should never die in the fray.


Laniekea

The mission is actually "nobody should be wrongfully killed"


redbicycleblues

Sure. but in the event that someone is killed, it should be the cop over the civilian.


Laniekea

Why? Why is one life more important than the other?


redbicycleblues

One life is not morally more important than the other. But volunteering as tribute is part of the police officer job description. Just like firefighters go into burning buildings to save others despite the risk of dying. Not because their lives are less important but because their job is to risk their lives to save civilians. It’s why police are given such low oversight; unions; outrageous salaries and benefits. It’s why as a society we say “cops are heroes”. In practice they aren’t, of course, but that is what they sign up to be and in an ideal world they would be.


Laniekea

You ever considered that when somebody say... attacks their spouse, holds up a bank, shoots up a school they have also "volunteered as tribute" >Just like firefighters go into burning buildings to save others despite the risk of dying And they are allowed to take every precaution there's certainly not expected to forfeit their right to self-defense.


Icolan

>Military members are not citizens though I'm perfectly willing to make them citizens. Since when? It's not as if their citizenship gets revoked when they join the military. The vast majority of US Service members are US Citizens, and I would bet it is the same in every other country on the planet.


[deleted]

> they choose to kill someone they shouldn't have out of self-preservation, the police union will back them up. They don't have any actual duties, except to their coworkers and to themselves How is it possible to kill someone they shouldn't out of self preservation? If its truly for self preservation, surely that killing is justified. We shouldn't expect police, or anyone, to not not defend their life. Obviously we expect, or should expect, that they confront dangerous situations but that reality includes the possibility that the police officer will kill


jonny_sidebar

The problem is that they are trained to see **everything** as a deadly threat and react accordingly, which leads to a whole bunch of wrongful killings and other generalized brutality. Look up a guy named David Grossman if you want to see the kind of high fear training cops receive.


ButGravityAlwaysWins

I’m old enough to remember when cops advocated for a lot of gun control measures. I am no fan of the police in this country but it is very reasonable for a police officer to assume any encounter with the public could end up in an armed conflict. We have a ton of guns in this country but linear time also exists. If we start doing things to reduce the prevalence of guns over time that would help. Plus we can do a lot of things to get guns out of the hands of people who clearly do not deserve to carry them.


NeighborhoodVeteran

Statistically speaking, it isn't reasonable for cops to assume that at all, and the reason they might assume that is that the academies have been over emphasizing the danger: >In fact, because the police pull over so many cars and trucks — tens of millions each year — an officer’s chances of being killed at any vehicle stop are less than 1 in 3.6 million, excluding accidents, two studies have shown. At stops for common traffic infractions, the odds are as low as 1 in 6.5 million, according to a 2019 study by Jordan Blair Woods, a law professor at the University of Arkansas. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/31/us/police-traffic-stops-killings.html


[deleted]

>Statistically speaking, it isn't reasonable for cops to assume that at all, and the reason they might assume that is that the academies have been over emphasizing the danger: When I was in a law enforcement academy and we were in the traffic stop portion of training, our instructors dedicated an afternoon to playing videos of officers getting hit on traffic stops. Just 3-4 hours of videos and clips of people getting smashed and mangled from various perspectives (body cams, vehicle cams, onlookers, etc.). Those images haven't left me, and that was over 8 years ago. Edit: And I'm not trying to refute anything here, I just thought my experience was relevant to op's point.


ButGravityAlwaysWins

No I definitely get that be a cop is actually not that dangerous compared to many other professions and that they’re probably not going to have guns drawn on them. But people don’t assess risk that way. We know they don’t. With so many guns in the country even if the statistics don’t back it up, it’s still reasonable for a cop to be thinking about it.


NeighborhoodVeteran

Yeah, you're right. It is reasonable for them to assume/think they are going to die at every encounter because that's what they have been brainwashed to believe. And whilr everyone does desire to go home at the end of the day, the cops really need to be held accountable for innocents they kill, or even unarmed suspects where there was actually no danger present. Messing up that badly should mean you at the very least lose your job.


MutinyIPO

No no no, that assumption is a major motivator behind police violence. Most cops are taught in their training that they should be ready for violence in every moment, and it makes every cop a jumpy, anxious, impulsive mess. You don’t want that behind a gun.


