Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Police Use of Deadly Force

Axon85
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2016 9:55:02 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
In the polarizing discourse surrounding police use of deadly force, it seems most debates are focused on the particulars of each individual case. There is nothing wrong with this, in fact it is important to examine each case individually. However, it seems like there is another component missing from the general discussion.

The following question is open to everyone but I am particularly interested in hearing from people who tended to side against the police in most of the high-profile shootings of the past few years.

If you were writing the rules governing police conduct, under what circumstances would you deem it acceptable for an officer to discharge their firearm and use deadly force against a suspect? Try to be as specific as possible but make sure your answer can be abstracted into general principles.
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 1:28:50 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
The stipulations under which lethal force is justified is the same in the USA as in most other countries -the life of the officer must be in immediate danger. There are few rules in addition to that because you can't define life or death situations with an algorithm, and you especially don't want to force officers to defer a decision with their life on the line to someone else's generalised protocol.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 1:34:33 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/23/2016 1:28:50 AM, Smithereens wrote:
The stipulations under which lethal force is justified is the same in the USA as in most other countries -the life of the officer must be in immediate danger.

That isn't accurate. Your statement suggests an objective standard, whereas in the US, the standard is subjective (i.e. did the officer feel that his or her life was in immediate danger).

There are few rules in addition to that because you can't define life or death situations with an algorithm, and you especially don't want to force officers to defer a decision with their life on the line to someone else's generalised protocol.

There are protocols for how the police must use force in response to threats, and the rules are numerous. They comprise a substantial percentage of criminal procedure.

I often wonder why people without knowledge on topics opine on things that place them out of their depth....
Tsar of DDO
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 1:39:57 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/23/2016 1:34:33 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/23/2016 1:28:50 AM, Smithereens wrote:
The stipulations under which lethal force is justified is the same in the USA as in most other countries -the life of the officer must be in immediate danger.

That isn't accurate. Your statement suggests an objective standard, whereas in the US, the standard is subjective (i.e. did the officer feel that his or her life was in immediate danger).

It is assumed that if the officer feels their life is in danger, their life is in danger. You'll have to quote the relevant laws you are talking about because I'm not aware of any specification for subjectivity. I doubt you'll be able to provide an example.


There are few rules in addition to that because you can't define life or death situations with an algorithm, and you especially don't want to force officers to defer a decision with their life on the line to someone else's generalised protocol.

There are protocols for how the police must use force in response to threats, and the rules are numerous. They comprise a substantial percentage of criminal procedure.

I often wonder why people without knowledge on topics opine on things that place them out of their depth....

Please name these protocols you speak of.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 1:43:54 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/23/2016 1:39:57 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/23/2016 1:34:33 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/23/2016 1:28:50 AM, Smithereens wrote:
The stipulations under which lethal force is justified is the same in the USA as in most other countries -the life of the officer must be in immediate danger.

That isn't accurate. Your statement suggests an objective standard, whereas in the US, the standard is subjective (i.e. did the officer feel that his or her life was in immediate danger).

It is assumed that if the officer feels their life is in danger, their life is in danger. You'll have to quote the relevant laws you are talking about because I'm not aware of any specification for subjectivity. I doubt you'll be able to provide an example.

lol

Google it for yourself. The standard is subjective. Your attitude is shameful.

There are few rules in addition to that because you can't define life or death situations with an algorithm, and you especially don't want to force officers to defer a decision with their life on the line to someone else's generalised protocol.

There are protocols for how the police must use force in response to threats, and the rules are numerous. They comprise a substantial percentage of criminal procedure.

I often wonder why people without knowledge on topics opine on things that place them out of their depth....

Please name these protocols you speak of.

Google it.
Tsar of DDO
Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 1:50:38 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/23/2016 1:43:54 AM, YYW wrote:
Google it for yourself. The standard is subjective. Your attitude is shameful.

This is the point I was making, you can't have protocols that restrict officers in a life and death situation, yet you seem to believe that there are plenty.

