About Police Shootings (in America, Duh)

Title of the thread should be all the warning you need about the videos youre going to find, here.



Police officer explaining why police fire so many rounds when they shoot people. I think he makes valid points which the video gives first hand example of.

Kobos: I have discussed this with many people and have the utmost respect for all Police Officers.

This is an extremely reasonable statement. While it isn't wrong, per se, I think its time to disagree with it. Here's why.

I don't take for granted that police officers have tough jobs that are sometimes dangerous. Sometimes, they save someone's life just by showing up. Their presence alone deters crime. All police deserve a level of respect just for putting on the uniform.

ON THE OTHER HAND...

We need to go back to the axiom of judging people on the content of their characters, not the color of their skin, their gender, their sexual preferences, their bank accounts, degrees, job titles, or badges.

2016 was the first year in my adult life in which I had no respect for the President of the United States because one man shattered my young (40) idealistic view that not everyone can be the President. WRONG!

For some citizens we presume the best while others we presume the worst. This is often because of the positions they are in, not because of what they do in their positions. I work with good people everyday who usually do the best they can, but part of that is their own personal pride, not some innate pride of their position. It's reinforced by the fear of getting fired. This creates a system of checks and balances. When they make mistakes they can be forgiven but the company can also get rid of people who just aren't working out. Respect is earned.

Now imagine if everyone had the utmost respect for every customer service representative because of the amount of dumb or angry customers they have to deal with? Would it be as easy to fire someone who was messing up to the point of doing the opposite of customer service? Imagine if you called a company and the CSR cussed you out, charged you extra money, hung up on you, and deleted your account. Would you even be talking about all the good CSRs out there and how we should cooperate as much as possible because their jobs are difficult blah blah blah? No. And what if its not just a CSR but a telemarketer who wont take you off the call list even though you told them you don't want their warranty for your car 10 times already? "Dude! But its only $100 a month!"

How many incidents would there be before you start losing respect for telemarketers in general? Maybe even telemarketing in general because obviously there's not enough regulations to keep them from annoying the crap out of you.

The problem with a lot of cops is that they go into the job for the wrong reasons. They seek power. Maybe power they didn't have when they were bullied in school or when they they weren't good in sports or couldn't get As and Bs. We should have nearly the same respect for teachers, I think. But instead, we often pay people less money and don't make sure they're qualified to do the job that the rest of us don't want to do.

Just because a position involves power doesn't mean the people drawn to that powerful position are good people. Why do we assume this? Why do we assume that only good men would want to be cops? Because its dangerous? The lives of drug dealers are dangerous. Do we respect them? But a police officer is trying to protect people. Really? Perhaps a drug dealer is trying to protect people too. On the lower levels they might be trying to protect their immediate family from poverty, starvation, homelessness, etc. that is created, to some degree, by society. We've all seen shows about criminals... Breaking Bad, etc... where it is easy to respect the criminal. But in general, outside TV, because we don't know their stories, we often simply assume all criminals are "the bad guy" and all cops are "the good guy".

But isn't it more complicated than that?

And if it is more complicated it is an over simplification to throw a blanket over everyone and say "I respect all cops". "I don't respect any criminals". Why? Because of the law? Sometimes the law changes because the law isn't perfect. Marijuana is being legalized more and more because it should have never been illegal to begin with. And meanwhile, you have doctors, in positions of great respect, who we assume to be protecting us, also prescribing medications that get people addicted to the point where they have to turn to cheaper alternatives, to the point where not even that is enough, and they steal and turn to prostitution in order to pay for something that, in their minds, they need to survive.

Some of these people, feel free to speculate as to why, may be thought of as victims and their sickness as something to solve with love and the support of the community as a public health issue, where as others.... well they're just criminals. And if police shoot them 10 times... well good. They probably deserved it because I'd be scared of them too. That's how many people think.

We should not automatically assume who's on the right side and who is on the wrong side. Yes, it is the job of a police officer to be on the right side but if he's not good at his job he may not know what the right side is. He may get a call about a kid in the park with a gun and gun that kid down like, Anakin did to the younglings, without asking a single question; only to find out later that it was a toy gun.

I can't respect that. I can respect what his position is IDEALLY SUPPOSED TO BE. But I can only respect an officer INSOMUCH as they fulfill their duty to protect and serve. I can't respect them unless they deserve it and they don't deserve it strictly by virtue of title or rank. I feel the same way about our troops. It is sacrilege in the US, I know. But I respect the job they believe they are doing and the reasons they believe they are doing it. But with that said, I can't respect them unless they do it and do it well.

That's what ranks and medals are supposed to be about. Respecting all cops is perhaps... perhaps... disrespectful to the good cops who actually deserve it and a means of excusing and giving participation medals to all the slow kids that came in last. Respect should mean something by giving it when it is deserved. If an officer saves someone's life, deserved. If an officer takes someone's life who didn't need to die? NOT deserved. We have a whole judicial system designed to deal out justice and administer punishment. And when a cop uses his badge and the excuse of danger to play judge, jury, and executioner than he is a criminal wearing a badge. And if that's cool then I think all drug dealers should just become police officers.

