Which is why I think I might be on board with this. The “police are professionals trained to keep their cool
even in life threatening situations” boat sailed ages ago. So making it so police aren’t in the life threatening situation at all might be a win.
I still disagree. I think if the cops feel that they are safer, they will feel that escalating the situation is less risky, and are more likely to do so.
Isn't this one of the main things that people are protesting about. Police shouldn't be trained like this. They could also carry things like tasers which allow them to protect themselves without killing anyone.
I think frequently what people are suggesting is that police should de-escalate in these situations, and that lots of situations that end in A, B or C could be de-escalated if police had any incentive to. Instead we'll just give police officers a whole suite of escalation options so that they're never put in a situation where they have to choose between an escalating over-reaction and de-escalation, they can always pick moderate escalation. Take the tasers away, take the military equipment away, take some of the guns away. Police officers are not soldiers and if, as a police officer, you feel you are forced to assume that any physical contact with a civilian will end in your death then you should not be a police officer.
Why does a cop have to prepare for the absolute worst case scenario when interacting with the everyday public?
The research (and the recent 538 article) show that, by the cop preparing for the absolute worst, it makes the other party feel disrespected ("He thinks I'm going to attack him?? Well..") and ironically, is much more likely to lead to a worst case scenario.
I'm not saying that cops as a whole shouldn't have guns, riot gear, or bulletproof vests. But those should only come out after being shown necessary in an interaction. Yes, this is likely to shift deaths initially to the side of police from the side of the general public. But overall, deaths should go down dramatically over time. Plus we'd live in a healthier society.
cops more likely to use deadly force as officer lives are no longer on the line? reading the piece it sounds like the police would have to ability to be less willing to use alternative, non-lethal or harmful solutions when they can just jump to this
It might also go the other way. Many police killings are due to jittery officers in dangerous situations. Take that out of the picture and you might get better policing and fewer suspect deaths.
I'd go further, it's only reasonably to prevent grave and _imminent_ danger to others.
The situation is kind of ironic, because it was vaguely associated with the protest against how police tends to kill people because they can't be bothered to find non-lethal ways to solve problems.
Here’s an alternate proposal: don’t add any kind of weapon to it, and use it to replace the police in everything but the most extreme situations. This way people don’t need to feel their life is in danger during regular interactions with police.
I am not advocating for police to have a rule that disallows them to fire first. But police officers should be capable of acting cool under pressure and to use lethal force as a last resort not as a first tool to be used in any situation. I'd favor the rule that police should be filled with Army vets that have actually being on deployments and can keep their cool in an adversarial situations. There are plenty of footage of real firefights both involving police and Military
in 80% of situation police looks like they are scared out of their mind and are acting purely out of being in uncontrollable fear which is a horrible situation.
The argument for this is that it removes the argument of "cops life in danger" which they think will reduce or eliminate shootings of unarmed suspects.
There are several arguments against this, but the one that concerns me most is that this turns police encounters into a video game which will dehumanize the people on the other end.
The worst case scenario? I’m pretty sure that is the scenario that played out. Police should be prepared to die wearing the badge, with civilian casualty being an absolute last resort.
It works this way for the military. I can’t fathom why it doesn’t work this way with police.
The benefit of officer risking his life is that he/she a literal stake in making a decision. It is not supposed to be an easy job. The moment that officer is plopped down behind a screen, the situation immediately becomes less real. He does not have stakes in the situation, which has benefits ( less officers killed ) and serious drawbacks ( population is policed by unaccountable robots, which does wonders for the population accepting that level of control ). And police already has a LOT of latitude is US, when it comes to policing.
Do I really need to explain the basics of policing? The only reason it even works to begin with is that society allows it to be so ( because you know.. there is only so many officers and so many more non-officers surrounding them ). You do NOT want to further separate them from the society, in which they operate as it will become easier for the populace to believe that they, the police, is, in fact, the enemy. Even despots know this, which is the reason why they absolutely fear any real demonstrations, because they are hard to quell with pure, brute force -- especially these days.
Do you need proof? Look at BLM protests. Note, that police was literally afraid to touch those for fear that it could really escalate.
<< People generally don't like dying.
I think like with a solider, that person picked a wrong job. The job comes with a risk. It is not in small print either. Them are the breaks.
Killing someone is not supposed to be a simple choice, but this is a step to make police even less accountable.
<< Removing all risk from the situation for an officer only serves to make them more accountable.
Removing all risk means they will be reckless. That is how an average human responds to 'no stakes' situation.
There’s a difference between telling people to not put themselves in risky situations thst will just lead to adding a casualty (firefighter running into a collapsing building) and shooting people to “be on the safe side.” The equivalent for a cop would be to wait for backup, not murdering someone else because they’re scared.
For those who have an issue with this, I have to ask; have you actually thought this through at all? Would it really be preferable to make an officer literally risk their life trying to make the right decision? The will to survive in a situation that's shaping up to be a shootout is going to trump any reprimand or consequence. People generally don't like dying. Removing all risk from the situation for an officer only serves to make them more accountable.
I am pretty sure thing are the way they are for a good reason that you and I have no insight to. Otherwise they wouldn’t be this way. Cops are not stupid and neither are the people running those teams. I doubt it gives them any pleasure responding to potentially deadly situations and putting their own lives at risk. Cops have families too. Perhaps we need to ask someone who knows better instead of speculating.
There seems to be a cohort of people who believe that policemen's lives are essentially forfeit, and thus any level of mortal risk to them is reasonable.
They already have non-lethal options available if they intend to stop someone. I feel like this would increase the lethality of situations where non-lethal approaches are warranted rather than decreasing the lethality of other ones.
Firearms should not be treated as implements of lethality and nothing but that. Imagine how many police shooting cases we'd see where cop claims he was shooting to wound but 'missed'
In practice, very few police interactions require a firearm, so why have that as the default? If a police officer is working in a dangerous neighborhood, then they can exercise their right to carry a personal firearm at their own expense. However, any decision to use the gun would be 100% the individual’s risk as they won’t be able to hide behind their departments policies and procedures as an excuse to shoot people. So a police officer deciding to shoot someone is no different from your neighbor deciding to shoot someone. It might also incentivize individuals to seek out real firearms training on their own.
EMS people might be trained in mental health, but police officers are better prepared to deal with aggressive people, defend themselves (with batons, pepper spray, tasers, etc), and make arrests.
For dangerous situations that require firearms, you can call in a completely separate organization dedicated to that, like SWAT or whatever.
reply