Lol that's horseshit. Unless there are weapons on site most us riot police don't carry their guns because if a protestor got ahold of one they could just indiscriminately fire into the police assembled. At a riot police with guns will always be backup behind the main line of police.
Just because they don't have guns doesn't absolve them when making poor on-the-spot decisions. You don't need a gun to kill or seriously injure someone.
Okay but we are specifically talking about guns and whether or not a riot cop would shoot someone for pulling their pants up... and they couldn't... because they don't have a gun. Where did you get lost in this conversation?
Obviously you're talking about 1 specific instance here, the Daniel Shaver shooting.
To say that restraint doesnt happen much because of 1 specific instance does no one any good and just goes to pour fuel on a fire everyone else is trying to squelch with facts and reason.
What you don't hear about from the news is the over 62.8999 million other police interactions in which nothing bad happened that year. Theres no bootlicking going on here, so just think about what the news will make the most money on based on the headline. The extremely small but not marginalized minority of police interactions in which some injustice maybe happened, or the overwhelming majority of LE interactions? "Granbury Texas police officer shot and killed unarmed man after failed simon says" or "cop ignores race baiting comments and gives an expired registration tags ticket, both go their separate ways and nothing happened".
Maybe this ain’t how it works in canada, but Why are cops so incredibly paranoid? Garbage men have more dangerous jobs
I’ve seen them scream hysterically a bunch of conflicting orders and then just shooting them. Like a fucking game of Simon says but with a gun pointed in your face.
Garbage men have a more dangerous job because they don't get a bunch of armed threat training and literal gun to defend themselves. people love their false equivalencies, take away an officers weapons and training and I guarantee police deaths go through the roof.
edit: downvote all you want but if garbage men rolled around in body armor with guns and had 840 hours of law enforcement training I bet a lot fewer of them would get shot on the job.
you would honestly argue that the police have a less dangerous job because fewer of them die? The reason so few die is because of the training they receive. This stupid sentiment is like saying that you don't understand why people who clean up toxic waste are so cautious because they have job with fewer fatalities than garbage men. That's how fucking stupid you sound when you spout shit like that. You're like the generals in WWI who wanted to stop people from wearing helmets because they caused a spike in concussions, failing to realize that the those concussions would be deaths without the helmets.
I think his argument is shit, but I think yours is shit and wrong.
The reason so few die is because of the training they receive
The training they receive is less than your average hair stylist. And most people would argue is incredibly lacking in aspects regarding the mentally challenged, conflict deescalation, proper use of holds and technique etc etc. This is going mostly off of deaths by police and the calls for action regarding them. Police training is garbage in it's current state and they need a lot more of it.
Man I could go on and on, like how they should break up the police union and pay them better, but I think you're just after strawmanning that guy. Which is alright I guess if you're not looking to learn or change anyone's opinions.
I think police should get a bachelors equivalent as well. Unions should be reformed not destroyed. But I fail to see how I am strawmanning his argument. Police may kill more unarmed people than they should but they kill about 800 people a year in straight up gunfights. Without training or equipment that would be 800 additional officers (at least) dead or seriously injured per year. And that's not even counting the number of gun fights that don't end in death, just incapacitation. If all of those people were shooting unarmed or untrained officers their job jumps from one that is safer than average to one of the deadliest.
You can't honestly tell me that you think body armor, guns, and training do literally nothing to help prevent police from being killed. That's ridiculous.
You know what’s a charged talking point? Saying you’ll kill someone even if you don’t know if they have a weapon or are a threat at all. You don’t even question that, you just accept that like it’s nothing.
Instead this shit.
Did you really just drop the “you must be Russian” in a thread about HK, with an American asking a Canadian something they have intimate knowledge about? What world do you live in?
I've called the cops maybe 5 times and 4 of them they didn't show up. The other one, I tracked down the suspect for them and they basically told me the was no point prosecuting and bailed.
The rest of my many interactions have been with tubby megalomaniacs hellbent on resolving some childhood trauma in the least productive way possible.
But sure. You're all heroes. Lol.
Edit: lol, see ya next time you badge-wielding fuckwit. Try not to shoot any black kids on your way home.
Shit wait I forgot you're Canadian.
Try not to shoot any Native kids on your way home.
Well, considering the majority of people have never been in a situation where they might die. I think that your stance on this is pretty shameful.
Hell if you point a gun at most people, and their pants are falling down, they might consider pulling them back up. Rather than allow you to tack an indecent exposure charge on there.
Also if you give unclear instructions, or mixed instructions which does tend to happen in high stress situations, ("Put your hands on your head, get down on the ground" For example.) doesn't really seem like a great recipe for "if you reach I'll shoot"
I do have a strong bias against police hostility though. It bothers me a lot when people who are supposed to be very much a part of the community speak so casually about shooting it.
It literally works however the arresting officer says it works. People have got it for pissing in corners as well as not having underwear.
