This looks toxic, by the way.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 48 points 2 years ago (9 children)

Because it's harder to pick and choose trial evidence that exonerates the cops of their malfeasance unless you have something evidencing that they told them to stop before they fired their gun, regardless of whether they actually said it before firing their gun.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • load more comments (9 replies)
    [–] 37 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Wounded people can still shoot you back/stab you. They may even be more likely to do so due to the shock and adrenaline rush. Also the fact that one has been shot indicates that they probably had something in their hands in the first place or were unwilling to show that they didn't.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago

    After they've been shot, lethal force has already been determined to be necessary. Cops don't stop until they stop moving or they're making it very, very obvious they surrender. (side note. Having something in your hand is not justification for lethal force. 'I thought it was a weapon' as an excuse has worn too thin. but they'll say other bullshit too like, 'they had an aggressive posture' and 'were verbally combative'. )

    Also, people typically fall back on their training in stressful situations, and they're taught to shout things. like "show me your hands" ... a lot. they may not even be entirely aware of why they're shouting it. or even what they're shouting. (Cops have been known to yell some freaking dumb shit after shooting people. You see the videos of them yelling "Get on the ground" when the dude is already... on the ground? just saying)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    If the person is able and willing to surrender after being shot, showing their hands (empty of anything they may have been holding before) and following instructions means the police can start first aid and bring in EMS sooner. The ambulance doesn't come in until it is safe to do so which won't be until after a search is done and handcuffs are applied. Specific details beyond that and exceptions to the norm would depend on local policies.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    Assuming there was ever anything in the victim's hands to begin with. Plenty of cops will go on to deny the person emergency treatment under the guise of the individual being "too dangerous"

    Edit: To anyone daring to question the veracity of this statement, just go ahead and watch the last moments of this man's life then take a good long look at yourselves and think about just what you're trying to defend here. This is nothing but murder. Decided on by an overly-sensitive EMT and endorsed by six different cops. Be ashamed of yourselves.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    ...So if you use your hands to put pressure on the wound to stop the bleeding, you won't get an ambulance?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 2 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    By the way, I'm wondering who pays for the ambulance in this case? Suspect or government?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Just a guess, but I'd think it'd be based on fault. If it's a justified shooting, they'll probably tack it into the suspect's fines. Ideally, if the shooting isn't justified, the govt would pay, but I wouldn't count on it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    To have a court excuse in case they shoot again. "Didn't comply. Hid hands. I felt threatened."

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago (28 children)

    Ever hear about medal of honour winners killing 12 people with 5 bullets in them? Bullets aren't always show stoppers

    Add some meth or fentanyl to the mix and it's sadly pretty much zombie rules to put them down.

  • source
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (24 children)

    this is why cops dump entire mags without thinking.

    that and most of them can't actually shoot for shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (21 children)

    You say that but most cops still will go their whole career without firing their gun statistically.

    Plus hand guns are crazy hard to aim over any distance

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago* (15 children)

    You say that but most cops still will go their whole career without firing their gun statistically.

    you know the other part of that statistic, right? that those who do tend to get into substantially more situations that 'require' lethal force in the first place. Some of this has to do with where they happen to work.... cops working in departments within large cities are much more likely than cops out in the burbs or sticks. Part of it is also their specific occupational specialty- SWAT for example is just put into more situations where it's necessary, compared to state highway patrol vehicle inspectors. or the Federal Reserve Cops.

    Plus hand guns are crazy hard to aim over any distance

    Yeah, that's true enough when your average cop has less than 15 hours of range time annually, and only quals out once a year. The vast majority of distance for police engagement is 3-6 feet. I can put a four inch grouping at fifty feet, a six inch grouping at thirty feet in stress simulations. And I am not some badass. I just get a lot of range time for work.

    If you're going to carry... you need to be able to hit what you're aiming at. a miss isn't just a miss. Its a chance to clip that kid playing ball a hundred yards a way, or the grandma poking her head out the curtains to see what the fuck is going on outside.

    Cops need to be better- every round that misses it's target is potentially some random kid caught in the crossfire. Personally, cops need way more training on not going to lethal force in the first place. but that's a different topic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    cops need way more training on not going to lethal force in the first place. but that’s a different topic.

    Yeah, that tends to be my response as well. I usually try not to second guess a stressful situation where I wasn’t there, but all too often it really seems like lethal force is the goto response in way too many cases.

    The example above where a female cop killed a junkie approaching her …. The post was intended to demonstrate multiple shots may be necessary, but what I saw was that after telling the guy to stop, the cops only option was lethal force. I’d really like to see some of these anecdotes show cops trying other options, even if it eventually escalated to lethal force

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    So, like, there's a lot to be learned from UK cops in how they handle knife-armed subjects. In general, you tend to fight how you train; so when you spend a lot of the focus of your training on lethal force, that usually becomes where your focus is.

    For example that lady that shot a guy, shouting 'TAZER TAZER TAZER', even though she drew her firearm. What I assume she meant to go for tazer, but in the stress of the moment, muscle memory took over and she spent hours practicing her pistol draw and not much at all practicing the taser draw. (she could have meant to do it, too, shouting tazer for the body camera, but while recognizing that... i wasn't there and I don't know her.)

    Increasing training on less-lethal or non-lethal methods; and actually training soft skills in the same way as firearms is how you solve that. The other thing, personally, that we really need to ramp up recruitment for police. This gets you a lot of things. Enough bodies means you can now spend a few hours a week training something rather than one or two classes a year, spread it out; physical training, yes, but soft skills like negotiation, deescalation and the basics of EDP-stuffs. the other reason is, then you can start firing all the fucking assholes. (which this is how you get institutional change. you change the institution by changing the poeple that make it up.)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    Police in Finland regularly stop suspects by shooting them into leg which according to many Americans is impossible due to how inaccurate pistols are. That apparently means the alternative is then to dump the entire mag into the torso.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    Got a proper source on that claim there? Cuz... yeah.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    I did find a great many links to articles about this one event, but so far nothing to support that they do it regularly.

    https://talkingpointsmemo.com/world-news/finland-stabbing-suspect-shot-in-leg

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    you'll note that they don't say he was shot in the thigh intentionally. I suspect that they were aiming center mass and were just off. it happens. hitting a running target is... well here, the FBI tallies a ~47% chance to hit between 5-15 feet. (this is comparison to an 87% chance to be hit if you're standing still.)

    Shots to extremities happen, nobody is saying they don't. But doing so on purpose is almost impossible. Especially on a running target. Even with a rifle. This is why you don't use a weapon fundamentally designed to be lethal as "less lethal". At best, you wing him and he's still running. at worst, you miss, and clip a mom and her infant baby behind them.

    There's better tools to take some one down without lethal force. (see UK police tactics with Batons, for an example.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (5 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

    I saw a body cam video of a female officer confronting a (probably homeless) dude hopped up on drugs. She was on her own in this situation without backup which was fucked up in it's own right but this guy just keeps walking towards her closer and closer. Eventually she draws, warns him she'll shoot if he gets closer and ends up firing twice.

    This guy took two rounds to the chest at damn near arms reach and barely even fucking blinks. He turned around, walked to a corner, layed down and died there iirc (here's the vid https://youtu.be/8oX2ChamWwc?feature=shared)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It’s possible that a less lethal response would have not only been more appropriate but more effective

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    I agree. That's the thing with the use of force continuum though, you aren't obligated to go step by step. If you have pepper spray, a baton and a gun and someone is kicking your ass to within an inch of your life you can go straight to gun.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago

    I'm going to guess they are terrified and excited and just yelling random cop noises.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    To shoot you again in case you are still alive

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›