The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[Jacob]

Data from Axios:

[Razgovory]

Traditionally, and in international law, a civilian is someone who is not an active member of the armed forces or an equivalent organization (in the case of guerrillas and the like).  The idea that police (and sometimes firefighters) are not civilians has been promoted recently, but I don't know of any legal system that says that a terrorist attack on police is not terrorism because terrorism is (partially) defined as an act that would  "appear to be intended.. to intimidate or coerce a civilian population."

It is unclear to me what the promoters of the "police are not civilians" argument intend, nor why they have even made that argument.

It would create an interesting situation if a gang member wearing gang colors shot a uniformed police officer and argued that he could not be tried for because it was an act of war against a legitimate military target.

[Barrister]

Traditionally, and in international law, a civilian is someone who is not an active member of the armed forces or an equivalent organization (in the case of guerrillas and the like).  The idea that police (and sometimes firefighters) are not civilians has been promoted recently, but I don't know of any legal system that says that a terrorist attack on police is not terrorism because terrorism is (partially) defined as an act that would  "appear to be intended.. to intimidate or coerce a civilian population."

It is unclear to me what the promoters of the "police are not civilians" argument intend, nor why they have even made that argument.

Police, and military wear uniforms, ranks, and a hierarchical command structure.  I can't imagine why anyone would consider them to be civilians in the course of their duties.  That would also be extended to other uniformed forces like border guards, coast guard, corrections officers and the like.

Just because they're not civilians doesn't mean they're military of course.  To answer Raz's question police are not military targets because they're not military - they're police.

[crazy canuck]

Traditionally, and in international law, a civilian is someone who is not an active member of the armed forces or an equivalent organization (in the case of guerrillas and the like).  The idea that police (and sometimes firefighters) are not civilians has been promoted recently, but I don't know of any legal system that says that a terrorist attack on police is not terrorism because terrorism is (partially) defined as an act that would  "appear to be intended.. to intimidate or coerce a civilian population."

It is unclear to me what the promoters of the "police are not civilians" argument intend, nor why they have even made that argument.

Police, and military wear uniforms, ranks, and a hierarchical command structure.  I can't imagine why anyone would consider them to be civilians in the course of their duties.  That would also be extended to other uniformed forces like border guards, coast guard, corrections officers and the like.

Just because they're not civilians doesn't mean they're military of course.  To answer Raz's question police are not military targets because they're not military - they're police.

And beyond the uniforms etc.  Police are given powers that civilians do not have.  It is an interesting argument that a non civilian can only be someone in the military, but that is too narrow.

[viper37]

Because I'm OK with the cops pulling their weapons that means I would be OK with them shooting the driver???  WTF?

There's a massive difference between pulling a weapon and actually shooting it.  For one, a bullet comes out the pointy end when you shoot.

of course there's a massive difference.  But it's called escalating the situation.  And once the gun is out, you're one step away from shooting.  Why would there be a need to pull your gun for a simple traffic stop?  If I'm speeding 130km/h in a 100km/h zone, why would the officer pull their gun on me?

[Barrister]

Because I'm OK with the cops pulling their weapons that means I would be OK with them shooting the driver???  WTF?

There's a massive difference between pulling a weapon and actually shooting it.  For one, a bullet comes out the pointy end when you shoot.

of course there's a massive difference.  But it's called escalating the situation.  And once the gun is out, you're one step away from shooting.  Why would there be a need to pull your gun for a simple traffic stop?  If I'm speeding 130km/h in a 100km/h zone, why would the officer pull their gun on me?

[Use of force Nerd]

No, once your gun is out you're not one step away from shooting.  Just for starters you can have your gun at either low ready (pointing in general direction of subject but towards the ground) and high ready (pointing at subject).

And more generally, any reputable use of force model says that such situations are dynamic, and there is no set order or specific model one follows.

I've posted this guy before:



[/use of force Nerd]

[The Brain]

The US version so much simpler to understand.

[DGuller]

Why would you put an officer in the bullseye on that chart?  Shouldn't the focus of policing be on shooting at the suspects?  Or did I not interpret this training diagram correctly?

[The Brain]

I sometimes get the feeling that some US cops are trained to "shoot to kill". Is this true? If it is, I can see why they like to put 24 rounds in chests. It makes sense if the purpose is to kill. Seems to me that a reasonable police force keeps its eyes on the more sane purpose of "instantly incapacitate with the highest chance of success".

[Razgovory]

Traditionally, and in international law, a civilian is someone who is not an active member of the armed forces or an equivalent organization (in the case of guerrillas and the like).  The idea that police (and sometimes firefighters) are not civilians has been promoted recently, but I don't know of any legal system that says that a terrorist attack on police is not terrorism because terrorism is (partially) defined as an act that would  "appear to be intended.. to intimidate or coerce a civilian population."