There are few rules in addition to that because you can't define life or death situations with an algorithm, and you especially don't want to force officers to defer a decision with their life on the line to someone else's generalised protocol.

There are protocols for how the police must use force in response to threats, and the rules are numerous. They comprise a substantial percentage of criminal procedure.

Please name these protocols you speak of.

Google it.

I did, guess what? No relevant results, clearly you don't know what you're talking about.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 1:51:32 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/23/2016 1:50:38 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/23/2016 1:43:54 AM, YYW wrote:
Google it for yourself. The standard is subjective. Your attitude is shameful.

This is the point I was making, you can't have protocols that restrict officers in a life and death situation, yet you seem to believe that there are plenty.

There are few rules in addition to that because you can't define life or death situations with an algorithm, and you especially don't want to force officers to defer a decision with their life on the line to someone else's generalised protocol.

There are protocols for how the police must use force in response to threats, and the rules are numerous. They comprise a substantial percentage of criminal procedure.

Please name these protocols you speak of.

Google it.

I did, guess what? No relevant results, clearly you don't know what you're talking about.

roflmao
Tsar of DDO
Hiu
Posts: 1,015
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 2:16:57 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/22/2016 9:55:02 PM, Axon85 wrote:
In the polarizing discourse surrounding police use of deadly force, it seems most debates are focused on the particulars of each individual case. There is nothing wrong with this, in fact it is important to examine each case individually. However, it seems like there is another component missing from the general discussion.

The following question is open to everyone but I am particularly interested in hearing from people who tended to side against the police in most of the high-profile shootings of the past few years.

If you were writing the rules governing police conduct, under what circumstances would you deem it acceptable for an officer to discharge their firearm and use deadly force against a suspect? Try to be as specific as possible but make sure your answer can be abstracted into general principles.

Great question! I'll answer this tomorrow...
Axon85
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 2:25:47 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/23/2016 1:39:57 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/23/2016 1:34:33 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/23/2016 1:28:50 AM, Smithereens wrote:
The stipulations under which lethal force is justified is the same in the USA as in most other countries -the life of the officer must be in immediate danger.

That isn't accurate. Your statement suggests an objective standard, whereas in the US, the standard is subjective (i.e. did the officer feel that his or her life was in immediate danger).

It is assumed that if the officer feels their life is in danger, their life is in danger.

Not necessarily. Suppose in the middle of a traffic stop I point a gun at a police officer. Under these circumstances they would be justified in lethal force. Now suppose it turns out that the gun I was holding was a fake; this means the officer's life was actually not in immediate danger. Nonetheless, they would still likely be cleared of criminal conduct.

So the key factor has to do with the existence of a perceived threat from the officer's 1st-person vantage point. In many cases, the perceived threat will be indicative of a real threat, but not always. This means that the officer's actions cannot always be judged with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight since the officers themselves will never enjoy the luxury of complete knowledge in split-second life-or-death decisions.

You'll have to quote the relevant laws you are talking about because I'm not aware of any specification for subjectivity. I doubt you'll be able to provide an example.


There are few rules in addition to that because you can't define life or death situations with an algorithm, and you especially don't want to force officers to defer a decision with their life on the line to someone else's generalised protocol.

There are protocols for how the police must use force in response to threats, and the rules are numerous. They comprise a substantial percentage of criminal procedure.

I often wonder why people without knowledge on topics opine on things that place them out of their depth....

Please name these protocols you speak of.
Axon85
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 2:27:29 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/23/2016 2:16:57 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 9/22/2016 9:55:02 PM, Axon85 wrote:
In the polarizing discourse surrounding police use of deadly force, it seems most debates are focused on the particulars of each individual case. There is nothing wrong with this, in fact it is important to examine each case individually. However, it seems like there is another component missing from the general discussion.

The following question is open to everyone but I am particularly interested in hearing from people who tended to side against the police in most of the high-profile shootings of the past few years.

If you were writing the rules governing police conduct, under what circumstances would you deem it acceptable for an officer to discharge their firearm and use deadly force against a suspect? Try to be as specific as possible but make sure your answer can be abstracted into general principles.