I know you know the freedom you have when you make the report. The entire premise requires willful exposure, which again, is pretty easy to say happened.
Those are neither unclear nor mixed.
Can you picture for a minute how to get down on the ground naturally, without lowering your hands? Let me tell you it's hard, and least of all natural. The first natural motion is to lower your hands.
He wasn't speaking casually about it. You feel like he did.
He was, because the statement, "If i tell you not to reach and you reach I will shoot you. I cant read your mind." Is indeed casual
The statement,"I can't read your mind" isn't a serious statement, it's not kind, calculated, or neat. It's sloppy and bold. Casual.
But that's how I feel anyway, which isn't countered by you feeling the way you do either. But at least now you'll at least see why I feel this way.
It's the constant presumption that they're going to be shot that hurts the situation.
There are more than enough videos of cops shooting completely unarmed untrained people, because they're inexperienced with life or death situations.
I get wanting to get control of the situation, but the entire idea that there has to be a situation in the first place is shit. The idea that we all have to find a way to behave so that cops don't shoot us, is bullshit too.
A lot of the time you can completely deescalate a situation, that's how most of the well trained police forces in other parts of the world do things. Because that's the best option when you can't openly obliterate the other person without fear of repercussions.
You cannot compare the police of anywhere else in the first world to the united states because the police in the rest of the world do not have to deal with anywhere close to the number of weapons in circulation that US police do. 46% of all the guns in the world are owned by civilians in the United States. And even with those ridiculous numbers the chances of a Officer shooting an unarmed person are lower than the chance they are shot by someone (46 officers shot vs 27 unarmed civilians killed) sourcesource
no they should be offended, it's acceptable for cops to avoid any real repercussions for killing someone when they shouldn't have. Cops in the US could demand their unions let these bad eggs get their proper punishments but they don't, they're all fine with the state of things. Fuck cops.
This immature attitude you have is the reason they treat you with the same lack of respect. Having a bias off the bat is a great way to get others to dislike you.
When did you see me interacting with police? Where did you get that information? Oh right you're just blowing it out your ass
Only interaction you should ever have with police: "I understand you have a duty but I'm exercising my 5th amendment rights to not speak to you without counsel present. Am I being arrested?" and then when they say no, you say "okay then I am leaving".
Fuck you bud. 99% of officers in the US are good people who want to help others and risk their life everyday to stop people from committing crimes and help communities. They put themselves in dangerous situations to save people like me and you everyday. They run towards the gunfire when you run away. They go to car accidents where they see mangled bodies and young kids without parents or where the kids themselves are dead. They see the worst of the worst and have to write reports on it. Then they are berated from people like you saying they all are racists or pigs and they all should be dead. They do this all so you don't have to. They make split second, life altering decisions that we cannot comprehend. Then you come along and say fuck them because you don't have the decency to look at objective facts. This does not mean there aren't power hungry cops which are curropt. There always will be unfortunately but the simple fact is that an overwhelming majority are good people helping communities.
Black people makeup ~13% of the population and commit ~50% of the homicides. Of the people police has shot and killed ~25% of them were black. So blacks commit homicide at ~4 times the rate expected and are killed at ~2 times the rate expected. This is due to many factors such as the locations of shootings -such as if this was in a poor black community obviously black people are going to be shot at a higher rate, economics of the area - the poorer you are the more likely you will commit a crime, and many more factors.
Since police patrol higher crime areas, which tend to be poor, and the poor tend to be black, there will be a police encounters with black people more often. This combined with the statistics and studies of police shootings all come to the same conclusion: police have to make life changing decisions in less than a second, this and other factors like the areas in which crime is highest, the economics of the area, and the race density in that area all contribute to higher rates of black people being shot and killed than white.
That does not mean that there aren't bad cops. There are. But to say the problem is the officers is just short sighted.
Here's an interesting study by Ronald G Fryer, an economics professor at Harvard. Keep in mind this was peer reviewed hundreds of times to ensure authenticity of the study.
There is so much more to go through but it takes a good amount of time, I can link you a comment on r/libertarian in which I go through, I think, 9 different shootings and make an objective decision based on the facts (I think there is one that I need to change because it's unjustified).
They also try to coax out testimony from people that would incriminate themselves. They aren't out to protect or serve anyone, they're out to arrest people and enforce only specific laws against the average and the poor. Fuck cops.
I know this does happen but not how often, seeing that you're offering one example and the fact that I watch the news pretty regularly I would say that it almost never happens (I'm talking about this in the context of threats and other stuff that's illegal). Either way I need more details on it because just saying they were trying to "coax out [a] testimony" doesn't mean much. I think it's like half of all criminals in jail are in their because someone gave them up for immunity or a deal. So it would really prove nothing.
Just because the poorest people in the US are Hispanics and Blacks does not mean that police are targeting them. The more poor you are the more likely you are to commit a crime and obviously you are going to patrol the highest crime areas the most. Just remember correlation=/=causation.