It is unclear to me what the promoters of the "police are not civilians" argument intend, nor why they have even made that argument.

Police, and military wear uniforms, ranks, and a hierarchical command structure.  I can't imagine why anyone would consider them to be civilians in the course of their duties.  That would also be extended to other uniformed forces like border guards, coast guard, corrections officers and the like.

Just because they're not civilians doesn't mean they're military of course.  To answer Raz's question police are not military targets because they're not military - they're police.

So... if police attacked a legal combatant they could be tried as war criminals or face summery execution?

[Barrister]

Traditionally, and in international law, a civilian is someone who is not an active member of the armed forces or an equivalent organization (in the case of guerrillas and the like).  The idea that police (and sometimes firefighters) are not civilians has been promoted recently, but I don't know of any legal system that says that a terrorist attack on police is not terrorism because terrorism is (partially) defined as an act that would  "appear to be intended.. to intimidate or coerce a civilian population."

It is unclear to me what the promoters of the "police are not civilians" argument intend, nor why they have even made that argument.

Police, and military wear uniforms, ranks, and a hierarchical command structure.  I can't imagine why anyone would consider them to be civilians in the course of their duties.  That would also be extended to other uniformed forces like border guards, coast guard, corrections officers and the like.

Just because they're not civilians doesn't mean they're military of course.  To answer Raz's question police are not military targets because they're not military - they're police.

So... if police attacked a legal combatant they could be tried as war criminals or face summery execution?

Let's try and pick through this kind of insane hypothetical of yours (no offence).

Police are not military.  They would not be deployed in a war zone.  They would not be deployed to engage in offensive military actions.

So where exactly does this enemy combatant come from?  Are they parachuting in Red Dawn style?  If so police still have a legal obligation to protect life.  If Cuban commandoes are shooting up civilians, or appear that they might be about to, police would be legally justified to employ lethal force.  If instead you have some North Korean commandos just walking down the street unarmed then yes I think they could be charged as just regular criminals if they just open up and start blasting.

[merithyn]

I'm pretty sure everyone here conceives of situations in which it is better for the cops to shoot first than wait for the suspect to shoot.  The problem is, you seem to consider minor possible traffic violation to be such situation where as most of us don't.
I think there's a difference in being pulled over for an unreadable license plate in a car that drives suspiciously slowly and being arrested after a multi-car police chase where lots of accidents have happenned.  There, I understant the need for the officer to get out of their car weapon in hand, aiming at the suspect. But if I'm stopped for speeding in the US, I sure hope they'll ask for my driver's license before shooting me.   

Because I'm OK with the cops pulling their weapons that means I would be OK with them shooting the driver???  WTF?

There's a massive difference between pulling a weapon and actually shooting it.  For one, a bullet comes out the pointy end when you shoot.

I believe that officers are taught that if they pull their weapons they should be ready to fire them. So if they've already pulled their weapon, they are already okay with firing them.

For a traffic stop, that's insane.

[Barrister]

I believe that officers are taught that if they pull their weapons they should be ready to fire them. So if they've already pulled their weapon, they are already okay with firing them.

For a traffic stop, that's insane.

Ready to fire them is not the same as being okay with firing them.

Ready just means, well, ready.  That if circumstances change and you need to fire then you're not looking around for your gun, you're not worried about whether it's loaded, or what not.  But it's obvious that there are many situations where a firearm is out of the holster it's not intended to be fired (at least so far).

[alfred russel]

So where exactly does this enemy combatant come from?  Are they parachuting in Red Dawn style?  If so police still have a legal obligation to protect life.  If Cuban commandoes are shooting up civilians, or appear that they might be about to, police would be legally justified to employ lethal force.  If instead you have some North Korean commandos just walking down the street unarmed then yes I think they could be charged as just regular criminals if they just open up and start blasting.

Wait wtf?

So the Wolverines in Red Dawn could be charged as criminals for attacking the cubans who were not actively doing bad stuff?

More to the point, in addition to the University of Michigan being really dumb for naming their sports teams after something in that movie, did they also name themselves after a band of war criminals? 

[Razgovory]

I forget, you are not an American.  We had a little dust up a few months ago and so what is and what is not a legal combatant is sorta on my mind.  I'm thinking more along the lines of a civil war situation.  Let's call them "Side-A" and Side-B".  Could Side-A police shoot at Side-B military?  What about Side-A police versus Side-B irregulars?  Can Side A police guard side B-military?  If the police are not military but are not civilian what are they?  Are they protected by the rules of war?


This was directed at BB.