Under no circumstance should cops KILL

[The Grand Nudger]

There needs to be five unarmed officers there telling Dirty Harry to calm the fuck down with waving his piece around.  

Can anyone honestly tell me this doesn't sound like a highly preferable alternative to what currently happens? Where, one officer responds "my partner had his gun out, so I pulled mine." and the other says "I had my gun out, and when my partner pulled his too I took that as a que to fire". Was the suspect actually armed. No, but they both "feared for their lives".

I actually believe them. I do....but does it matter? The unarmed peace officers present in most large metropolitan cities aren't getting shot and killed at a greater rate than their armed police officer counterparts. The reverse is the case, even though they respond to the same callboard and make arrests and the whole nine. It's almost as if the presence of a firearm..and getting into a gunfight..is a strong indicator of whether or not someone...anyone...is going to get shot, but the crushing majority of the time that's not going to be the cop anyway, so?

[FFaith]

Easy solution.  Take the guns away from 9 out of 10 cops.   That way, if somebody really needs shootin, you  call that guy.  The rest of them won't have any opportunity, then, to piss their pants in fear and pull the trigger.  Say, the next time a 12 year old points a sandwich at them.  Or if someone's being threateningly black within their general vicinity.

Maybe let's not do this in areas where there isn't rampant racism. In the split second it takes for someone to shoot you, you don't have time to call number 10 and wait for him to show up. Tasers aren't always effective, either. To be clear, I want lots and lots of regulation on firearms. I just want them to be logical. Police officers need to do better. They need better screening, better training, better equipment, etc. They need to make sure there are at least two cops in every patrol car, since it's often lone cops that panic and do something stupid. I know it isn't always, but addressing some problems is better than none.

One thing they do NOT need is better equipment, but they are getting plenty. Militarization of the police is ramping up, and that's not a good thing. That's another extreme. The US is already enough of a police state as is. Wanting the police to have way better equipment and wanting the police to have no guns at all are both terrible propositions.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

One thing they do NOT need is better equipment, but they are getting plenty. Militarization of the police is ramping up, and that's not a good thing. That's another extreme. Wanting the police to have way better equipment and wanting the police to have no guns at all are both terrible propositions.

Militarization of the police  What does that mean?

[The Grand Nudger]

They need better equipment, militarization is an issue of them getting -the wrong- equipment. War-fighting equipment.

[FFaith]

One thing they do NOT need is better equipment, but they are getting plenty. Militarization of the police is ramping up, and that's not a good thing. That's another extreme. Wanting the police to have way better equipment and wanting the police to have no guns at all are both terrible propositions.

Militarization of the police  What does that mean?

Giving the police military vehicles that were used in the recent wars would be an example of militarization of the police. There's a very good chance that Shell B was not talking about anything like that though, but I just thought it should be pointed out that there is a point where they have too much equipment, or as khemikal put it, the wrong equipment.

[Ravenshire]

. It can be very reasonable to shoot and kill if a perp is asked to keep their hands where they can be seen and they reach for something in their pocket.

Shooting to kill without clear evidence of a weapon is reasonable to you?

I hope you never get a badge.

[The Grand Nudger]

You know what you do when someone gives you an up-armored humvee with a belt fed gun attached in a box?  You use the thing.  The same is true of being handed a pistol.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Militarization of the police  What does that mean?

Giving the police military vehicles that were used in the recent wars would be an example of militarization of the police. There's a very good chance that Shell B was not talking about anything like that though, but I just thought it should be pointed out that there is a point where they have too much equipment, or as khemikal put it, the wrong equipment.

August 1, 1966, Charles Whitman kills his wife and mother and then takes a box of long guns to the top of the clock tower at University of Texas in Austin. He kills 16 more people before a cop with a gun ends his spree. He wounded a lot of people and shot people trying to rescue them from under his eagle eye. The police had to borrow armored cars from Wells Fargo to retrieve the injured students. 

Having an armored car handy would have saved some of the wounded. 