Great question! I'll answer this tomorrow...

Cheers!
kevin24018
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 2:29:36 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/23/2016 1:50:38 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/23/2016 1:43:54 AM, YYW wrote:
Google it for yourself. The standard is subjective. Your attitude is shameful.

This is the point I was making, you can't have protocols that restrict officers in a life and death situation, yet you seem to believe that there are plenty.

There are few rules in addition to that because you can't define life or death situations with an algorithm, and you especially don't want to force officers to defer a decision with their life on the line to someone else's generalised protocol.

There are protocols for how the police must use force in response to threats, and the rules are numerous. They comprise a substantial percentage of criminal procedure.

Please name these protocols you speak of.

Google it.

I did, guess what? No relevant results, clearly you don't know what you're talking about.

he's trying to get everyone else to find the answers it would appear since not much thought was really put into the OP
He should have examined under what circumstances a civilian can defend themselves with lethal force, then look up a random state, pull their guidelines and compare and contrast. Without anything to go by, unless everyone wants to look it up themselves there's no real starting point.
Axon85
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 2:47:02 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/23/2016 2:29:36 AM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/23/2016 1:50:38 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/23/2016 1:43:54 AM, YYW wrote:
Google it for yourself. The standard is subjective. Your attitude is shameful.

This is the point I was making, you can't have protocols that restrict officers in a life and death situation, yet you seem to believe that there are plenty.

There are few rules in addition to that because you can't define life or death situations with an algorithm, and you especially don't want to force officers to defer a decision with their life on the line to someone else's generalised protocol.

There are protocols for how the police must use force in response to threats, and the rules are numerous. They comprise a substantial percentage of criminal procedure.

Please name these protocols you speak of.

Google it.

I did, guess what? No relevant results, clearly you don't know what you're talking about.

he's trying to get everyone else to find the answers it would appear since not much thought was really put into the OP
He should have examined under what circumstances a civilian can defend themselves with lethal force, then look up a random state, pull their guidelines and compare and contrast. Without anything to go by, unless everyone wants to look it up themselves there's no real starting point.

I am not talking about civilians, I am talking about police. The legal standards governing the behavior of police vs. civilians is going to differ. Secondly, I am not asking people to look up the objective answer from a legal standpoint. I am familiar with the laws and some of the judicial precedents concerning the use of deadly force by police. However, in watching the discourse unfold over the past several years, it appears that many people are either unfamiliar or unhappy with these laws. Hence my question.
Contrarian003
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 6:06:17 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
When an officer is asked to neutralize a suspect he needs to act quickly and decisively otherwise the suspect runs away. The officer could carry both a lethal and a non lethal device and first attempt to use a non-lethal procedure if he needs to use force. If an officer uses non-lethal force against someone who carries a lethal weapon, he puts himself at risk. This is an emotionally intense setting and that is prone to errors and abuse. Speed and decisiveness are both needed is such situations. How are those situations avoided is the problem.

Good generals don't engage the ennemy unless they have a good tactical advantage. They develop actions over a long period of time so they are not just reacting based on their training but they rather act based on knowledge and a lot of it.

Officers get a lot of training either formal or through exchanges with colleages so they can react quickly. But acting just based on training is not enough. Officers need to develop their own jugment by solving simple issues first and getting in touch with the community before undertaking risky tasks and confront people. Officers need to know some practical psychology and how to handle conflicts without escalating the violence.

In that context a cultural disconnect between police officers and the community makes it difficult to develop the communication and knowledge needed to handle conflicts. So conflicts degenerate and officers feel compelled to engage the suspect.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,024
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 7:52:06 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
I might start with the 'right' not to be subject to lethal force. That right can be lost or suspended if a person gives a credible demonstaration, by word or deed, willingness and ability to use lethal or near-lethal force themselves.

I would not allow the use of lethal force to protect property or to prevent flight except as above.

