The right to shoot. Policing, Military, Citizenry?

[MikeMcMann]

I think self defense is a right everyone should have. But I also think with that right, particularly when you take a life, there comes a big responsibility to be able to demonstrate you were actually at threat and your actions were taken in the belief that there were few other options.

In my discussions on this forum I have learned from many of the military people who post here that military interactions, even in war zones, hold military personal to a much higher standard, when it comes to shooting a civilian, even in an area where there are foreign combatants. The soldiers must not just suspect a threat, they must identify the threat first and act second.

In most cases of typical citizen to citizen interaction (outside the few headliners) , average citizens in conflict with another citizen cannot just kill them over a perceived threat. They must be able to demonstrate that they were in fact at threat and were reacting directly to that threat or they will typically face steep charges.

The police, IMO, have the absolute lowest bar in terms of reacting to a perceived threat. This despite being the ones sworn to protect and serve their citizenry and not dealing with foreign nationals or citizen to citizen. it seems any motion that simply spooks an officer is now justification for them shooting and killing. They never have to wait to determine if the threat is valid. They can act on what is typically a hunch.

Do people agree with the assessment above that police have the lowest bar to justify their actions? And do people think that makes sense that gov't agents, empowered by the citizenry should have the lowest bar of responsibility for their actions?


(please don't make this thread about race or any singular conflicts. My goal is to determine if generally, you, the citizens believe police should be the group held to the lowest accountability standard and why?)

 

[panamaican]

I agree that they seem to have the lowest bar to justify action. And on one level, I understand why. The police are technically a civilian organization, it wouldn't make sense to hold them to a military level of justification without military training. Similarly, civilian to civilian interaction isn't in the context of engaging people who are probably criminals and law breakers, so asking civilians to be sure of their threats makes sense again.

Where things have gone astray seems to be that the ability for cops to take a life has increased thanks to technological improvements and training ability. In both hierarchical structure and tools of the trade, the cops have become more similar to a military organization but are still applying the internal standards of a civilian organization.

 

[oldshadow]

Legally the police must meet the same requirements as a civilian in the use of deadly force.

The only difference is they have a different power of arrest then citizens which changes the retreat clause if the state requires it of civilians.

 

[Dolomite]

Why compare concealed carriers to soldiers fighting in a war zone,

or a police officer walking up all by his lonesome to a car full of people he has just pulled over at 3:00AM?

 

[lfd0311]

The police, IMO, have the absolute lowest bar in terms of reacting to a perceived threat. This despite being the ones sworn to protect and serve their citizenry and not dealing with foreign nationals or citizen to citizen. it seems any motion that simply spooks an officer is now justification for them shooting and killing. They never have to wait to determine if the threat is valid. They can act on what is typically a hunch.

Do people agree with the assessment above that police have the lowest bar to justify their actions? And do people think that makes sense that gov't agents, empowered by the citizenry should have the lowest bar of responsibility for their actions?


(please don't make this thread about race or any singular conflicts. My goal is to determine if generally, you, the citizens believe police should be the group held to the lowest accountability standard and why?)

What I point out on multiple occasions, and I am always ignored, is that the Police bring a gun with them into every single situation they are involved in. In the 80's there was a study on Police killings in the US. Something in like the high 80s% of Police killed in the line of duty over a 20 year period were killed with their own gun, usually by a suspect they were simply trying to give the old "Hey, calm down buddy" who took the gun from them and shot them. Or they respond to a fight in a parking lot, try to break it up and someone they thought was a bystander comes up behind them, takes the gun off them while they are bent over and kills them with it. Take that into consideration, folks. Just because a suspect isn't armed at the moment doesn't mean he can't get armed in a hurry, seeing how every single cop in America brought a pistol a rifle and maybe even a shotgun to every single call he or she has ever responded to in their entire career.

In 2013 28 Police officers were killed in the line of duty. 11 of them were killed in shootings that took place between 0-5 feet, 2 were killed with their own gun. Police procedures are designed around this very model. If you fight with the cops, the laws and procedures in the US are designed with the mentality that at some point that fight is going to end up in a close quarters struggle for that cops gun. They are going to end it if at all possible before it gets there, and they have every single right in the world to do so. It takes a lot for a cop to pull his gun out. Once it's out, it takes almost nothing for him to be legally justified in shooting you. Know, understand and recognize that. Don't just bitch needlessly on the internet about it.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Why compare concealed carriers to soldiers fighting in a war zone,

or a police officer walking up all by his lonesome to a car full of people he has just pulled over at 3:00AM?

You compare because through comparison you can use critical analysis to compare the thresholds others are held to.

As you have done here, you look at examples in each and look at what the threshold of engagement is, and what is required before force is used.

 

[MikeMcMann]

What I point out on multiple occasions, and I am always ignored, is that the Police bring a gun with them into every single situation they are involved in. In the 80's there was a study on Police killings in the US. Something in like the high 80s% of Police killed in the line of duty over a 20 year period were killed with their own gun, usually by a suspect they were simply trying to give the old "Hey, calm down buddy" who took the gun from them and shot them. Or they respond to a fight in a parking lot, try to break it up and someone they thought was a bystander comes up behind them, takes the gun off them while they are bent over and kills them with it. Take that into consideration, folks. Just because a suspect isn't armed at the moment doesn't mean he can't get armed in a hurry, seeing how every single cop in America brought a pistol a rifle and maybe even a shotgun to every single call he or she has ever responded to in their entire career.