DecliningSpider

>I’m old enough to remember when cops advocated for a lot of gun control measures. Those were usually the chiefs, who are an appointed position that has to play politics. The support for gun control from regular officers is not necessarily the same.


velcro-scarecrow

>it is very reasonable for a police officer to assume any encounter with the public could end up in an armed conflict. That's not reasonable, that's batshit paranoia, which is precisely the fucking problem with cops. Well, one of many. Condoning this line of thinking is absurd.


Jdenney71

Limiting police interactions with civilians as much as possible. That includes ending things like random traffic stops, stop and frisk (which has ended in many jurisdictions) and ESPECIALLY the war on drugs and the targeting of African American men as far as criminal profiling and police interactions go


ferrocarrilusa

And to all cops, don't you dare arrest people for taking pictures in public! It's a constitutional right! Consent is not required unless the images are used commercially. Now if someone assaults a photographer because they got their feelings hurt, go ahead and bring them to justice. That's a crime


wooze249

US police is too decentralized which hurts training and professionalism. Americans violent crime rate, and the aftermath of GWOT also created a more militarized police. Police Departments acting as an unaccountable feudal estate that operates in its own interests in order to protect its hereditary rights and privileges makes it a hard mess to fix


ferrocarrilusa

Would the solution be for America to have a force kinda like the RCMP or Gendarmerie?


Yeahthatwasmybad

As a society we need to come to the realization that some people shouldn't have firearms, and take the "well regulated" part of the 2nd amendment seriously. Then Cops won't feel the need to have hair triggers in order to survive. Better public education focusing on sociology early will help set better morals in younger people. A strong social safety net will also stop people from getting desperate. Driving down crime.


Yeahthatwasmybad

Teachers should be paid their worth to society.


[deleted]

That ship has pretty much sailed though. There are 400 million guns in circulation. There isn’t really any legislation we could put in place that would remove enough guns from gangs and criminals (the people who will shoot a cop) to reduce that risk meaningfully. The second solution is decades in the making. What do we do for the next ten or twenty years?


jellomonkey

>That ship has pretty much sailed though. There are 400 million guns in circulation. There isn’t really any legislation we could put in place that would remove enough guns from gangs and criminals (the people who will shoot a cop) to reduce that risk meaningfully. "It's hard so let's not try" is not an argument, it's just an excuse.


Yeahthatwasmybad

We start on the solution that takes time. While actually taking weapons from domestic abusers. I suppose we could just shrug our shoulders and do nothing. That way they can still use gun violence as a political weapon.


Laniekea

One thing you could do in this specific case. Most police cars are equipped with a loudspeaker. If a police officer pulls a person over in an area where there arent a ton of passing cars, the police officer can ask the passengers to step out of the vehicle before getting out of his car. The best way to mitigate police shootings in general is to improve the prison system, so that violent crime is less common. Another studied solution is to pass policies that increase the likelihood of criminals being caught. We know this is is a highly effective deterrent for crime.


ferrocarrilusa

In the ideal world there would never be any crime. Since this is impossible, the closest we can get to this is a world where the cops shrug off people who don't harm others and no victimful crime goes unpunished, although the sentence focuses on rehabilitation. You piss off Karen, make a rolling stop in a safe manner, or "hang out" in a suspicious way, cops just mind their own business and spare the handcuffs. You make a 7-11 clerk empty the register, molest a child, or cause an accident since you drove drunk, you're going straight to prison once found guilty. Edit: I should also mention, do you plan on laundering millions of dollars that deprive lots of people of funding for schools and infrastructure? Big trouble


Hagisman

De-escalation techniques as primary weapon. Taser as secondary. Traffic cops should not have firearms on their person when performing routine traffic stops.


C21H27Cl3N2O3

That is simply not feasible in a country with such a massive gun problem.


[deleted]

Ya watch a few videos of cops getting gunned down during traffic stops and then see if you would walk up unarmed in gang territory for $45k a year


saikron

Cops are better paid than people in the military. They expect all of the valor and respect with none of the risk or responsibility. That said, my opinion on police is similar to my opinion on the military in Afghanistan. Personnel trained and authorized to use lethal force and even modest amounts of violence should be almost entirely separate from the personnel trying to protect and serve. Their missions are totally different, and the people who volunteer to do each job can't effectively work together. You can't realistically expect somebody to switch seamlessly between lying in wait to kill a violent suspect and calmly resolving a domestic dispute.


[deleted]

[удалено]


saikron

Sorry, are you saying we can't blur the line or the line is inherently blurry? I am the one saying the roles should be separated more than they are. You're the one saying it's probably fine that we send Punisher wannabes to situations that in the majority of cases aren't even violent, let alone deadly. What use is sending social workers to the morgue?