Framing guidelines is something a democracy should have a more active debate about.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 12:02:29 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/23/2016 2:47:02 AM, Axon85 wrote:
At 9/23/2016 2:29:36 AM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/23/2016 1:50:38 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/23/2016 1:43:54 AM, YYW wrote:
Google it for yourself. The standard is subjective. Your attitude is shameful.

This is the point I was making, you can't have protocols that restrict officers in a life and death situation, yet you seem to believe that there are plenty.

There are few rules in addition to that because you can't define life or death situations with an algorithm, and you especially don't want to force officers to defer a decision with their life on the line to someone else's generalised protocol.

There are protocols for how the police must use force in response to threats, and the rules are numerous. They comprise a substantial percentage of criminal procedure.

Please name these protocols you speak of.

Google it.

I did, guess what? No relevant results, clearly you don't know what you're talking about.

he's trying to get everyone else to find the answers it would appear since not much thought was really put into the OP
He should have examined under what circumstances a civilian can defend themselves with lethal force, then look up a random state, pull their guidelines and compare and contrast. Without anything to go by, unless everyone wants to look it up themselves there's no real starting point.

I am not talking about civilians, I am talking about police. The legal standards governing the behavior of police vs. civilians is going to differ.

That is not entirely true. The police are under no compunction to expose themselves to danger any more than a citizen, if there is a reasonable threat to life or limb, they are not specifically obligated to "take it" because they are police. They are there to enforce the law.

Secondly, I am not asking people to look up the objective answer from a legal standpoint. I am familiar with the laws and some of the judicial precedents concerning the use of deadly force by police. However, in watching the discourse unfold over the past several years, it appears that many people are either unfamiliar or unhappy with these laws. Hence my question.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
kevin24018
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 12:02:32 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/23/2016 2:47:02 AM, Axon85 wrote:
At 9/23/2016 2:29:36 AM, kevin24018 wrote:
At 9/23/2016 1:50:38 AM, Smithereens wrote:
At 9/23/2016 1:43:54 AM, YYW wrote:
Google it for yourself. The standard is subjective. Your attitude is shameful.

This is the point I was making, you can't have protocols that restrict officers in a life and death situation, yet you seem to believe that there are plenty.

There are few rules in addition to that because you can't define life or death situations with an algorithm, and you especially don't want to force officers to defer a decision with their life on the line to someone else's generalised protocol.

There are protocols for how the police must use force in response to threats, and the rules are numerous. They comprise a substantial percentage of criminal procedure.

Please name these protocols you speak of.

Google it.

I did, guess what? No relevant results, clearly you don't know what you're talking about.

he's trying to get everyone else to find the answers it would appear since not much thought was really put into the OP
He should have examined under what circumstances a civilian can defend themselves with lethal force, then look up a random state, pull their guidelines and compare and contrast. Without anything to go by, unless everyone wants to look it up themselves there's no real starting point.

I am not talking about civilians, I am talking about police. The legal standards governing the behavior of police vs. civilians is going to differ. Secondly, I am not asking people to look up the objective answer from a legal standpoint. I am familiar with the laws and some of the judicial precedents concerning the use of deadly force by police. However, in watching the discourse unfold over the past several years, it appears that many people are either unfamiliar or unhappy with these laws. Hence my question.

that's true the problem I see, is they don't have the context and won't educate themselves, are cops held to a looser or stricter standard to civilians?, do we expect more or less of them than the average person? Let's say you take the cop out and replace them with a average person who is concealed or open carrying and someone steps out of their car holding a gun (which is illegal as I'm sure you know). Is this public standard to which they are making judgement realistic or not.
Hiu
Posts: 1,015
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2016 11:43:19 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
I believe in circumstances dealing with raids, and felony stops especially since the individual is known to be a violent felon I believe it is not only necessary to use deadly force if they are brandishing a weapon, but it is the rational thing to do. I do not think if someone is running away from you if you are conducting a criminal investigation that deadly force ought to be used. But I think, based on circumstance, if someone is pointing a gun or is behaving erratic in the sense of they are reaching for something after several attempts at warning them I believe it is necessary. However, all situations are not equal so officers would have to use their rational judgment. Look at the Tamir Rice situation for example. For one, no officer has no business pulling up that close to a suspect that could perhaps have a deadly weapon. In a situation like that where officers are getting a description of someone with a possible gun/rifle all officers must engage with caution.