The US government could sell the obsolete APCs to some tin-pot dictator to help him keep the population under control, or they could donate them to cities so they could be used to save lives. After seeing armored cars at every major intersection in Lima, Peru, way back when I do have an opinion on that. 

And let's talk "tactical gear", aka "I'm going home tonight" cop clothes. First, you may hear about cops "gearing up" when there's a hostage situation. They have to gear  up because they don't wear that stuff all the time. My neighbor has had his in the truck for years and gets it out each year for inventory, then puts it away again. 

"militarization" is a buzz word that very few people understand but many fling about.

[The Grand Nudger]

August 1, 1966, Charles Whitman kills his wife and mother and then takes a box of long guns to the top of the clock tower at University of Texas in Austin. He kills 16 more people before a cop with a gun ends his spree. He wounded a lot of people and shot people trying to rescue them from under his eagle eye. The police had to borrow armored cars from Wells Fargo to retrieve the injured students. 

Having an armored car handy would have saved some of the wounded. 

Armor wins again.  

The US government could sell the obsolete APCs to some tin-pot dictator to help him keep the population under control, or they could donate them to cities so they could be used to save lives. After seeing armored cars at every major intersection in Lima, Peru, way back when I do have an opinion on that. 

Oh, for sure, if the cops could avoid living out their gi joe fantasies with the gifted guns and vehicles it wouldn't be a big deal.

And let's talk "tactical gear", aka "I'm going home tonight" cop clothes. First, you may hear about cops "gearing up" when there's a hostage situation. They have to gear  up because they don't wear that stuff all the time. My neighbor has had his in the truck for years and gets it out each year for inventory, then puts it away again. 

IKR, heavy as shit. 140 in the sun, lol. Most of the time they don;t need that anymore than they need their pistols.

"militarization" is a buzz word that very few people understand but many fling about.

...good thing none of those idiots are here, just us intelligent people who all understand that police militarization is a thing, both now and historically..and that it's a thing for us now particularly isn't surprising given nearly two decades of war. Is it effecting the way that police interact with citizens, or the way that citizens view the police. Yes, double-yes, and that's no good.

Maybe they could paint their kevlar pink? Powder blue is also calming.

---

There is a war on drugs.  There is a war on terror.  The police have been conditioned to see their opposition in terms of an "us vs them" mentality and this is reciprocated by the public (or vv, or vv v..endlessly) and while that is almost certainly true in an immediate sense it doesn't actually protect police officers from harm and all too often ends up with shot people.  

They are wearing combat fatigues.  They are carrying AR's an fn m249s..as if the people around them are a platoon of infantry about to assualty their little blue bunker - which has mechanized armor support.......  Can we agree that this may be a tad bit much?  Are we waiting until they put a vulcan on a traffic helicopter or something? That's not going to happen. That's what drones are for.

(I'm just jealous when it comes to the 249, I can admit it).

---

Sidebar, if the guns and taking down potential stabbers are a good reason for the guns..aren't they an even better reason for armed drones? No need to risk a cops life, and we still get to point a gun at the bad guy.

[FFaith]

. It can be very reasonable to shoot and kill if a perp is asked to keep their hands where they can be seen and they reach for something in their pocket.

Shooting to kill without clear evidence of a weapon is reasonable to you?

I hope you never get a badge.

Yes, it can be very reasonable. If they've been given an order and still choose to reach, that's called suicide by cop. They killed themselves. The police can not wait until a few milliseconds before the perp fires the gun at them, or else there would be a lot more dead cops. Like I said before, the cops are a gang who live by the no snitching code, and they are extremely corrupt (not all cops obviously), but I don't have enough disdain for them to want to see them out and out killed because they're not allowed to defend themselves. If someone hates the cops enough to not care whether they live or die, I can understand where that anger comes from, but police are here for the long haul whether we like them or not, and we as a society need them. Things would be a lot more fucked up without any police. I'm not saying that anyone that disagrees with me wants to see cops dead. I just think they aren't thinking clearly, like when people ask why cops can't just shoot people in the legs. That's not how real life works. If the cops tell you not to reach, then don't reach.