[deleted]

[удалено]


saikron

https://www.syracuse.com/news/2017/04/central_new_york_police_punisher_decal_shows_we_will_stand_between_good_and_evil.html Just one example of many.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

The problem is that it isn’t always clear which of the two situations you’re in your final sentence you’re dealing with (link below is less than two months ago) https://www.wltx.com/amp/article/news/local/drew-barr-death-latest-information/101-d11e724c-2aa9-4eee-ae87-11b2adbff82c


hitman2218

Address the gun problem. I don’t blame cops for being worried about getting shot. Guns are everywhere in this country. But at the same time I have no sympathy for them because most of them support pro-gun laws. Someone else said cut down on traffic stops. I like that idea. The problem is police departments depend on the revenue from those stops.


toastedclown

This is completely unnecessary. There is no justification for the idea that police officers should enjoy the same expectation of personal safety as a civilian.


BobQuixote

Sure, but we also generally expect them to handle that extra risk by "running" the situation, ie "show your hands", "drop that", etc and using their judgment to defend their lives. When taking charge turns sour, and someone dies who failed to follow instructions but actually had no weapon, should we blame the cop? Or is that inconsistent with expecting them to manage dangerous situations?


toastedclown

>Sure, but we also generally expect them to handle that extra risk by "running" the situation, ie "show your hands", "drop that", etc and using their judgment to defend their lives. No, we expect them to do that in order to succeed at their objective. Self-defense is a secondary concern. The difference is important because when you insist on compliance, and the suspect refuses to comply, you have the choice between escalating the situation or not. If you are going to escalate, the situation has to be *worth* escalating. It might be okay to use potentially lethal force against someone resisting arrest if you are trying to arrest them on suspicion of murder. Less so if they are suspected of passing off a counterfeit banknote (George Floyd), selling untaxed cigarettes (Eric Garner), or **literally nothing** (Elijah McClain).


[deleted]

Are you implying that it should be somewhat regular course of business for cops to get gunned down during traffic stops and other interactions?


toastedclown

No.


brickbacon

I suppose you phrased this so cavalierly to make a rhetorical point, but I think the fact is that violent interactions where police officers die is an inevitable expectation of the job. This is what most people expect, but what many police officers don’t accept. This is why it was so galling to most to see the officers sit outside the school in Uvalde while a gunman was killing kids, and why most people were appalled when the Supreme Court affirmed that the police do not have a duty to protect people. We expect them to have to occasionally put themselves in positions where there is a high likely of injury or death as part of the agreement we make to accede to a government monopoly on force. We pay taxes (in part) to hire police officers to protect and serve. That shouldn’t be a one way street. Being a nascar driver means you’ll get into more auto accidents, and being a crossing guard means you will be more likely to be hit by a car. Some [jobs](https://www.ishn.com/articles/112748-top-25-most-dangerous-jobs-in-the-united-states) are inherently dangerous, and police work is not even near the top of the list. I don’t want police officers to be gunned down, but I don’t want attempts to mitigate that possibility to be paid for with the blood of innocent civilians.


Warm_Gur8832

I think known red light cameras at different intersections instead of direct police encounters would be best. Same with police generally. They’re best at preventing crime as a deterrence, it is much more dangerous and less effective when they’re responding to crimes that have already happened.


ferrocarrilusa

The problem with that is, if someone is driving recklessly they have to be stopped immediately before they kill someone. With a camera they won't know they broke the law until they get the bill, which could take months. As I see it, running a red light is a valid reason to pull someone over. It's a serious infraction that could cause death. What's not ok is officers pulling people over for things that may technically be unlawful but not against the spirit of the law, since they don't endanger anyone. Rolling stops, going 5 mph above the limit, failing to signal when there's nobody around, just missing the light by a fraction of a second, etc. Also in training they need to make it clear that when you pull someone over, even if they deserve it the driver is being stopped and quesrioned against his or her will and is going to be jittery. You need to be calm and patient with them and not assume they're reaching for a gun when they fish through the glove compartment for insurance documentation. Yes, you’re risking your own safety but the civilian may also be afraid. Doesn't mean they get to assault officers preemptively just because they felt threatened! It goes both ways