I respect police officers, but only to the extent that I respect the person who delivers my mail or the person who checks my ticket at a theater. The people behind the badges span a whole range of people and it would be ridiculous, in my view, to cast judgment on such a large group of people based on the actions of only a few. However, simply being a police officer should offer a person neither special privileges nor special placement in the social hierarchy we participate in. It is also important to remember that the “heroic” image of police that many people hold would not be afforded to them if they were off-duty.
I think it is important to remember that these are (primarily) not legendary heroes and warriors standing up for what is right in the world and mercilessly pursuing evil; they are human beings like you and me, they are prone to anger, they may be selfless or selfish, and many of them think of their jobs just like you and I think of ours – as a job from which they collect a paycheck! Neither are they all evil villains bent on dominating social spheres and holding positions of power (or, at least, not all of them).
As an anarchist, I am no fan of rigid and formal legal structures which functionally oppress the people of a nation. In the United States, it is illegal to turn right into any lane which is not the rightmost lane, even when no one is around; it is illegal to grow certain harmless plants; it is illegal to collect rainwater; it is illegal, in some states, to hold a taser while it is perfectly legal to hold a firearm; it is illegal to do a great many things which people do in their daily lives without even realizing they are breaking the law. That these laws are nonsensical is not the fault of the police, it is the fault of the lawmakers. But police who enforce unjust laws are not any more innocent than the Nazi officers who were “just doing their job(s)”.
There are certain cases which demonstrate that individual police officers are not, strictly speaking, deserving of the standard of respect afforded to them. In cases of unjust laws, police may only be held responsible for their own actions – upholding and enforcing unjust laws. Police officers who defend, uphold, and enforce unjust laws are not, in my view, worthy of even the respect given to janitorial staff in the general population. Not saying that one should disrespect janitors, but that they are often disrespected. There are also in cases of racial judgment; if a police officer pursues people of a certain race because of their racist views, they also are not deserving of the respect afforded to them. Additionally, those who use their position to inflate their own egos and who hold a smug view of superiority over the general population – undeserving of the respect afforded to them. And those who use their position to gain opportunities to commit violence are also undeserving of the respect afforded to them.
There are other issues with police, one of which I’ll outline here. Officers in the USA have, shockingly, one of the highest spousal abuse rates of any profession at 40%. That means almost half of the police officers you meet physically abuse their wife/husband. Nobody talks about this outside of select anarchist communities and “cop haters”. Why? Why is this acceptable in our society? How could the spousal abuse rate reach 40% in this group when it is normally between 10-20% in the general population?
Unfortunately, we are not currently in a position to dissolve police units across the country and become cop-free. I would love for this to be the case. People forget that we did not always have police and they insist that these officers are necessary to have a functioning society – it is not true. But for our society, as it is, to continue functioning, there must be some police presence. I would love for, someday, the people of this world to abandon all occupations which inherently require violence (or even murder!) to function, and to stop defending violence in the name of so-called “justice”. Violence is not justice! Our society teaches us that “justice” means handcuffs, locking people in cages, shooting people – the meaning of the word has been entirely corrupted. Justice is not simply the prevention of unjust acts, nor is it synonymous with retribution. For, if justice were merely the prevention of unjust acts, then unjust acts would merely be those actions which do not prevent themselves, and that is absurd!

Thanks for adding to the discussion. Quick questions, i was really hoping to talk about the video and the ideas within it; did you watch it and do you have anything to say about it?

ZealotX wrote: We need to go back to the axiom of judging people on the content of their characters, not the color of their skin, their gender, their sexual preferences, their bank accounts, degrees, job titles, or badges.

I think we need to do this in our day to day lives with the people around us, yes, but not with police shootings. Theres no way youre going to know the actual character of a police officer. You assume you know their character, but thats an incorrect assumption. We have to judge shootings based off of the actual evidence. The evidence includes all the backstory: why were the police called/what was the dispatch? How did the police approach the suspect and was it reasonable given the nature of the dispatch? How did the suspect behave when approached? This is why body cams are so important.

How many incidents would there be before you start losing respect for telemarketers in general? Maybe even telemarketing in general because obviously there's not enough regulations to keep them from annoying the crap out of you.

I dont know how many it took but in the rare event that i answer a number i dont recognize, if its a telemarketer i dont even bother to explain myself; i just hang up.

The problem with a lot of cops is that they go into the job for the wrong reasons. They seek power. Maybe power they didn't have when they were bullied in school or when they they weren't good in sports or couldn't get As and Bs.

I used to say this as well but i have to admit that its based on assumptions.

The lives of drug dealers are dangerous. Do we respect them? But a police officer is trying to protect people. Really? Perhaps a drug dealer is trying to protect people too. On the lower levels they might be trying to protect their immediate family from poverty, starvation, homelessness, etc. that is created, to some degree, by society. We've all seen shows about criminals... Breaking Bad, etc... where it is easy to respect the criminal. But in general, outside TV, because we don't know their stories, we often simply assume all criminals are "the bad guy" and all cops are "the good guy".

How many times have you been locked up? What drugs have you sold? What drugs have you done? These are personal questions but, respectfully, i think your ideas about drug dealers make sense to you because your only knowledge of them comes from popular entertainment. I get the impression that youve never been involved with the druggie life (the real druggie life) pr the crime life at all. I understand thats personal. We can talk about it in PM if youd prefer. Or not. Actually living the life gives you a more realistic perspective.

Yes, people see selling dope as an opportunity. Poor people are more desperate for a financial opportunity. But you cant be around crack heads or heroin addicts and not see that youre destroying people for money. You only have to know so many people who sell crack or heroin before you understand that they NOT GOOD for society. I single in particularly on crack and heroin because these have higher rates of non-addicts who sell the drug strictly for money (though its common for addicts of every kind to sell their drug of choice in order to always have access to it).
Marijuana is technically a drug but its not and drug, lol. The culture of users is alway different from crack, coke, heroin, and meth.

But isn't it more complicated than that?

Sort of but no? Yes, but not really? These drugs ruin people. If you choose to make your way in the world by feeding into the rapid destruction of human lives then when your life is destroyed it is because you brought it on yourself. Blaming society aka the white man is a convenient but juvenile excuse.
When i was a teenager, some of my friends used to enjoy stealing cars. I wasnt all that keen on it myself but i was a dumb kid with no money and nothing better to do than get buzzed and take adventure where i found it; so i went out joy riding a few times with my thieving buddies. Looking at who i am now, its a classic case of a person who grew up with some very bad influences and whose life went on a serious downward spiral but who was a decent person at heart and eventually turned himself around. I could have been killed any number of times for some things that ive done. A fifteen year old getting killed over a car (for example) is tragic, no two ways about it. But if i had been shot, it would have been the result of MY choices. My bad choices to bring misery to some random person.

Addiction is a mental health issue and poverty increases desperation. People, even good people get pulled into drugs and criminality for all kinds of reasons. I know, because it happened to me. Its a tragedy when a basically good person dies as a result of their crimes, but its also a fact that they went out to make victims of others. You cant just say the criminal is the real victim, its not true. Its unfair to the real victims.

And if police shoot them 10 times... well good. They probably deserved it because I'd be scared of them too. That's how many people think.

It took me a while to figure this out but ive come to this conclusion: the decision as to whether or not to fire is the important thing. This is a yes/no answer to the question “is deadly force appropriate?” There is no shooting people in the leg, theres no shooting to wound, and there are no “warning shots”. If an officer fires, it is to kill. The important issue is what should the policies on use of deadly force be? If the decision to fire is justified based on the existing policy then it doesnt matter how many bullets were used. Use as many as seems necessary.

Yes, it is the job of a police officer to be on the right side but if he's not good at his job he may not know what the right side is. He may get a call about a kid in the park with a gun and gun that kid down like, Anakin did to the younglings, without asking a single question; only to find out later that it was a toy gun.