In 2013 28 Police officers were killed in the line of duty. 11 of them were killed in shootings that took place between 0-5 feet, 2 were killed with their own gun. Police procedures are designed around this very model. If you fight with the cops, the laws and procedures in the US are designed with the mentality that at some point that fight is going to end up in a close quarters struggle for that cops gun. They are going to end it if at all possible before it gets there, and they have every single right in the world to do so. It takes a lot for a cop to pull his gun out. Once it's out, it takes almost nothing for him to be legally justified in shooting you. Know, understand and recognize that. Don't just bitch needlessly on the internet about it.

Interesting post. so would you say that there is an argument for most police to not be armed such as in England?

 

[Dolomite]

That's not the point to his post at all.

He's explained, basically, the genesis of the 'officer survival movement'.

And your response is to take away the cop's gun.

 

[MikeMcMann]

That's not the point to his post at all.

He's explained, basically, the genesis of the 'officer survival movement'.

And your response is to take away the cop's gun.

Not sure if you are trolling or not. I never made a point. I asked a question. His answer could be 'no' and that would be that.

 

[Dolomite]

look at examples in each and look at what the threshold of engagement is, and what is required before force is used.

Sworn military personnel and sworn law enforcement officers take an oath to defend something other than themselves. In certain circumstances, they have a legal duty to engage threats with whatever force the officers above them deem appropriate.

Citizens with concealed carry permits bear no such responsibility. They are no different from any other person walking around (except for the fact that in some areas where it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon, they are permitted - that's it).

In other words - if they see trouble, they are free to turn around and walk away. Cops & Soldiers are not. Their "bar" as you like to put it (especially a cop's) sits precariously high.

 

[Dolomite]

That's basically all I do: troll gun threads.

 

[lfd0311]

Interesting post. so would you say that there is an argument for most police to not be armed such as in England?

No, because you can't compare the English civilan population's attitude toward firearms to the American civilian's attitude towards firearms. People seem to want to be able to by any firearm they want and carry it around with them, but expect the cops to not be prepared for altercations with heavily armed and violent people, even people who have armed themselves legally.

 

[Dolomite]

People seem to want to be able to by any firearm they want and carry it around with them,

That's me.

but expect the cops to not be prepared for altercations with heavily armed and violent people, even people who have armed themselves legally.

What the cops do -or how they behave- is 100% on the community that pays their salary.

The ONLY PEOPLE that are allowed to order someone to produce their concealed carry permit are Law Enforcement Officers. My community is responsible for that because they elected the representatives who passed that part of the law.

 

[Losfer Words]

Monopoly on the legitimate use of violence is the definition of a State.

 

[MikeMcMann]

No, because you can't compare the English civilan population's attitude toward firearms to the American civilian's attitude towards firearms. People seem to want to be able to by any firearm they want and carry it around with them, but expect the cops to not be prepared for altercations with heavily armed and violent people, even people who have armed themselves legally.

Ya I hear ya. I wonder how much the concept of 'escalation' plays into the difference.

 

[lfd0311]

That's me.What the cops do -or how they behave- is 100% on the community that pays their salary.

The ONLY PEOPLE that are allowed to order someone to produce their concealed carry permit are Law Enforcement Officers. My community is responsible for that because they elected the representatives who passed that part of the law.

Do you think you get to carry a gun and then not prove that you are doing so legally?

EDIT: That isn't meant as a sarcastic or rhetorical question

 

[shockaholic12]

Sworn military personnel and sworn law enforcement officers take an oath to defend something other than themselves. In certain circumstances, they have a legal duty to engage threats with whatever force the officers above them deem appropriate.

Citizens with concealed carry permits bear no such responsibility. They are no different from any other person walking around (except for the fact that in some areas where it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon, they are permitted - that's it).

In other words - if they see trouble, they are free to turn around and walk away. Cops & Soldiers are not. Their "bar" as you like to put it (especially a cop's) sits precariously high.

Not true. The bar is not nearly as high for cops as your are describing it.

Example, the incident in 2011 where a citizen had to fight off a deranged spree killer stabbing him with an 8'' knife in a subway car while two NYPD officers hid in the conductors booth feet away and watched and did nothing till the stabbed man had subdued the killer by himself. Court's ruled he couldn't even sue the department and that the cops had "no special duty" to protect him or any other citizens on the train car that day.

 

[lfd0311]

Ya I hear ya. I wonder how much the concept of 'escalation' plays into the difference.

The whole role of the police is de-escalation. That's why they move on people who don't listen right away the way they do. So just listen. It's that simple. If you have a legitimate greivance of some kind with a law or a regulation, take it up with the court system, not the cop in the street. He isn't there to deal with your complaint of the law, and he has no say in it anyway.

 

[Dolomite]

Do you think you get to carry a gun and then not prove that you are doing so legally?

Yes. If I'm doing anything that's been enumerated in the Constitution as a protected right, there are scant few circumstances where I should have to prove the legality of my actions to anybody.

 

[lfd0311]

Yes. If I'm doing anything that's been enumerated in the Constitution as a protected right, there are scant few circumstances where I should have to prove the legality of my actions to anybody.

That makes no sense. How else are the police suppoused to determine whether or not you're doing something legally or illegally if they don't stop you and make sure?

Are they just suppoused to see some dude rolling down the street with an AR slung in front of him and smile and wave?