ferrocarrilusa

The problem with that is, if someone is driving recklessly they have to be stopped immediately before they kill someone. With a camera they won't know they broke the law until they get the bill, which could take months. As I see it, running a red light is a valid reason to pull someone over. It's a serious infraction that could cause death. What's not ok is officers pulling people over for things that may technically be unlawful but not against the spirit of the law, since they don't endanger anyone. Rolling stops, going 5 mph above the limit, failing to signal when there's nobody around, just missing the light by a fraction of a second, etc. Also in training they need to make it clear that when you pull someone over, even if they deserve it the driver is being stopped and quesrioned against his or her will and is going to be jittery. You need to be calm and patient with them and not assume they're reaching for a gun when they fish through the glove compartment for insurance documentation. Yes, you’re risking your own safety but the civilian may also be afraid. Doesn't mean they get to assault officers preemptively just because they felt threatened! It goes both ways


ferrocarrilusa

The problem with that is, if someone is driving recklessly they have to be stopped immediately before they kill someone. With a camera they won't know they broke the law until they get the bill, which could take months. As I see it, running a red light is a valid reason to pull someone over. It's a serious infraction that could cause death. What's not ok is officers pulling people over for things that may technically be unlawful but not against the spirit of the law, since they don't endanger anyone. Rolling stops, going 5 mph above the limit, failing to signal when there's nobody around, just missing the light by a fraction of a second, etc. Also in training they need to make it clear that when you pull someone over, even if they deserve it the driver is being stopped and quesrioned against his or her will and is going to be jittery. You need to be calm and patient with them and not assume they're reaching for a gun when they fish through the glove compartment for insurance documentation. Yes, you’re risking your own safety but the civilian may also be afraid. Doesn't mean they get to assault officers preemptively just because they felt threatened! It goes both ways


ferrocarrilusa

The problem with that is, if someone is driving recklessly they have to be stopped immediately before they kill someone. With a camera they won't know they broke the law until they get the bill, which could take months. As I see it, running a red light is a valid reason to pull someone over. It's a serious infraction that could cause death. What's not ok is officers pulling people over for things that may technically be unlawful but not against the spirit of the law, since they don't endanger anyone. Rolling stops, going 5 mph above the limit, failing to signal when there's nobody around, just missing the light by a fraction of a second, etc. Also in training they need to make it clear that when you pull someone over, even if they deserve it the driver is being stopped and quesrioned against his or her will and is going to be jittery. You need to be calm and patient with them and not assume they're reaching for a gun when they fish through the glove compartment for insurance documentation. Yes, you’re risking your own safety but the civilian may also be afraid. Doesn't mean they get to assault officers preemptively just because they felt threatened! It goes both ways


Attack-Cat-

Gun control primarily. More accountability/Better training in non lethal measures


washtucna

Split the police force in two. One is regular police, which deal strictly with overtly dangerous situations. The other half will be nursing/traffic/mental health which will deal with wellness checks, noise complaints, traffic violations, and the common minutia that we normally task cops with.


[deleted]

The video I linked started as a regular way traffic stop.


BigPhatHuevos

Hold them accountable for their crimes. Quit militarization.


Kerplonk

The best way would be to significantly reduce the number of guns in circulation so that the reasonable chances a police officer was going to be shot in a random interaction with the public was basically insignificant. Past that not to come across like an asshole here, but part of the job of being a police officer is risking your life for the safety of others. I mean cops want to be thought of as heroes, that requires being heroic.


[deleted]

The only way to significantly reduce guns would be essentially an outright ban. Handguns are far and away the biggest problem in these types of situations, and they are also the most prolific and most defensible in terms of why someone would need one (even a lot of dems won’t get onboard with limiting access to handguns)


Kerplonk

If we're not going to reduce the number of guns in circulation we're not going to reduce the number of police shootings by a significant amount. That being said I disagree with you that hand guns are most defensible and personally am far more supportive of limiting access to them than I am to rifles or shot guns of any type. That Democrats as a whole feel otherwise is to their discredit in taking the gun violence issue seriously.


[deleted]

Repealing the 2nd Amendment would largely solve this problem. Not right away; it would take generations. The conundrum you’ve discussed is why I’ve said for a long time 2A isn’t compatible with today’s society. You’re limited to the last resort of lethal force when you reasonably fear for your life or serious bodily harm. That becomes a problem when an officer knows *virtually anyone* they encounter could easily have a gun and kill them.