Tamir Rice was a tragedy, we can agree on that. Where we disagree is here; im perfectly willing to believe that the officers handled the situation badly BUT i also know that i cant know, for sure. I wish they had been wearing body cams.

I understand youre probably not going to be receptive to this but please consider;

1) a twelve year who apparently old broke into someones home and murdered them. This article is particularly interesting because it broaches the topics of brain development and rehabilitation.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/12-year-old-charged-capital-murder-spotlights-justice-system-ill-n962886

2) a 14 year old who robbed another kid at gun point and then shot him.
https://www.pjstar.com/news/20191030/14-year-old-boy-found-guilty-of-peoria-murder

3) Robert Sandifer, “....a [11 year old] member of the street gang the Black Disciples (BD). After committing murder, arson and armed robbery, he was murdered by his own fellow gang members who feared he could become an informant, and that he was attracting too much attention towards their activities.”

So, there are little kids out there killing people, man. Cop gets a call of someone waving a gun... its easy for you to say youd be brave and handle things so differently but without actually being there, you cant really know. If it was your life and the thought of your family losing you and you were closely familiar with all the incidents of people shooting at cops that police are aware of, can you really say youd act differently?



Why police dont shoot people in the leg

Meant to post link to Robert “Yummy” Sandifer
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sandifer

Thanks for adding to the discussion. Quick questions, i was hoping to talk about the video and the ideas within it; did you watch it and do you have anything to say about it?

TheDude wrote: As an anarchist, I am no fan of rigid and formal legal structures which functionally oppress the people of a nation.

As a man who loves America and believes in our Constitution, i completely agree! I think, however, that we may have a different view on what constitutes “oppression”.

In the United States, it is illegal to turn right into any lane which is not the rightmost lane, even when no one is around; it is illegal to grow certain harmless plants; it is illegal to collect rainwater; it is illegal, in some states, to hold a taser while it is perfectly legal to hold a firearm; it is illegal to do a great many things which people do in their daily lives without even realizing they are breaking the law. That these laws are nonsensical is not the fault of the police, it is the fault of the lawmakers.

Yes, we have some stupid laws. We have laws so stupid that they might even be considered unjust. Should this be seen as oppression, or just the unfortunate but probably inevitable missteps of a modern, organized society? Considering the amount of freedom that we do have considering that we also have mechanisms to change our laws, i feel it is accurate to choose the latter view.

But police who enforce unjust laws are not any more innocent than the Nazi officers who were “just doing their job(s)”.

Police are often co-opted into generating funds for the local government through crackdowns in things like traffic violations. And some of the traffic laws are absolutely ridiculous. Is it fair to call some of our traffic laws “unjust”? Yea, maybe. But let me ask you this; would you say that laws against theft are reasonable? If yes, would you say that punishments should change depending on what was stolen and how? Is stealing a can of tuna the same thing as robbing a bank? If we can allow a distinction in severity between various kinds of theft then shouldnt we also allow that this same distinction between cops writing some tickets on stupid traffic laws and high ranking military leaders attempting world conquest and committing genocide?

Although i can concede that Insurance is damn oppressive, sometimes.
Exploitative, for sure.

The issue of cops picking and choosing which laws they enforce is important and complicated. Id almost say its worth its own discussion, actually. In general, certain areas are predetermined to allow officer discretion while others dont. Sometimes the cop can give you a warning but if you have a warrant, s/he has no choice but to take you into custody. But i its obviously to expect every cop to have the exact same idea about justice as every citizen. Should they pick MY version of justice? Yours? We all think our own version is the correct one but we cant all be right, lol.

There are other issues with police, one of which I’ll outline here. Officers in the USA have, shockingly, one of the highest spousal abuse rates of any profession at 40%. That means almost half of the police officers you meet physically abuse their wife/husband. Nobody talks about this outside of select anarchist communities and “cop haters”. Why? Why is this acceptable in our society? How could the spousal abuse rate reach 40% in this group when it is normally between 10-20% in the general population?

Domestic violence rates also vary by ethnicity; should we use this fact to vilify populations or see it as an indicator of populations in need of increased mental health support?

Unfortunately, we are not currently in a position to dissolve police units across the country and become cop-free. I would love for this to be the case. People forget that we did not always have police and they insist that these officers are necessary to have a functioning society – it is not true. But for our society, as it is, to continue functioning, there must be some police presence.

Interpersonal violence is vastly more common in primitive societies. Yes, societies can function without a law enforcement sector but until i can see a model of modern society with a large population making such a thing work, im going to be pretty skeptical.

I would love for, someday, the people of this world to abandon all occupations which inherently require violence (or even murder!) to function,

So, no military, no police, no secret service, no security and corporate protection industry (aka bodyguards)? Id love to live in a functioning socialist utopia but its not possible; human beings kill and exploit each other. Any attempt to structure society in a way that doesnt accept this reality is going to fail.
The capacity for violence is an evolved trait and to a degree, it exists in many other animals. Im not sure humans can become true pacifists without changing something so fundamental to pur slecies that to change it would arguably make us no longer human. Also, what it the aliens invade and no one knows how to fight anymore? :laugh:

and to stop defending violence in the name of so-called “justice”. Violence is not justice! Our society teaches us that “justice” means handcuffs, locking people in cages, shooting people – the meaning of the word has been entirely corrupted. Justice is not simply the prevention of unjust acts, nor is it synonymous with retribution. For, if justice were merely the prevention of unjust acts, then unjust acts would merely be those actions which do not prevent themselves, and that is absurd!

I think that I agree more than i disagree with this sentiment. Our system is built on the systems which came before. As i mentioned, violence was much more common in primitive societies and at one time, the very word of justice probably did mean something like “punishment”. But we can grow. Todays system is too focused on retribution. I dont agree that we should look at criminals as being victims but i do think that there is a vast area of potential rehabilitation that is being completely overlooked by the current system. Criminals are people, and though we dont all make the same mistakes, we all make mistakes. There are people out there making bad decisions who could (and would) learn to make better decisions in the future given sufficient insight and resources. The American corrections system really does not explore this in a serious way.

Criminals are people, and though we dont all make the same mistakes, we all make mistakes. There are people out there making bad decisions who could (and would) learn to make better decisions in the future given sufficient insight and resources. The American corrections system really does not explore this in a serious way.

And as you've said yourself - Police are people too.

Unless it is in your line of work, it is convenient to suggest that those who make decisions you don't agree with are "Broken" and (ideally) you are not broken.