I believe for a situation like that, there must be a considerable amount of distance between you and the suspect. The suspect must be aware of your presence and the suspect must be commanded to drop their weapon. I believe commands should be clear and concise and the suspect must know that if they do not drop the weapon and that if they point the weapon then deadly force would be used. However, one must look at the situation for what it is. If the officers see that it is a child who happens to look freakishly older, I think it"s best to switch to tasers.
Axon85
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2016 4:44:04 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/23/2016 11:43:19 PM, Hiu wrote:
I believe in circumstances dealing with raids, and felony stops especially since the individual is known to be a violent felon I believe it is not only necessary to use deadly force if they are brandishing a weapon, but it is the rational thing to do. I do not think if someone is running away from you if you are conducting a criminal investigation that deadly force ought to be used. But I think, based on circumstance, if someone is pointing a gun or is behaving erratic in the sense of they are reaching for something after several attempts at warning them I believe it is necessary.

I agree.

However, all situations are not equal so officers would have to use their rational judgment. Look at the Tamir Rice situation for example. For one, no officer has no business pulling up that close to a suspect that could perhaps have a deadly weapon. In a situation like that where officers are getting a description of someone with a possible gun/rifle all officers must engage with caution.


In the Tamir Rice case, I do you think there was a point at which it was reasonable for the officers to assume that Rice was a threat (he was reported waving a gun and reached towards his waistband). However, I do think you make a fair point in that officers should, to the best of their ability, try to avoid getting into situations wherein a potential threat becomes a potentially imminent threat. So in the Rice case, I agree that maybe the police could have kept their distance (at least initially) as opposed to stopping 2 feet from the kid.

I believe for a situation like that, there must be a considerable amount of distance between you and the suspect. The suspect must be aware of your presence and the suspect must be commanded to drop their weapon. I believe commands should be clear and concise and the suspect must know that if they do not drop the weapon and that if they point the weapon then deadly force would be used. However, one must look at the situation for what it is. If the officers see that it is a child who happens to look freakishly older, I think it"s best to switch to tasers.
Axon85
Posts: 137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2016 4:47:30 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/24/2016 12:01:42 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
Here lazies... This is for my metro pd but also covers doj protocol

https://louisvilleky.gov...

I wasn't asking for the specific guidelines in the OP. It seems that in light of recent shootings, many people have expressed criticisms relating to police training and protocols. Hence my question of what the criteria should be. But thanks for the link.
Stymie13
Posts: 2,162
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2016 1:04:08 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/24/2016 4:47:30 AM, Axon85 wrote:
At 9/24/2016 12:01:42 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
Here lazies... This is for my metro pd but also covers doj protocol

https://louisvilleky.gov...

I wasn't asking for the specific guidelines in the OP. It seems that in light of recent shootings, many people have expressed criticisms relating to police training and protocols. Hence my question of what the criteria should be. But thanks for the link.

Read the 17 pages... It pretty much covers every 'should' contingency.
kevin24018
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2016 12:53:36 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 9/24/2016 4:47:30 AM, Axon85 wrote:
At 9/24/2016 12:01:42 AM, Stymie13 wrote:
Here lazies... This is for my metro pd but also covers doj protocol

https://louisvilleky.gov...

I wasn't asking for the specific guidelines in the OP. It seems that in light of recent shootings, many people have expressed criticisms relating to police training and protocols. Hence my question of what the criteria should be. But thanks for the link.

I know what your asking, but I think while a little similar all these situations are very different and is the judgement of the officer involved, so it's fun to play Monday morning quarterback I don't know this can really be answered, from what I understand the doj sets minimum rules and each state/jurisdiction adds to it make the rules stricter than just following the doj, that's why some police agencies are accredited, they follow the more strict guidelines, I think.