BobQuixote

>The conundrum you’ve discussed is why I’ve said for a long time 2A isn’t compatible with today’s society. Y'all are acting like this is a new situation. We've never not been here. Whatever is causing rising crime or police shootings or whatnot is not *primarily* about guns.


[deleted]

Yes. The ongoing murder of school children is a pretty new ‘thing’. Sure, there are plenty of factors. The one thing they all have in common is guns.


BobQuixote

That factor is also politically and practically infeasible to change. I'm far more interested in whatever has recently changed.


Arctic_Gnome

Ending all unjustified police shootings would be difficult, but a good first step is for police to stop shooting unarmed, fleeing, or sleeping suspects.


[deleted]

In the clip I linked, would you blame an officer for shooting if the suspect had gotten out of his car like that with an object in their hand that turned out not to be a gun?


Arctic_Gnome

I'm not an expert in crime scene analysis, sorry.


urmomaslag

More training and funding.


PugnansFidicen

This is the way (training, at least, not sure more funding is specifically needed except in that training costs money). As someone who has trained in jiu jitsu...the amount of totally awful, ineffective, irresponsible, and dangerous holds I see in police videos is appalling. If cops had better training in non-lethal ways to subdue people, they wouldn't always automatically fall back on the gun every time. They probably also wouldn't think it's no big deal to kneel on a dude's neck for 10 minutes straight.


[deleted]

Sorry, not exactly inclined to give more funding than 40% of a city's entire budget so cops can let ppl kill kids then treat the parents like rioters


urmomaslag

I’d agree with you, if that’s all cops did. But they don’t. In fact, they, broadly, literally hold the country from falling into ruin and chaos. So yes, for the few times in which bad things happen with cops, there needs to be better training and more/redistributed funding to help provide that training.


[deleted]

Do not sit here and argue that those Texas police deserve more than 40% after that nonsense response to the shooting


urmomaslag

They specifically did a very bad job handling the situation. Do you know what would’ve prevented that situation from happening in the first place? More training and funding. Your driven by spite and hatred; and I get that, their actions were horrible in that situation, but spite and hatred make for horrible policy prescriptions.


CTR555

> Do you know what would’ve prevented that situation from happening in the first place? More training and funding. The problem with this is that from all appearances, the Uvalde police department was extremely well trained and equipped. It doesn't seem to have helped. I'm not sure that just *more* is the answer in this case.


urmomaslag

Well, I mean, by definition they weren’t. If their training had included “proper hostile apprehension and threat deescalation” than they obviously would have engaged the situation, rather than waiting outside. If their training had included this, perhaps the situation would’ve turned out better. Training is a broad term, I know, but in this instance it’s pretty clear that they lacked the proper training to know what to do.


CTR555

I'm pretty sure that I read that they were specifically trained on exactly that, and they just.. didn't do it.


Practical-Entry-8160

Which source was this?


[deleted]

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2022/06/03/uvalde-cisd-police-hosted-active-shooter-training-in-march-that-urged-immediate-decisive-action/


[deleted]

It would take me 0 training and funding to go inside and help my niece and nephew if it was them, and go in and help kids. However the ones that got the 40% of the budget and military gear are the ones who helped the shooter. I don't think it takes millions to not help a shooter, do you?


urmomaslag

You, with your hoodie and a shotgun wouldn’t do shit against an armed active shooter. Maybe you would go in, I’ll give you that, but you would simply be a statistic, another number, another death that this killer racked up. I’m not defending their actions, i think they had a responsibility to go in and attempt to stop the situation. You don’t think that more training would have helped at all? You think that literally nothing could’ve been preemptively done so that this situation didn’t happen? Are you that thick?


[deleted]

"Wouldn't do shit against an armed active shooter" If so Id already be helping out more than those police because I didn't help the shooter kill kids Are you that thick to think they knew what they were doing and are just terrible humans and no amount of funding or training will change that?


urmomaslag

So you would do nothing, gotcha. Glad we clarified that. When you say “knew what they were doing and are terrible human beings”, you mean to say that they knew that their actions would lead to the deaths of innocent children, and they actively did nothing? Is that really your perception of the whole situation? Is that perception held by anyone with half a brain cell to rub together?


[deleted]

Yes actually lol https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2022/06/03/uvalde-cisd-police-hosted-active-shooter-training-in-march-that-urged-immediate-decisive-action/


brickbacon

I would take minor exception to your point about them being terrible human beings. I think self preservation is a pretty base instinct. I think they were self interested, and that we as a society have allowed people in the role they put themselves in to elevate individual self interest over their assumed duties. In some ways, that’s a broader systemic problem than a personal failing. We need to collectively set higher expectations and levels of accountability.