Depending on how you keep your sanity - if you're in the businesses of depriving other people of their rights (whether by shooting them, selling them drugs, or not paying out their insurance policies) you are likely to have convinced yourself that either
A) They deserve it (this one is funny, you'd be amazed how many insurance workers genuinely believe that if you wanted to get your payout, you would have become a lawyer, and that it's your own stupid fault for not understanding a form or smallprint, you worthless trash)

or

you're working for the "big picture" and a few wasted lives here or there is acceptable collatoral for whatever bullshit "greater good" narrative you believe in. (It's not economical to help everyone who puts a claim in! the economy would collapse, then I can't help anyone at all! why is this old lady crying? doesn't she realise sacrificing her fifty years of premiums and going and living in her adult-child's basement helps other good young people with families?)



I use insurance examples, both because I hate them, and because they're more or less true - it seems to me that the psychology of being a villain is pretty similar whether you are selling heroin to kids, shooting innocent bystanders, or robbing customers.

Ok, apparently no one is going to comment on the video :lol: Thats ok; the internet is forever and im sure someone, somewhere will find it worth their time.

JamesSand wrote: Unless it is in your line of work, it is convenient to suggest that those who make decisions you don't agree with are "Broken" and (ideally) you are not broken.

This line of thinking permeates most of our lives. Well, everyone else’s #notsarcasticatall. We all see ourselves as the good guys. Psychologists have outlined a variety of cognitive biases that we use to bolster our own self perceptions and to protect our own interests. From what i understand, the gist of it so far is;
1: We constantly act out on our emotional impulses and then use our rationality to construct a, eh, well, a rationale for why we acted the way we did. Because we can string a bunch of words together into semi-coherent and at least superficially plausible justification for our selfishness, we assume ourselves to be rational actors, making appropriate and well calculated decisions; this assumption is FALSE, lol. Our default setting is “monkeys with technology” lol evaluating and acting out of primal impulses with very little self awareness.
2: We have a tendency to attribute our own successes to our personal qualities and our mistakes to our environments and circumstances e.g. i got an A in Family Systems Theory because I am smart and i studied like a good student should, never-mind that its a topic ive already been pursuing out of my own personal interest and had a fairly significant head start compared to the other students. I got a C in Statistics because statistics is hard and it was a Summer semester (note to students; try to schedule only easy classes during summer semesters), and the professor didnt explain it very well, not because i failed to set aside the necessary hour and a half every day for studying, as a good student is supposed to do for a difficult class.

I actually got an A in both classes and it was partly circumstantial but the point remains.

3: We completely flip this script when evaluating other people; I may cut someone off in traffic when im late for work but its because i have a reason... when someone cuts me off its because they're an inconsiderate asshole. In politics; I voted for my candidate because im a good person who knows whats going on in the world. They voted for their candidate because they're idiots with major defects of character.

Im completing my final semester of school and would say that the single most useful thing ive learned getting this degree (Counseling and Human Services) has been that these biases (and other theories and therapeutic models) are not lenses for me to analyze and judge other people; they are tools for me to evaluate and correct myself. Two of the most significant environmental factors to which i attribute my own growth over the last few years are that program and this community. Well, i have to mention training and fitness, as well.


——————-

I use insurance examples, both because I hate them,

Theyre the scum of the ******* earth, man. Absolutely tyrannizing every sector of healthcare. They tyrannize most every sector they touch but its especially bad in healthcare because: cancer, et al. Yet for all that, when their systems do actually take care of people, they get to pat themselves on the back for what a valuable public service they are.
In saying this, am i being influenced by the very biases ive been speaking about? Maybe. Ask someone who works in healthcare what they think of insurance companies. Or someone with a serious and expensive medical problem.


——————-

it seems to me that the psychology of being a villain is pretty similar whether you are selling heroin to kids, shooting innocent bystanders, or robbing customers.

Yep. Except some people will interpret this to mean that police and drug dealers are morally equal. As groups; theyre not. Not by a long shot. There are exceptional individuals (as in “the exception to the rule) in both groups but AS GROUPS the drug trade is vastly more destructive than the police force. I say this with both academic study and first hand experience of both and knowing quite well how effed up our criminal justice system is.

Ok, its a bit beyond the intended scope of this topic but i respect the natural flow of conversation and I think this one is THE million dollar question:

you're working for the "big picture" and a few wasted lives here or there is acceptable collatoral for whatever bullshit "greater good" narrative you believe in.

We all have conscious and not-fully-conscious narratives that we live by and some or other vision of what constitutes the greater good. Id also posit that a certain amount of “collateral damage” is probably unavoidable in many contexts. WW2 is an easy example to reference because (i assume) we all agree it was pretty reasonable to bomb the shit out of the nazis for the greater good, even knowing the collateral damage that came with it; we can apply the basic concept to our own lives, as well. We all cause some kind of pain (or at least, irritation) to others doing....all the things that clever, techno-monkeys run around doing. How do we construct our narratives so that our “greater good” isnt just bullshit and how do we evaluate our own behavior so that we keep our collateral damage relatively in check?

To comment on the video, a totally anecdotal stat I've heard from my military friends is that while 50% of the time people will be incapacitated by a single shot (i.e. unable to continue presenting a serious danger), 10% of the time people will survive ultimately fatal wounds and be unfazed by it (due to drugs, adrenaline, or pure willpower). The other 40% is accounted for by caliber, shot placement, etc

Ultimately police officers can only be sued for ultra vires acts which are very hard to prove and win on (just look at how Bivens has been whittled down over the years)

If you're just going to say there's never an ethically correct time to shoot someone, this conversation seems pointless

OB1Shinobi wrote: Thanks for adding to the discussion. Quick questions, i was really hoping to talk about the video and the ideas within it; did you watch it and do you have anything to say about it?

Yes. In this case I understand why the officer thought he had to fire. But do I think the man had to die? No.

Looking back on a situation in hindsight is a lot easier. I really wanted to understand what the guy was talking about, because he was saying something about his mother. It was a very dangerous and volatile situation and he was more than likely disturbed. You don't have a lot of time to think. I assume the officer fired to protect the woman because it wasn't clear whether she was a hostage or whether he was just going to shoot her no matter what. But I WISH he could have been engaged in conversation by asking him questions.

"Sir, what happened? Is your mother okay? What happened to your mother? What's her name? What did this woman do to you that made you mad?" But the problem is that a lot of this decision is based on the level of fear that the officer has. The more afraid he is the more likely he is to interpret the situation as a lost cause and the person as unreasonable or nonresponsive. There was another situation with a disturbed man but his family was able to diffuse both the suspect AND the officer, convincing the officer that the individual wasn't a threat. One of them even had to get between the officer and the individual. When a disturbed individual gets their hands on a gun... that's very serious.

