How to end police shootings in one easy step.

[Napoléon]

LOL, I'd go the other way with it, personally.  Less guns.  We have swat teams for those times that guns would be required...and iirc, yall in the uk have a sort of middle road between patrol and swat, right?

Called the SAS m8.

[CapnAwesome]

Because they don't send themselves, armed, into a place where they perceive themselves to be and are perceived by others as an enemy...where they fear being shot?  You might notice that -regular people- do behave that way, when they're frightened, ofc.  People just keep shooting their spouses as intruders....and that;s in their own homes.  Multiply that dread many times over, and that's where cops work.

Look at some of the examples of shootings in that article. Shooting people while surrendering, shooting people who are running away. That's not a situation that would make me shoot someone, armed or not. I'm from the country, I know plenty of people who carry concealed guns on them and I don't know a single one who has drawn one. Why? Because there are consequences to them doing so.

You can't tell me that you think the police knowing they won't go to prison, doesn't affect their decisions to fire? Of course it does. Also as people have pointed out in other threads, it's a very small percentage of police who are involved in deadly incidents and most of them have tract records of police brutality. All the psychological screening isn't going to keep all racists or people who want to shoot someone off the police force. Them going to spend time in prison might keep those people from pulling the trigger.

[RobertE]

Well, how about that then, it doesn't seem to be just an American thang:

https://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecuri...since-1969

[The Grand Nudger]

Nah, not talking about them (though I'd trust them to effectively police more than I would our own cops, in some cases....lol) I'm talking about the armed units you guys have that aren't tactical response.  Or, at least, for whatever reason..that;s how I understood your system.  That you have a large number of non-lethal patrolmen, a spattering of armed units, and then full on blow the wall open tactical responders. - all on the civilian end.  That seems, to me, to be a good way to arrange it.  It certainly leads to fewer shootings by the police.

[The Grand Nudger]

Look at some of the examples of shootings in that article. Shooting people while surrendering, shooting people who are running away. That's not a situation that would make me shoot someone, armed or not. I'm from the country, I know plenty of people who carry concealed guns on them and I don't know a single one who has drawn one. Why? Because there are consequences to them doing so.

If the only thing keeping people from doing something is the threat of consequence, that person is probably a piece of shit and I wouldn't be so sure they wouldn't pull that gun, if I were you.  That said, I have no interest in defending people who shoot people in the back, personally.  I;m commenting more on the lowest common denominator, those instances where it wasn't blatant.    

You can't tell me that you think the police knowing they won't go to prison, doesn't affect their decisions to fire? Of course it does. Also as people have pointed out in other threads, it's a very small percentage of police who are involved in deadly incidents and most of them have tract records of police brutality. All the psychological screening isn't going to keep all racists or people who want to shoot someone off the police force. Them going to spend time in prison might keep those people from pulling the trigger.

I don't think they're thinking about much of anything when they pull the trigger.  It;s a singular and consuming thing...to shoot at a person. Maybe, among those people who think about shooting people, or who join the force in some part to play out racist or sadist fantasies would be deterred....but, if they were all gone, you'd still have the scared cop who pulls that trigger...and in my opinion, it would still happen too often.

I understand where you're coming from..but I don;t think of cops (even the ones who have a history of brutality) as "bad men" and "good men" who need to be, or even -can be- scared straight.

[account_inactive]

Nah, not talking about them (though I'd trust them to effectively police more than I would our own cops, in some cases....lol) I'm talking about the armed units you guys have that aren't tactical response.  Or, at least, for whatever reason..that;s how I understood your system.  That you have a large number of non-lethal patrolmen, a spattering of armed units, and then full on blow the wall open tactical responders. - all on the civilian end.  That seems, to me, to be a good way to arrange it.  It certainly leads to fewer shootings by the police.

Yeah, I would say that's basically how it works. We very rarely have to go "full on blow the wall open" over here though.

If you're in the mood for reading, here you go.

[The Grand Nudger]

Thanks for the link.  We rarely -have to- over here either...we just kind of like breaking out the toys, you know?  

Good documentary about that came out recently, Peace Officer.

-From that link...

The Thames Valley Police has only used a firearm against a suspect once in its entire history.

Holy shit...lol....I hope somebody over here is taking notes. Those boys in Thames Valley have shit locked down.

[CapnAwesome]

Look at some of the examples of shootings in that article. Shooting people while surrendering, shooting people who are running away. That's not a situation that would make me shoot someone, armed or not. I'm from the country, I know plenty of people who carry concealed guns on them and I don't know a single one who has drawn one. Why? Because there are consequences to them doing so.

If the only thing keeping people from doing something is the threat of consequence, that person is probably a piece of shit and I wouldn't be so sure they wouldn't pull that gun, if I were you.  That said, I have no interest in defending people who shoot people in the back, personally.  I;m commenting more on the lowest common denominator, those instances where it wasn't blatant.    

You can't tell me that you think the police knowing they won't go to prison, doesn't affect their decisions to fire? Of course it does. Also as people have pointed out in other threads, it's a very small percentage of police who are involved in deadly incidents and most of them have tract records of police brutality. All the psychological screening isn't going to keep all racists or people who want to shoot someone off the police force. Them going to spend time in prison might keep those people from pulling the trigger.

I don't think they're thinking about much of anything when they pull the trigger.  It;s a singular and consuming thing...to shoot at a person.  Maybe, among those people who think about shooting people, or who join the force in some part to play out racist or sadist fantasies would be deterred....but, if they were all gone, you'd still have the scared cop who pulls that trigger...and in my opinion, it would still happen too often.

I understand where you're coming from..but I don;t think of cops (even the ones who have a history of brutality) as "bad men" who need to be, or even -can be- scared straight.

Well then what it comes down to is motivation, I think for sure there are scared cops who shoot people out of fear. Equally do I think there are psychopaths and racists who leak through the system. I think it's obvious that some, maybe even many shootings are the latter. People are being shot while surrendering or running away.  There was a case where a cop just rolls up and shot a black kid playing with a toy gun without saying anything or making any contact with him. That's not someone who is scared in the moment. That's someone who wanted to shoot someone and that person needs to go to prison. Even the person scared in the moment should think about consequences. If he's so scared that he doesn't worry about the consequences, it's probably self defense anyway.

Without consequences though.....we have the situation we have now.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think it's easy to believe that many shootings are the latter.  We forget that those cops..in addition to beating people and one day offing someone...rescued kittens in trees for the majority of their careers, to use the proverbial good cop scenario.  

That makes it simpler, we don't have to wonder whether or not we're putting "good people" into a shitty situation. It;s the same reasoning behind imagining that there has to be something inherently wrong or bad about a soldier for doing his bloody deeds. It also makes it easier for us to think that we only have to replace the people..rather than the system itself. Who knows, maybe they are just shitty people and I;m way off base, it seems too convenient, to me..and obviously hasn't been either my experience or my reading, to be entirely truthful.

IMO, cops are genuinely decent people (or at least the same as the rest of us) put into an impossible scenario and given the wrong tools. That misery follows doesn't surprise me, and I can't really lay the blame entirely on them.

[pablo628]

Taking a very close look at why a person wants to be a cop in the first place could go a long way.