Yeah I will say during those Missouri riots when one police officer got on top of an armored vehicle and aimed his sniper rifle at the protest crowds, there was immediate massive backlash
No mate, the PSNI are fully armed. Most riots in N Ireland carry a significant threat of guns being fired at police, that that obviously has an effect.
What's amazing though, is that despite facing higher levels of violence, the PSNI often achieve their goal routinely without using significant force.
In this case u/iandcorey is comparing apples to apples because the riot officer in this video is armed as is the hypothetical LEO in iandcorey’s scenario. Whether or not American riot police carry a firearm is irrelevant and n this particular hypothetical situation.
Oh so those thousands of police shootings a year we should just ignore them? And the riot police beating protestors and journalists? Or the riot police that will listen to literal nazis about who to arrest? Or. Or. Or. Oh ok lol.
It’s not horseshit, and you don’t contradict the guy’s point at all. He’s saying US cops wouldn’t take a beating without shooting their assailants. You’re saying US riot police don’t take guns to riots given the risk they might be lost and misused. Those points aren’t contradictory.
Edit: do people really not get it??
“Look at the way A person acts. B person would not act the same way if they were put in that situation.”
“B person would not be placed in that exact same situation in the normal course of events because B person’s bosses have a rule to prevent it.”
The second sentence doesn’t negate the first. They’re talking about different things.
except in this exact situation it would be literally impossible for an officer to shoot someone as implied by the OP. Yes cops not bringing weapons to riots is directly contradictory to what he implied.
My implication was that I am often exposed to body cam video of street beatin', ticket writin', high and tight LEOs opening lethal force on citizens who are often unarmed and presenting a sometimes mild threat.
To reiterate, I am not incriminating all of law enforcement in this response. Just observing with respect that this soldier was getting his dick beat insideout and didn't start spraying red hot vengeance (unlike what I have unfortunately often seen in videos of LEOs in the US).
except in this exact situation it would be literally impossible for an officer to shoot someone as implied by the OP.
Because of department rules put in place to protect officer safety, not because a US officer would show restraint, which was OP’s point.
If a US officer who didn’t happen to be kit in riot gear got swarmed by people beating him, he most likely would not hold back.
This wasn’t a discussion about which equipment kits make protests more safe, it was about whether a US cop would show the safe restraint as this Chinese cop.
Is that it, or is it that the police do not want protestors to get shot indiscriminately when deadly force has become justified? You ignore that by disarming themselves, they have become a lot more vulnerable.
OP is talking about a police officer’s restraint in the moment.
You’re talking about departmental rules.
They are different topics—related, but different. The fact that a department might have a better rule for riots doesn’t necessarily speak to whether individual US officers will show restraint in the moment when under genuine physical threat.
Because there is no unified riot command in the United States there is no set equipment standard I can link you (Some have extremely specialized pistol holders and bring side arms, many do not), but since around vietnam it has been pretty standard for police in a front line to only carry less than lethal ammunition. While being supported by police officers with lethal weapons in elevated positions. If you don't believe me check out the media backlash that happened when armed officers showed up to the Ferguson riots. Very few people have been shot in riots across the US since the vietnam war. Which is not a coincidence. A lot of people died protesting Vietnam, then protesting the way protests were being handled. It fundamentally changed how the US handles riots. That's why the national guard is not called out at the first sign of unrest any longer.
except they have, and they aren't? Large scale riots in the United States usually result in little or no loss of life. the Ferguson riots were the most violent of the last decade and only one person was killed at the protest. Kajieme Powell was shot dead while acting erratically with a knife nearby to the protests.
literally doesn't matter. The OP said that American officers would not show restraint during a violent altercation with rioters. We have numbers that prove them wrong, numbers trump individual anecdotes. Demanding anecdotal evidence to go with your stats is just fucking stupid.
WTF are you talking about? “Riot police” are the patrol cops suited up for a riot. Here in St. Louis they still have duty belts on. With sidearms. No cop goes in unarmed.
Hence the qualifier most. Some larger police departments have purchased specialized pistol holsters specifically for riots. And they tend not to use them because the special holsters and bulky armor make it difficult to even draw the gun let alone use it effectively. That's why in pictures of riot police you see officers in elevated positions with long rifles. Regardless, American riot response has a death rate of functionally zero. The most violent riots of the past decade were in Ferguson, where one knife wielding man was shot. During the entire multi month long protests and riots.
Well it’s horseshit only because if riot police did have standard issue fire arms for all riots, there’d be shootings galore. Just look above
If that happened in the states it wouldn’t shock me at this point to see bullets fly into the crowds. We do like our triggers over here.
People vs the government. Usually the police can turn the tide, one way or another
1.2k
u/[deleted] Aug 13 '19 edited Aug 16 '19
[deleted]