But if you notice most of the controversy over police shootings, isn't when the suspect has a gun or even when the suspect is disturbed. And if the person is disturbed they are much more likely to get shot if someone isn't there to explain it to the officer. The perception of danger is based on fear. Sometimes that fear is justified but not every time. And if you are in too many situations then I think your brain is being trained to act quicker the next time because you already expect a particular outcome. There's a reason why soldiers often end up with PTSD. But we act like police officers are immune to this and therefore every decision they make is based on training and experience. In reality, they're humans. And they have guns to alleviate their fear just like criminals use guns for the same purpose. I'm a bit older (I GUESS) now so I remember back in the day when there were less guns and people actually got in fist fights. If I talked about fist fights with the current generation they'd probably be like "Ok, Boomer". I'm not a Boomer. It wasn't that long ago! But because I know it wasn't that long ago I know that there is an escalation with weapons. If more people start using bows, everyone eventually starts using bows until some start using muskets. Then everyone starts using muskets. Eventually everyone starts using machine guns because they're afraid of everyone else who's using machine guns. Most other countries don't have this problem.

And what I don't want is for officers to go into every situation where someone is angry and assume they can't be reasoned with or talked down. If they have a "good guys vs bad guys" attitude towards every suspect then they're more likely to treat them all the same. I've also seen (and I was physically there) a young man I know get arrested and he was resisting because he wanted to die. It's a long story, but the police in that instance handled it perfectly and that young man is alive today because of it. And I think they were more heroic than the officer who had to shoot this guy because I don't know if he saved her life because I don't know if the suspect would have actually shot her. I don't know him. I don't know her. I don't know what precipitated it. You can't assume he was going to kill her and you can't assume he wasn't. So I think the police acted reasonably given the information they had, but I still wish they could have talked him down with the understanding that their presence itself was likely a catalyst, escalating the situation for him.

The problem is that shootings of UNARMED people happen too. And you need situational awareness. Even taking a shot with a hostage is risky because he might still be able to shoot the hostage or the hostage could even be shot by mistake. So this is an extreme case that I find it difficult to apply to any other.

OB1Shinobi wrote: I think we need to do this in our day to day lives with the people around us, yes, but not with police shootings. Theres no way youre going to know the actual character of a police officer. You assume you know their character, but thats an incorrect assumption. We have to judge shootings based off of the actual evidence. The evidence includes all the backstory: why were the police called/what was the dispatch? How did the police approach the suspect and was it reasonable given the nature of the dispatch? How did the suspect behave when approached? This is why body cams are so important.

who's arguing that EVERY police shooting is bad? I don't know anyone who's saying that. But if a person in car tells the officer that they have a gun and they have a permit for it and the officer basically murders them out of fear that... after being warned... that his life is in danger because a gun exists somewhere in the vehicle. It's like you, as the suspect, have to be more mature, more calm, more respectful, more everything... than the guy wearing the badge. And that's what I have a problem with.

I've been living in Cincinnati temporarily which is the same city where a campus police officer basically kills a guy trying to drive away over missing front plate and expired driver's license. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Samuel_DuBose)

I don't see the point in arguing every shooting where it is arguably a good decision. If you get food poisoning from a restaurant with rats is it a good defense to say "but what about all the times we didn't kill people with our food and what about the times we didn't have rats?" "Tamir Rice was a tragedy, but what about all the other kids who weren't shot or all the other kids that are hardcore criminals who shoot people over video games?" What does that have to do with any situation involving an unarmed person getting shot and killed? Do you think their family gives one ounce of an F (scuse my lingo) about some other kid when their innocent CHILD is shot dead, not by some bad kid, but by an officer of the law representing their government? Do you think it is even remotely consolation? And yes, I'll say it. How many innocent white kids have been shot playing with guns by police officers?

How did Tamir Rice behave when approached? He was shot in like 2 seconds. Plus he's a kid. What's the argument? That cops are allowed be scared and freak out and break protocol but no one on the other side of their gun is allowed to do the same under penalty of death?

I found the video of the white suspect shot in the hall (I think it was at a hotel) equally disturbing because even though he had the opportunity to comply he was clearly trying to comply but was being given ridiculous instructions by the officer. "crawl to me" Seriously? No... Clearly he should have had him put his hands up and the against the wall and then WAIT THERE for the officer to approach, pat him down or whatever, to determine if he had a weapon. Then he should have put one cuff on with his hands still on the wall, and put them behind his back, one by one, and that's only IF there was reason to detain the guy. If there wasn't he could have just talked to him. So I'm bringing up all these other cases because I see no reason to make excuses for the very specific behavior of some police officers that is in question. I don't see a credible reason to muddy those waters by talking about situations with behavior that is not in question.

OB1Shinobi wrote: How many times have you been locked up? What drugs have you sold? What drugs have you done? These are personal questions but, respectfully, i think your ideas about drug dealers make sense to you because your only knowledge of them comes from popular entertainment. I get the impression that youve never been involved with the druggie life (the real druggie life) pr the crime life at all. I understand thats personal. We can talk about it in PM if youd prefer. Or not. Actually living the life gives you a more realistic perspective.

I have been arrested 2 times, handcuffed 3 times. Both arrests had to do with traffic violations; the results of both cases I find excessive as well as an example of the system trying to squeeze money out of its citizens. The other, and the closest I've ever come to getting shot, was when my father got notified that there was a possible break in at our church and we both went there to check it out and meet whatever officer that got dispatched. And if there was an issue (with a suspect) I didn't want my father being there alone so I got there first. And as I looked at the windows for signs of a break in, little did I know that the cop would assume I was the suspect. I tried to explain the situation to him but he believed all of nothing I said. He decided I was probably guilty and proceeded to arrest me. He put me face down on the concrete, pulled my hand and arm back in a very uncomfortable position, put his knee in my back, and cuffed me. Fortunately, my father pulled up or I would have gone to jail.

No, I've never sold drugs. However I know people, very personally, who have. I've never used drugs (outside of marijuana in my 30s) but I know someone who has and someone who has paranoid schizophrenia, likely from drugs the first time he was locked up, and never been the same since. And ever since then he's been mostly homeless and probably gets arrested sometimes on purpose just to get out of the cold. He told me sometimes the cops just beat him up for no reason. Maybe that's true, maybe it's not. I'm 40 years old. Not everything I know is from TV. And if I had been shot, it wouldn't have been because I was joy riding, but because I was actually trying to do what I believed to be the right thing; protecting my father. Point is, you don't have to be doing something bad or somehow "asking for it" to get shot by law enforcement. And if I felt MY life was in danger then I can only imagine it worse for those who look like me but but have adapted to life in the streets where they need a different mentality in order to survive.