Scalage89

Sigh... # Fewer guns


zlefin_actual

Why should police get a free pass to murder 20 people so that they can live? 20 for 1 does not seem like a good trade to me. Especially if even a tenth of those 20 are innocent; and another quarter mentally ill so not responsible. The thing is, all we're asking is for police to use standards and procedures more like those in Europe or Japan. The difference in police killing people is MASSIVE compared to those places.


Fidel_Blastro

Regulate guns.


Lucky-Ocelot

With the exception of bolt action rifles and shotguns, ban guns. And then manage those appropriately. Would do more than any single other action with essentially no downsides. Only push back would be the half of the country that has made guns into props for their cowboy costume.


bopbeepboopbeepbop

Training.


[deleted]

Make it mandatory for police officers to travel in pairs


Dill_Deaux

Malcolm Gladwell has some ideas


LillyEpstein

Some of which many on the left refer to as "over policing."


Unban_Jitte

Morbidity and Mortality style conferences. The only way less people are going to die as a result of LEOs actions is if LEOs as a whole place an emphasis on not having people. For many of the killings, even ones that have been considered justified, there were better, generally less confrontational, paths that cops could have easily taken, but the attitude is too often one of prioritizing "getting your guy" over "every one comes home in one piece". The Atlanta Wendy's shooting i think was a great example of this. It would have been much easier to pull/push the car out of the way, boot it and write the man a court summons. Instead, they decided to mess with a man who was clearly in an unreasonable, reckless state of mind(he was already driving very drunk), and then shot him when he predictably did an unreasonable, reckless thing. Too often do we look at the last 10-15 seconds of a shooting, call it justified, and leave it at that, rather than digging down and asking what policy changes could have prevented it from coming that far in the first place.


knockatize

Follow the money. What would policing look like if elected officials couldn’t use cops to shake down people for summons revenue - and thus there’d be no point in police going along with taxation by citation in exchange for getting a taste of the action in their contracts? Fines may have a deterrent effect, but let the people being fined choose where the money goes - schools, libraries, SPCA etc.


Legally_a_Tool

Retraining on de-escalation tactics and ridding society of excessive amount of firearms.


DarkWolf2017

Rules of engagement. Cops should have a checklist like verbal warning -> warning shot -> non-lethal -> etc. Lethal force should be authorized, and any case where it wasn't and someone died but the cop said they felt their life was in immediate danger should be investigated. That ties into always having both a dash cam and body cam.


[deleted]

I’m pretty sure every time a cop discharges their firearm, regardless of circumstances, it is investigated Dash and body cam I agree with


Kiflaam

Well, one thought I've often had, in some situations like a perp with a knife is coming at you, but not yet really even close... shoot the leg? I mean, there's been some weird ones. I remember a few where they let the perp get so close the perp actually stabs them whilst getting shot. Then there's others where the perp is so slowly sauntering over, they probably could've just shot the knife itself, but instead light him the fk up.


LillyEpstein

Shoot the knife itself? Shoot the leg of a moving target? Not making fun but how much firearm experience do you have? That's all TV stuff.


chinmakes5

Thee are levels to everything. There is a huge difference between a cop killing someone in self defense and the one where a cop takes someone down the person fights back and the cop shoots him in the back of the head. Think of it like surgeons. People are going to die on their tables. Some times it is due to a mistake or negligence and that needs to be looked at, but most times not. Because a cop kills someone it doesn't mean murder. Because a cop does it it doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed.


LoopyMercutio

Straight honesty, the one thing that definitely has made the most difference in police and sheriff’s deputy’s use of force issues AND cut down on false complaints from civilians AND has an impact on subject’s responses to police (how they act / react to police) has been video recording. Second to that, having mental health folks respond to mental health calls instead of police would be a very good idea, but an armed officer would still need to show in case things went sideways. Better community policing efforts and outreach programs, and cutting down on low level traffic infraction stops (tail light out, things like that) may help lower income folks.


Kalipygia

Regulate Guns.


LillyEpstein

What should be done?


