The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[Barrister]

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? At the end of the movie they showed that the Wolverines memorialized for their resistance: were the Americans honoring war criminals? 

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? 

I think the Wolverines fate (who, may I add, were not police which is what we were discussing) would be decided by the victors.  In a US victory they're heroes.  In a Soviet victory they're summarily executed as terrorists.

Edit: even in a purely military scenario if you see an unarmed enemy combatant just walking down the road is it legal under the rules of war to just summarily shoot this person?  Is there no obligation to detain / capture?

[Barrister]

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.

I have little idea what the rules of war are like during a civil war.  If police on either side start taking up arms against the other then they're some level of combatants and treated as same.

[The Brain]

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? At the end of the movie they showed that the Wolverines memorialized for their resistance: were the Americans honoring war criminals? 

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? 

I think the Wolverines fate (who, may I add, were not police which is what we were discussing) would be decided by the victors.  In a US victory they're heroes.  In a Soviet victory they're summarily executed as terrorists.

Edit: even in a purely military scenario if you see an unarmed enemy combatant just walking down the road is it legal under the rules of war to just summarily shoot this person?  Is there no obligation to detain / capture?

AFAIK ambushes are legal in war.

Edit: For clarity, including of unarmed soldiers.

[Malthus]

If the Police is not the problem, who is?

I believe that the police in the US are most definitely the problem, but I can see a rational response to your question being 'the insane gun culture in the US'.

The US has more guns in more people's hands than most other countries. That means the potential threat to cops during any aggressive encounter is going to be higher, meaning that on average the incidence of quite legitimate threats to the cops in doing their job will be higher - all else being equal. It doesn't matter if the interaction started out as aggressive or not - a simple traffic stop where someone is annoyed at getting a ticket could turn lethal if that person gets pissed off and pulls a gun.

The argument goes that, even if the cops in the US were not a problem, you could reasonably expect more police shootings per cop than a comparable country without an insane gun culture.

In my opinion, there is more to it than that, but at least that's a rational argument.

[alfred russel]

Also, the deeply stupid mentality present in a society with more guns than people is going to infiltrate the society's police forces.

[Admiral Yi]

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?

But you didn't accuse me of being in favor of cops being one step away from shooting this guy in the BP parking lot.  You accused me of being in favor of actually shooting him.

[Habbaku]

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".

I am not sure if it is true, but I would be surprised and a little shocked that any police were trained to shoot to wound or incapacitate. If an officer is in a position where they are firing their gun, they should be shooting to kill and damn the consequences otherwise.

[Barrister]

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".

I am not sure if it is true, but I would be surprised and a little shocked that any police were trained to shoot to wound or incapacitate. If an officer is in a position where they are firing their gun, they should be shooting to kill and damn the consequences otherwise.

In talking with (Canadian) cops, they aren't exactly trained to "shoot to kill", but rather to shoot at the centre body mass.  Aiming a handgun is tricky at the best of times, never mind in a high-stress environment.  Aiming centre body mass has your best chance of hitting the target, and thus putting down the suspect and ending the threat.

And if you're not prepared to risk killing the suspect you shouldn't be shooting in the first place.  That's what less-lethal options like a taser or OC spray are for.

[DGuller]

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".

I am not sure if it is true, but I would be surprised and a little shocked that any police were trained to shoot to wound or incapacitate. If an officer is in a position where they are firing their gun, they should be shooting to kill and damn the consequences otherwise.

I recall The Brain mentioning a couple of times that Swedes take great pride in having cops that know how to shoot the legs of suspects.

[Admiral Yi]

Data from Axios:

Do they have a similar graphic for cop deaths?  That would be interesting to look at.

[Barrister]

Data from Axios:

Do they have a similar graphic for cop deaths?  That would be interesting to look at.

Here's the best I can find from 15 second of googling:

Total Line of Duty Deaths: 359

9/11 related illness14
Aircraft accident 1
Assault 1
Automobile crash 19
COVID19 231
Drowned 4
Duty related illness 5
Gunfire 45
Gunfire (Inadvertent) 4
Heart attack 7
Heatstroke 1
Motorcycle crash 4
Struck by vehicle 8
Vehicle pursuit 2
Vehicular assault 13

https://www.odmp.org/search/year/2020

2019 showed only 150 line of duty deaths

[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".

I am not sure if it is true, but I would be surprised and a little shocked that any police were trained to shoot to wound or incapacitate. If an officer is in a position where they are firing their gun, they should be shooting to kill and damn the consequences otherwise.

Shooting to wound is not what I'm talking about. All sane police forces that I'm aware of shoot to wound if they can choose between shooting to wound and shooting to instantly incapacitate with the highest chance of success (AKA a bullet to center of mass, which is highly likely to kill the person). If you shoot someone in the chest, and you're shooting to kill, it makes sense to put a lot of bullets in the guy to avoid any chance of him surviving. If you're not shooting to kill you don't need to keep shooting once the guy is out of action. If your instructors have drummed into you that you should "shoot to kill" then it makes sense to make sure the guy is dead.

IIRC I've seen a clip of US cops (sniper) shooting the gun out of a guy's hand, so it's not like even US cops always shoot to kill.

[Admiral Yi]

Here's the best I can find from 15 second of googling:

Thanks, but what I was looking for is more along the lines of "X number of cops killed during domestic incident, Y number of cops killed during traffic incident," etc.

[Barrister]

Here's the best I can find from 15 second of googling:

Thanks, but what I was looking for is more along the lines of "X number of cops killed during domestic incident, Y number of cops killed during traffic incident," etc.

Really though Jacob's chart wasn't much help either.  It just says what the initial call was - it doesn't say much of anything about how the individual death happened.

[Admiral Yi]

Really though Jacob's chart wasn't much help either.  It just says what the initial call was - it doesn't say much of anything about how the individual death happened.

It says police killings.  What more do you need?