OB1Shinobi wrote: But you cant be around crack heads or heroin addicts and not see that youre destroying people for money.

Not all drug dealers sell crack or heroin. And when people are coming to them to get it, its not a situation everyone is going to interpret as them destroying that person. Trust me, I thought the opposite 20 years ago. As a matter of fact, when TV was all I had to inform my opinion I just thought selling drugs was terrible period and the people who did it were destroying their community. I'm not now saying its somehow a good thing. I'm just saying its not a black and white issue. How many bartenders think they're destroying people who come into their bar and buy multiple drinks until they get wasted? How many pharmacists and doctors think they're destroying people when they prescribe opiates that the person might get addicted to? Some people go to drug dealers, but some people go to doctors for the same thing. And so that's why I'm telling you its not that simple. Which is why drugs should be seen as a public health issue rather than strictly a criminal issue. I know we weren't around during prohibition but think about how much violence there was between the police and guys selling alcohol. Think about it. How many people die from alcohol? How many people are in AA because of alcohol? But its perfectly legal and bartenders don't have to carry guns because they're afraid of other bartenders. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As much as we have criminalized drugs, has it stopped drug abuse? Do you think the gangsters that pushed alcohol were that different from the gangsters today who push drugs? Where do you think they learned from? It's the exact same dynamics. They're selling a black market product that people want and there's competition from other illegal suppliers that sometimes don't respect territorial boundaries because they want more profits. How is that so different from corporations? Corporations destroy lives with greed too but its legal so they don't have to worry about getting shot. Not mention that a lot of "legit business" are started with illegal money; the number of which is actually depressing to me. And if the only difference is the law, who does the law serve? Who can change the law? What's the difference between a bar and a marijuana dispensary? And why is it always "your fault" when the rules could be different if "everyone" simply got on board with changing them?

My family is from Jamaica. Weed was legalized there not too long ago. Before that a lot of people were getting killed, both by other people, and by the police. And it created a bad relationship between police, government (babylon) and citizens. And do you know the biggest reason it was illegal? Because it was illegal in the United States. You think Jamaica was just so against marijuana? It's part of the culture. And how many people have ever died from actually using it? So I hear you. I'm not unreasonable. But I want you to see that there's another side to this thing and even if you see a difference between weed and heroin, that doesn't mean a person using or selling it is treated any different.

And yes, I could make similar arguments with prostitution, gambling, etc. It is society that judges these things and makes it illegal in an attempt to legislate them away. But it doesn't work. It just creates a dangerous underground in which no one has any legal obligation or protection. And so if you sell weed in Ohio you can go to jail for years but if you sell it in California you can go to the bank and deposit your profits. And instead of taking you to jail, maybe the cop decides to shoot you instead. And maybe you're scared of cops so you run. And maybe you hire kids because they'll only go to juvenile detention if they get caught, instead of prison. There are a lot of consequences, unintended or intended, that can make matters worse. And I say everyone needs to be responsible; including lawmakers and the people who vote for them.

OB1Shinobi wrote: It took me a while to figure this out but ive come to this conclusion: the decision as to whether or not to fire is the important thing. This is a yes/no answer to the question “is deadly force appropriate?” There is no shooting people in the leg, theres no shooting to wound, and there are no “warning shots”. If an officer fires, it is to kill. The important issue is what should the policies on use of deadly force be? If the decision to fire is justified based on the existing policy then it doesnt matter how many bullets were used. Use as many as seems necessary.

The job of police officers is to arrest people. If you know the law you're in a much better position when you deal with them. They will make you think you have to answer their questions when most often, it is simply a trap. They have nothing on you but they will if you give them something. So, do police officers often do the right thing? Of course. Dayton, Ohio is my home town. Dave Chappelle just had a concert there in the wake of a mass shooting. We support the police when they do what they're supposed to do. We pay them to protect us.

We don't pay cops to plant evidence on us. We don't pay them to make sure we're in the right area because we don't look like other residents. We don't pay them to make sure we're not carrying weapons or run our ID when there is no crime that they're responding to. There is a wide range of behaviors that not all police have in common, but enough have for it to be a problem. Have you listened to the Mark Furhman tapes? The fact is that many officers have explicit or implicit bias.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEKd_7QL-q8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr8G7MtRNlk

It doesn't have to be this way. But first we have to recognize there's a problem before there can be an acceptable solution. Because, guess what, NO I'm not going to be receptive to treating people of a similar age group the same any more than treating people of the same race the same. Why do you even know how many black kids have been suspects in other crimes? What made you even look that up? What made you think that was relevant information? What about all the good kids like mine, who don't do anything criminal and don't deserve to be treated like they have? What about millions of black people who aren't criminals? Do we factor into the equation anywhere? Do positive statistics ever work in our favor?

Sometimes its the person's fault. But sometimes its the officer. I can't play with a toy because of what? Because someone will think that ME (for some reason) playing with a toy isn't playing and therefore, the gun isn't a toy gun. No, somehow I MUST be running around Walmart with a loaded weapon? You've heard zero gun shots, zero cries for help, zero screaming, zero people are running away from me, but one person gets scared because their brain thinks that this is something someone who looks like me might do. THAT is the truth. And because of that call, police officers get there and add their own biases and assumptions to the point where maybe I'm a terrorist and everyone around me is a potential hostage and so they feel like they have to shoot me to protect everyone else. But the whole story is ridiculous and there were several opportunities to avoid that outcome but people ignored the biases of the caller.

Irrational behavior is not limited to suspects. And sometimes rational behavior can be bad too. I shouldn't have to live in fear because of what other people have done who look like me. I'm me. They are them. If an officer sees them when he sees me that's a problem. And that makes me and others more likely to see those guys in the white hoods when we see them. And that's a problem too. But I can't say the person reacting to the problem is wrong without first addressing the problem they're reacting to. And I definitely am not going to treat people like they're imagining things when they are the victim of implicit or explicit bias while people who share that bias are like "oh well... tried to save him, but he had one of those black diseases", or ... "oh well, turns out he was reaching for his wallet but he should have perfectly heard and followed my instructions if he wanted to live today because some people try to shoot us."