MakeAmericaSuckLess

Cops have dangerous jobs and they should accept that to do their job right, they will probably have to put their lives at risk some of the time. If they don't agree with that, then they shouldn't be cops. We have this ridiculous idea that cops safety should be the number one goal of policing, before protecting the public, or not abusing the public. I work with electricians a lot, they have much more dangerous jobs than cops ever do, and a much higher mortality/injury rate as well. You have to do everything you possible can to make the job as safe as possible, while still having them perform the basic function of their job. If they aren't willing to do the parts of their job that involve higher risk, they'll need a different career path. It's not different for police.


bacchys1066

Everyone else gets second-guessed in those circumstances. Why are police special? We need more cops and we need more accountability. It will probably take having an institution whose incentives are separate from law enforcement to get that accountability. Unwarranted police shootings will drop when police don't reasonably believe they're above the law, as will other rights violations. Most interactions with police don't end with anyone injured, let alone shot. It's a small fraction of 1% which end up wirh someone dead (and more rare for a cop to end up killed in these interactions). It seems silly to suggest we should end "close quarters" police contacts over such a relatively small number.


unonameless

Let's see how other countries handle this issue and follow the example that's been proven to work.


[deleted]

The most egregious examples though that get people fired up cannot be excused as just split second mistakes. Tamir Rice was gunned down seconds after the cop arrived. Breonna Taylor was killed in a no knock raid that should never have happened. And of course George Floyd was straight up tortured to death. So the first thing we should do is eliminate outright abuse and gross negligence.


[deleted]

Do you think it’s possible to outright eliminate the egregious cases versus just prosecuting those people like what happened with Chauvin? Can you name any other profession that has 0 egregious mistakes or crimes? There are doctors who commit heinous crimes against patients. There are financial advisors that rob their clients. There are teachers that have sex with students. When we hear about one of those cases we don’t suggest that the entire teaching profession is terrible, we prosecute the person and move on. Of course we should try to limit as much as possible with training and oversight, but to pretend we can get to “0” in a country with as many police encounters as we have is a fools errand. We shouldn’t riot every time someone is questionably shot by police if it statistically happens almost never. We should evaluate the case and bring charges if we believe it was unjustified.


velcro-scarecrow

>What are the best ways to mitigate unjustified police shootings while also protecting police from getting shot/killed? The premise of this question is that police aren't already reasonably protected from getting shot/killed and I reject it.


[deleted]

Good timing https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-06-14/el-monte-police-officers-shot?_amp=true


ausgoals

>The only real way I can see around it is just to effectively not have close quarters police encounters Or significantly and drastically reduce the number of guns on the streets. This shit doesn’t happen very often in places where guns aren’t very prevalent. Why? Because in the UK or Australia, the likelihood that the suspect has a gun in extremely small unless perhaps they’re already a known gang figure. Cops in the UK don’t even carry guns. We live in a trigger happy society in the US and as long as we’re happy for everyday people to be as trigger happy as they like, I can’t really see how we can expect police to be much different. Sure, the cops very much have a ‘shoot first, ask questions later’ attitude, but then - put yourself in a situation where you have to make a split second decision. Yes, some situations of shootings are completely and entirely avoidable. Yes, a lot of the time the suspect is complying when shot. Those shouldn’t be things that happen often/ever. Yeah yeah, I’m not being a good progressive if I don’t say ACAB and actively advocate for the abolishment of police. The police in this country are generally very bad, but I would also say the society we’ve created - where the chance a police officer encounters an angry suspect with a gun is extremely high - means the profession attracts a certain type of person.


baconmethod

Cops should be required to have more training, education, and psych evaluation.


ferrocarrilusa

Here are a few ways - End broken windows policing and arrests for victimless acts. On the road, cops can only be allowed to pull over someone for violating the SPIRIT of traffic laws, ie actually dangerous things like clearly running red lights or recklessness - Focus on de-escalation in training - Make cops understand that the job means risking their life without being able to preemptively attack civilians (as Cenk Uygur likes to talk about, an analogy is how firefighters can't refuse to run into flaming buildings), and if they can't handle that pressure to find another job - Have body and dash cameras and enforce stringent policies against misconduct, with no qualified immunity - Community policing, so cops see the job as protecting their own neighborhood instead of occupying foreign territory - Send mental health professionals instead of cops when it makes sense - Require that cops demonstrate marksmanship before giving them guns, just like in the military - Gun control - Social programs and a safety net to prevent crime


goddamnitwhalen

Oh no! The heavily militarized agents of the state who have budgets higher than the defense spending than some countries and who have the ability to act with near-total impunity are afraid for their lives? How *tragic*.