Violence and the Police Force

[Jedoro]

Using guns to fight guns clearly leads to more gun violence.

And when police respond to lethal force with less-than-lethal force, criminals see them as weak and believe more that the law is irrelevant to them. What's funny is, the more prepared someone is to use force, the less likely they are to have to use it. Who would you rather pick a fight with: dude who works out every day and has biceps bigger than your skull, or dude who weighs fifty pounds less than you?

Note that I am not blaming the individual police officers (except in the case of the video I embedded), but the institutional mentality of the police.

You should blame the individual. Our membership of a group or institution may help us rationalize or justify our actions, but we as individuals are ultimately responsible for the choices we make and actions we take. Citizens risk their lives to protest governments, so why can't civil servants? I bet legislation would change very fucking quickly when the government realized that the people it gave guns to, work for the general public and not them.

 

[Jedoro]

Au contraire. If he's in riot gear, how's someone going to hurt him? As a result they're far less likely to use force if someone attacks them. If someone smashes into you full speed, it's an attack. Smash into a line of riot police shields and it's just a bump, not deserving of retaliation to stop further attacks. You might get a few batons, but that's just because they can't let their line be broken.

Most police shootings in riots in my country occurs when policemen in regular gear are backed into a corner by rioters. If they use their batons they get swarmed and will end up hurt, so they have to shoot, or at least draw their weapon as a warning, fire a warning shot and whatever else the (quite rigid) instructions demand. The riot police can form a solid line and can easily slug it out with a bunch of rioters without any real risk to the policemen.

How does one fire a warning shot without putting other people at risk? Firing in the air a well known no-no, the bullets come back down. Firing at any hard surface could cause deadly ricochet.

I'm a big proponent of guns being used only for lethal force. The only time a police officer should discharge a gun is as part of lethal force. Every shot should be intended to kill someone.

The British do shoot to kill, when they have to bring out the guns they don't bring out pistols, they bring out sub-machine guns, shotguns and rifles.

I may not be right but aren't American police trained to shoot to incapacitate?

That's cute. You hit someone's arm or leg, there's still a chance of hitting a vital artery in said arm or leg, which could cause them to bleed out in minutes. Congratulations, you just used lethal force in a situation that you didn't think warranted it.

Also, police in the US keep shotguns and rifles in their patrol cars, so their only option isn't to hide behind their car's engine while they wait for backup.

 

[LetalisK]

Au contraire. If he's in riot gear, how's someone going to hurt him? As a result they're far less likely to use force if someone attacks them. If someone smashes into you full speed, it's an attack. Smash into a line of riot police shields and it's just a bump, not deserving of retaliation to stop further attacks. You might get a few batons, but that's just because they can't let their line be broken.

Most police shootings in riots in my country occurs when policemen in regular gear are backed into a corner by rioters. If they use their batons they get swarmed and will end up hurt, so they have to shoot, or at least draw their weapon as a warning, fire a warning shot and whatever else the (quite rigid) instructions demand. The riot police can form a solid line and can easily slug it out with a bunch of rioters without any real risk to the policemen.

How does one fire a warning shot without putting other people at risk? Firing in the air a well known no-no, the bullets come back down. Firing at any hard surface could cause deadly ricochet.

I'm a big proponent of guns being used only for lethal force. The only time a police officer should discharge a gun is as part of lethal force. Every shot should be intended to kill someone.

The British do shoot to kill, when they have to bring out the guns they don't bring out pistols, they bring out sub-machine guns, shotguns and rifles.

I may not be right but aren't American police trained to shoot to incapacitate?

Seeing as how we have 50+ different sets of laws and 50+ different training programs for police, I can't say this with 100% accuracy, but I'm gonna go with No. Besides it being incredibly stupid, police officers are equipped with less-than-lethal weapons for occasions where it's not justified to shoot to kill.

 

[Dags90]

The British do shoot to kill, when they have to bring out the guns they don't bring out pistols, they bring out sub-machine guns, shotguns and rifles.

I may not be right but aren't American police trained to shoot to incapacitate?

I'm pretty sure all people are trained more or less the same way in firearms. Aim for the center torso, so you have the least chance of missing. Apparently the Met considers this "shooting to incapacitate" and others may tell themselves the same thing. Maybe it helps them sleep better at night. Doesn't change the fact you're aim for their heart/aorta.

Point being, you never intentionally aim for a less lethal location. Sometimes you miss.[footnote]http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2012/01/jersey_city_cops_shoot_man_in.html[/footnote] And sometimes you miss more than once.

 

[twistedmic]

As Occupy Wallstreet protests have shown, they are now being used by their leaders to supress legitimate political criticism.

As I recall, though I may be mistaken, the majority of the Occupy WallStreet incidents with the police happened after the crowds refused to obey a dispersal order (which was issued due to health hazards and sanitation issuses). Once they refused the dispersal order and remained on site, they were technically and legally trespassing (which is a crime).
So it wasn't, completely at least, an issue of the cops or 'the government' crushing peoples' civil rights and liberties. It was the police doing their jobs and enforcing set laws. Though I will admit that some of the police may have over-stepped their bounds during the inccidents.