This idea that someone COULD be doing something threatening is being taken to an extreme. And its based on the idea that every criminal suspect is some kind of stupid wannabe action star who can, with hands already up, reach for, pull out, and shoot 2-4 officers before any of them, who already have weapons pointed center mass, can pull the trigger. And of course when they all tell the story about the kid they had to shoot, that's exactly what happened. And when the story is repeated on the news, other people hear it and think, "yup. Those *bleeps* are crazy." This is how the stereotype gets reinforced and then new police reacting to that reinforced stereotype.

And it goes both ways. Police get stereotyped too and so a suspect has to then think, what's the best way to survive the encounter. Is it to run? Is it to shoot? Or is it to cooperate when he or she might still get killed. There is a long history, way longer than BLM, that some people are reacting to and somehow these "unfortunate mistakes" tend to happen a lot in the same community. We now have cops shooting people in their own homes. It's been out of control but it gets worse when cops are made to think they have the authority to act like James Bond. They don't have a license to kill. Their job is to arrest suspects to be tried by the judicial system. The fact they manage to do this more often if you don't look like me, says something. But no, I'm not going to cosign or justify anyone's fear of me, just because I'm 6'2 and over 250lbs. How much less would I justify a fear of children. That is the problem of those who are afraid. And those who are afraid will continue to create that reality.

"The job of police officers is to arrest people."
No

"If you know the law you're in a much better position when you deal with them."
Yes

If you think your rights are abrogated at any point in an encounter with an LEO, record the entire thing if possible, and call a lawyer afterwards. Any time a government official steps over the bounds of their authority, and does something ultra vires that gives you standing, you are entitled to remedy.
If you're being stopped, just ask them *politely* if you're under arrest, and if their requests are commands.

Unfortunately the standards for a police killing someone is different from a regular person doing the same thing. Justice is harder to serve, but in cases like Botham Jean's murder, it does happen.

Here in the states , cops are a strange thing. Like most things , change comes from action. Here is no exception.
My dealings with police isn’t a good thing when it happens. At that point all avenues are taken or tried.
Cops are my last resort always. Citizens have a very unique ability to mob or to help. Some times ya don’t need much help but some times it can help.
Read and heard about the kid who brought a gun to school and the teacher grabbed him - held him till all was over. One act of bravery may save a life or influence another. There are jerks out there. I try to tell my family and children and friends but not everything is sunshine and daisys - don’t put your self in that spot. If you do find yourself there... know what to do. I tell people here anything they feel threatened call the police and log it. Even if it’s the cops there - call some one. Ask for a boss. Be smart. Be safe think. Know your limits. Learn em. Bravery is cool some times but a smart person will ask a cop if they are drawn to call their supervisor and get some one there - things usually change or at least help. There’s always a bigger fish can apply here- every body works for someone. A log of activity can help those in charge see more than just random shots in the dark.

Rex wrote: "The job of police officers is to arrest people."
No

Google: The duties of a police officer, also known as a law enforcement officer, focus on protecting people and property. They patrol the areas they are assigned, which sometimes include entire jurisdictions, respond to calls, enforce laws, make arrests, issue citations, and occasionally testify in court cases.

(as opposed to "killing bad guys")

The point is, that if protecting people means having to take someone else's life, then that's fine if that's what you have to do even though its still making a choice between one life and another. However, if it's property, then that's not okay because a life is more valuable than any property. But if the only perceived threat is to the officer, then this is wear bias and fear often enter into the equation and the police, in my opinion, act outside of their mandate.

Far too often, the police show up to a scene, and because they're more scared than anyone else, they escalate the situation into a life or death game of some kind of old western. Except the police, standing at a distance, must be more ready to kill you at all times than whatever defensive action you could possibly take against them. And on one hand its tactical from a personal perspective. They're getting taught martial arts techniques as well as shooter techniques designed to make make sure they don't get hurt... that THEY are protected.

Although that seems very reasonable...

If you condition the mind to think they're in danger and you trigger their training as a reflex, they might mentally "go back to Nam" and now "Charlie" is trying to get them. I don't mean to make it sound so extreme, but understand what I'm saying. When it becomes about the cop and the cop's life and the cop's safety... its no longer about protecting and serving the community. The risk to one's safety is inherent to the job. When a firefighter goes into a burning building they know their life is in danger and their gear is 100% protection. They don't just run away if the fire's too big. With police, I can understand if there's a report of shots fired. You should change your approach. Your weapon should be drawn. You should be taking cover and using squad tactics. But if you treat every situation the same, that's how a lot of unarmed people get killed. And again... that's not their job. The worst behavior I've seen is when a cop cannot catch a fleeing suspect so they shoot them in the back. And they can't seem to develop non-lethal weapons that can be used at a distance (like the bolo gun in Death Stranding). And even then its like they have to shoot to kill.

But I'm telling you guys... it's their job to arrest, not to kill. We have to decide, as a society, how much we value human life. If its a fetus a lot of people lose their minds over trying to protect it. But if its 13+, someone's child, someone's grand baby, they're fine if the kid looks scary. "oh noooooo he has on a hoodie! Shoot!" The police don't take it as their job to protect and serve the suspect because in their minds that person is the offender and not part of the community. But a different suspect... they might even take to Burger King after he guns down a church. Someone else though, can simply have a gun in the car and get shot even after telling the cop that he has a license for it. It's ridiculous. And a lot of it boils down to how scared someone is and how much they rely on their gun to overcome that fear. And my opinion is that if you're THAT scared you shouldn't even have a gun, much less a badge that says you get to use one.

The force continuum might sound like something we believe in here, but it covers lethal use of force when LEOs are attempting to do their job. If the possibility of using lethal force wasn't in LE's purview, why are they issued handguns? Edit: there are 3 depts in the US I could find which had some unarmed officers, so not all police are armed.

If what you meant to say was that Police aren't hit squads meant to shoot first instead of arrest, yes that is what they should be.

ZealotX wrote: Yes. In this case I understand why the officer thought he had to fire. But do I think the man had to die? No.

He didnt have to die, he could have put down the gun. He could have not assaulted someone with a gun in the first place. He could have not tried to drag her away when the police showed up. He got himself killed by beating and threatening to murder that woman and by not obeying the police when they arrived. He is not the victim here, that woman is. Her son is. Even the police officer who now has to reconcile the fact that he killed someone is more of a victim than the guy who was killed, imo.

It was a very dangerous and volatile situation and he was more than likely disturbed.

