They’re not executioners. They should be approaching the situation like every single person is equal to them and is afforded the innocent until proven guilty in a court of law mentality. This means their goal from every encounter is to take someone alive and unharmed unless they are forced to defend themselves. If they go into a situation thinking one group of people has “violent tendencies” over another, they should be out.
If they were just walking by a person on the street who collapsed and needed medical help, and they stood by and did nothing while he died, wouldn’t there be a good case for criminal negligence?
In these cases THEY ACTUALLY INFLICTED THE INJURY and still did not act for a long time, if ever, to save the life. Even after the danger was well past and the suspect pacified and in custody. It seems crazy, but adrenaline and perception of life and death action does not allow calm and rational thinking, but the training should include post-shooting protocols for this reason, including duty to save lives.
I keep thinking back to The Right Stuff, and the one scene where the candidates were stuck in that room for days and then randomly blasted with all kinds of lights and sounds to see how they’d respond. Maybe introduce something like that to police academies?
The Miami shooting continues to get weirder.
Seems like one of the officers on the scene called out that the autistic man was “loading his weapon”… and then lied about it later on.
So an officer who was a member of the SWAT team for 4 years shot and missed his target hitting the therapist? Good that they caught that other officer in his lies instead of him getting away with it.
Jesus, what the duck?
Remind me never to volunteer for anything involving police in Florida.
Another confirmation that we’re not exactly recruiting the best and the brightest for our police forces.
Relevant:
The DoJ report basically condemns at every level the Baltimore PD. It is something to read. The complete naked prejudice, callous disregard for citizens, and ingnorance of rule of law and presumption of innocence is mind boggling.
Some excerpts:
and for contrast:
Gee, treat your citizens as people, and more fairly, and crime doesn’t spike? You don’t say. /s
Yes, but despite that damning DoJ report on Baltimore, certain contributors to these forums keep insisting that “there’s nothing to see here.” Because young men get fatal spinal injuries while just minding their own business, apparently. :rolleyes:
If crime fell during stop and frisk, and crime also fell when stop and frisk was largely ended, then we should probably not emphasize this lesson, since there doesn’t seem to be a causal relationship.
I disagree, because many people were clutching their pearls over ending the racially prejudiced stop and frisk. The same justifications for that procedure are often used to support other high conflict policing methods. Much like no knock warrants, resisting adoption of body cameras, and mandatory minimums are justified by their proponents over the fear that changing would lead to an increase in violence.
Here we clearly see that did not happen. Combined with other recent findings it exposes that many of their arguments are either inaccurate, or in bad faith. So it is very relevant when discussing the broader topic of police reforms. Here we have a reform, one that people were worried would increase crime, where crime continued to drop.
Fine. On principle I prefer to not look at broad trend lines of complicated subjects and conclude anything about narrow government programs, and that’s not even considering unintended consequences, but I’m willing to allow it for principled reductions of government that don’t negatively effect the trend line. Then at least we already have some good change in hand whether it “worked” empirically or not.
As a gun owner in Florida I see shit like this and get so angry. How can I explain to people that are not gun people, gun owners, that there are reasonable people who own guns? Then a police officer can’t tell if his gun is loaded or not? The fuck dude? I have no reply for this. Fuck. A cop, of all people.
I read an article today that said it’s a revolver that’s often used as a prop in these scenarios and loaded with blanks. I bet someone really screwed up, and everybody else thought there was no need to double check since of course it was loaded right just like every other time!
Why were they using blanks even? Why give these dumbfucks the opportunity to make a mistake when aiming guns at members of the public?
Yeah I would never volunteer to have someone fire blanks at me. Do they just want to make people seeing the demonstration jump?
Blanks give people a false sense of safety. They are inherently dangerous. In fact, you could argue they are even more dangerous than regular ammunition in certain situations because people tend to let their guard down when they are dealing with blanks. People tend to slack off when they think there’s no danger, which is a real problem when using blanks because they are still able to injure or kill people at very close ranges. Even when firearms are loaded with blanks, they can be deadly.
In the military, we used blanks for training purposes. We drilled with them as if they were normal rounds at all times. There was literally no instance when anyone was allowed to treat a loaded firearm differently based on the ammo. The punishment for neglecting range safety was the same regardless.
Heck, in the Boy Scouts, we were trained to treat every firearm as if it were loaded at all times.