Responding to people with mental health issues is a serious topic which, thankfully is beginning to get attention among law enforcement agencies. Most LEO and agencies dont have appropriate training or response teams. THAT BEING SAID: There is a comedian named Ron White who did a bit about the death penalty where he said something along these lines: if youre the kind of crazy person that eats crayons and finger-paints with doodoo then I feel empathy for you and say we should feed you for the rest of your life.If youre the kind of crazy person that murders grandmothers and children...eh, you should have ate crayons and finger painted with doodoo, lol. I agree with his basic sentiment: if your mental health issue drives you to murdering people, eh, youre a murderer. Id rather see the murderer killed than his victims killed.

You don't have a lot of time to think. I assume the officer fired to protect the woman because it wasn't clear whether she was a hostage or whether he was just going to shoot her no matter what. But I WISH he could have been engaged in conversation by asking him questions. "Sir, what happened? Is your mother okay? What happened to your mother? What's her name? What did this woman do to you that made you mad?"

This last bit makes me wonder if you actually did watch the video. The guy screaming "thats my momma" was not the guy with the gun.

Where I agree with you is that I think police need to be trained to be more patient and to be able to relate to suspects in a way that personalizes everyone involved - a way that is respectful of peoples dignity, even if they are suspected of something. The real-world application of that is more complicated than I think most people realize.
What i have to point out is that you dont know that the officer didnt try asking him questions. Im quite confident the officer was saying something to the guy, but we cant hear it. All we hear is the woman's son in the background yelling "thats my momma!". We have no clue what the officer said. Also notice the cop didnt fire until the guy tried dragging her away (possibly by her hair, we cant tell). So, the cop didnt just blast this dude, he fired when he saw the suspect was going to escalate the situation.

But the problem is that a lot of this decision is based on the level of fear that the officer has. The more afraid he is the more likely he is to interpret the situation as a lost cause and the person as unreasonable or nonresponsive. There was another situation with a disturbed man but his family was able to diffuse both the suspect AND the officer, convincing the officer that the individual wasn't a threat. One of them even had to get between the officer and the individual. When a disturbed individual gets their hands on a gun... that's very serious.

I posted a specific video of a specific incident to open the discussion to a specific sub-topic: "why do police fire so many rounds when they shoot people". Its ok if we talk about other incidents but if we you want to bring up a specific incident please include links to sources which give a thorough explanation of the event.




[/quote]But if you notice most of the controversy over police shootings, isn't when the suspect has a gun or even when the suspect is disturbed. [/quote]

I see people flipping out about all kinds of police shootings.

I'm a bit older (I GUESS) now so I remember back in the day when there were less guns and people actually got in fist fights. If I talked about fist fights with the current generation they'd probably be like "Ok, Boomer". I'm not a Boomer. It wasn't that long ago!

Same! The irony is they also think they are "harder" because they do something stupidly extreme lol not fully understanding the only reason theyre jumping the gun is because theyre afraid theyll get their a$$ beat.

The problem is that shootings of UNARMED people happen too.

Yes, and then people who have no clue about the reality of cops being shot chime in that because the person was unarmed that they werent dangerous. You dont actually know a person is unarmed until theyve been restrained and searched. this guy was passed out from heroin on a bus. After the being revived, an officer was talking to him and he pulled out a gun and killed one of the firefighters who came there to help him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8k4L97igDjY

This guy said he wasnt armed and was talking calmly and coolly with the police officer until he oh-so-casually
removed a pistol from his coat and killed the officer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssARbfxqTh0

The Washington Post has been compiling a database of police shootings for several years, now. The search filters are OK, you can search by gender, state, race, age, mental illness, body cam footage, weapon type, and unarmed. In the past i have encountered a pay wall but theres a lot you can get out of it without having to subscribe and its a great resource for anyone interested in the topic. Its based on news reports and in many cases some of the details (such as race or type of weapon) are unknown.

Based on what IS known, we can say that 810 people have been fatally shot by police so far this year. 458 of them were armed with a gun, 141 were armed with a knife, 20 were in possession of a toy weapon (one of those was 14 yrs old, the rest were adults) 52 were potentially using a vehicle as a weapon, 49 had “other” weapon, 35 were unarmed, and 55 were categorized “unknown”.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/police-shootings-2019/

ZealotX wrote: But a different suspect... they might even take to Burger King after he guns down a church.

That didnt happen. Black Twitter and the far left SJW bozo media bobble-heads are lying to you.
Heres a link: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.snopes.com/news/2015/06/22/dylann-roof-burger-king/amp/


Heres a video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRUBEfIStU

As an investigator It's not your job to determine guilt, it's your job to collect facts in order for a judge (or other system) to determine guilt.

You're also required to ensure anyone being questioned, whether they conducted the alleged act, or are being questioned for other reasons, is aware of their rights and responsibilities, and is offered appropriate water and bathroom breaks.

It's not a far stretch to imagine in certain jurisdictions or circumstances, you are required to offer some kind of food as well.

Edit: Just putting this in to emphasise, in case anyone is not clear (noting that this may vary with different countries and government styles, but it is broadly the concept) - if you murder a child with a chainsaw, and a police officer sees you do it - as long as you put the chainsaw down and make it obvious you are no longer a threat before the police officer can shoot you - they can not shoot you.
They can shoot you if you are still a threat, or about to be a threat, or look like you might be about to be a threat*, but if you are not a threat, if the alleged crime is over, they are not the judge, they can not conduct an on the spot execution to save the taxpayer money, they can only arrest you, and ask questions within their jurisdiction (the least of which is generally just to confirm your identity, so they can hand you over to higher investigative authorities)



*Which is why cops in movies say things like "make my day" if you make a threatening move, they can (legally) act to stop you - which is probably (again broadly, I don't have Ob1s interest in fact checking) the primary defence used by police in shooting investigations.





As far as having your kate and edith too - People seem to swing wildly from wanting Police to be friendly park rangers, to wanting them to be judge, jury and executioner.

What do you want? Cops to shoot first, shoot more, shoot again, and not ask questions, or do you want them to be impartial, humane, and uphold due process?

Do you want them to have powers to protect themselves, and the innocent?

Noting, that whatever powers you give them - they're not going to get everything right 100% of the time. Hindsight and a thousand shaky vertical-shot phone camera chunks of footage are great - none of which they have access to at the time they are required to make a decision.

and if you give them no powers - well, would you do a job where you have to deal with people at their worsts moments every day, but you have no right to protect the innocent or yourself? Would you turn up to that? If so, how much would you want to be paid for that risk to your health (both physical and mental) ?