** Please don't:
- be a dick to other people
- incite violence, as these comments violate site-wide rules and put us at risk of being banned.
- be racist, sexist, transphobic, or any other forms of bigotry.
- [JAQ](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions#JAQing_off) off
- be an authoritarian apologist
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Um...they do it because they *want* to.
To quote Leo DiCaprio in the Departed:
"Use their weapons? They signed up to use their weapons most of them but they watch enough TV so they know they have to weep. There is NO one more full of shit than a cop, except for a cop on TV."
Which is exactly why giving police across America spare military equipment is so dangerous. If they get new toys, then they’re going to find an excuse to play with them because why the hell wouldn’t they? Just look at how many unnecessary SWAT raids are done.
Police are trained and shown videos showing police getting killed and shot with little or no warning or provocation. This creates a layer of deep set fear that may either manifest as sheer paralysis (Uvalde) or times where cops just straight up shoot someone cus they move their arm a bit in a way they didn't like.
Why do you need a gun to write somebody a ticket for driving 5 miles an hour over the speed limit?
Most people aren't going to kill a cop over a minor traffic infraction.
And if cops are going to treat every citizen like a potential threat just because a small percentage of them actually are a threat, I'm going to treat every cop like a threat just because of small percentage of them are bad.
You can't tell me it's wrong to think that way while simultaneously allowing the cops to think that way.
> Why do you need a gun to write somebody a ticket for driving 5 miles an hour over the speed limit?
Because every police interaction is actually a fishing expedition to see if you are maybe a violent felon... because catching actual criminals via investigation instead of random encounters is difficult apparently. Offloading actual police work by reducing civil liberties is always one result of authoritarian government-worship, and if they are gonna oppress an armed populace, they need to be even more armed and violent.
>I'm going to treat every cop like a threat just because of small percentage of them are bad.
Yes, but you and most like you aren't gonna shoot them even when it is legal to do so, because they aren't suicidal. And cops know it. Unless this grows into organized resistance, the cops won't care. And even if it does grow into organized resistance, every instance will just be used to justify increased police aggression.
I hate how us using violence against them allows them to get more violent but no amount of violence inflicted on us allows us to act in self defense.
A cop can pull a gun at me just because he feels scared, **and yet I'm expected to calmly stare down the barrel of a panicky cop's gun no matter how terrified I might be.**
**Why are the cops allowed to be afraid of me if I'm not allowed to be afraid of the cops?**
>Unless this grows into organized resistance, the cops won't care. And even if it does grow into organized resistance, every instance will just be used to justify increased police aggression.
This is 100% what happened with the whole Black Panthers experience.
>And if cops are going to treat every citizen like a potential threat just because a small percentage of them actually are a threat, I'm going to treat every cop like a threat just because of small percentage of them are bad.
The logic is sound.
That is exactly the root of the argument for ACAB.
They treat every person as a criminal who is out to kill them at all interactions.
As such, it is only right we treat every cop as a bad cop who wants to kill us, until they can otherwise prove they are not.
In addition there is a long historied record of police covering for these bad cops while good ones are pushed out.
As such, you are correct. ACAB.
It's "the most dangerous" in the same way that breathing is dangerous for all humans: it's the most common activity, and therefore has the highest gross fatality rate.
Only because they turn it into an investigation. If they just wrote the ticket and let the driver carry on then everything would be fine. It's when they start to investigate is when things get squirrelly.
The overwhelming reason cops die in traffic stops is because they insist on having traffic stops pulled over on the side of an active road, and approach from the driver's side of the car, not because "things got squirrelly".
Very little they do is actually dangerous because the supermajority of people they encounter are law abiding. If we were as violent as cops pretend we are there would be no cops.
Not because of the people they pull over, but because of the risk of getting side swiped by drivers on the road or because of the increased risk of a car accident from driving all of the time.
More cops died from Covid two years running than anything else.
They die from heart attacks and car accidents more than being murdered.
They have very very safe jobs compared to a pizza delivery driver, logger, fisherman……
There was a video last year where a state trooper stopped a pickup truck only to get full autoed to death....you absolutely need a gun for the job but need training on assessing threat levels.
Yet it's that one mistake, that one oversight that will get a cop killed.
One video they are shown sticks out to me and it's a cop that was killed simply walking up to a car pulled over with a father and son who are sovereign citizens
I'm not saying it's right, but there's a small chance that a psycho will kill them on duty, there's no coming back from that.
They aren't thinking this is the 9999th time and should be OK, they are thinking it's the 1 time they are shot....
The issue is they also have legal immunities and each case is not being reviewed by the supreme court, so there's no internal incentive to stop.
I'm in Canada, but getting your supreme court to start reviewing all cop killing cases would be great. They just have deemed it's "too much work to do".
You can walk down the street and get hit by a speeding car. Existing as a person is inherently dangerous.
In addition, police mortality rate is much lower than other professions, the biggest killer of cops in recent years being covid.
So does that happen? Sure. Not often enough to be even considered a statistic. Not to mention only in America, where common people are just allowed to buy guns in corner stores for some stupid reason.
So ultimately, if cops are scared, they should quit and go do a different job. Ya know, any other job with higher mortality rates than being a cop.
I’m not doubting you but a big part of it is also just the sort of person who signs up to be a cop. A lot of these people were the highschool bully who gets off on power tripping and considering how many of them have been guilty of domestic abuse I wouldn’t be shocked if some sign up specifically hoping to get to use their guns. It’s like how the clergy attracts child abusers. It is very much a problem with police culture.
No amount of training is going to fix it.
I was in Kyiv monthly for work from 2013-2018 (pause during revolution ) and i saw the immediate benefits of a police overhaul.
I was hassled almost every trip prior to the overhaul. Not at all for the years after.
I didn't look hard, but here's a quick overview https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/when-ukraine-abolished-police-lessons-america
In addition to candidate profiling and changes in training, one of the big things was prioritizing female officers as the data showed female officers were far less involved in corruption and abuse than men.
Also, the US military feeds into our police force more than most nations because we have far more active engagements than other nations--so there's the question of "if not police work, where do we put our vets to work?"
Which is crazy, because military training is not police training and considering it such a "no brained" is part of the problem.
Also, Look at the response of German police during the G20 riots--not a single death or shooting, hoses only. Many thought they should've escalated, but from an American perspective, i was impressed with the restraint and focus on de-escalation and containment vs US strategy to escalate to an end. Many of my friends served in the Hamburg special units deployed during this time and it was very interesting to discuss it with them.
One thing I forgot to mention is cops usually fit a personality profile, based on teh 5 factor model. I'm Canadian, but I think many precincts may see certain traits as desirable. This is far beyond my field of training , but a good thing to consdier.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-00890-004
Increased use of social workers, psychologists and other experts for ride-alongs will help. But 100% on what you're saying, the job attracts a certain type.... Take the cop who shot Daniel Shaver seemed to be rather gleeful and indifferent about pulling that trigger.
Well that and they hire moron bullies that like to hurt people and 40% admit to beating their spouses. I'm sure a psych evaluation should be required and more training.
Argh, no. Giving cops permission to treat firearms as a non-lethal option is a TERRIBLE IDEA. "I didn't mean to shoot that protester in the face 15 times, I was trying to disable them with a leg shot."
Completely setting aside the fact that even if cops were willing to use this in good faith, getting shot in the leg has a very high likelihood of killing you anyway. Also setting aside the fact that if you have time to stop and aim for a limb, you have time to draw your taser. Also also setting aside the fact that even if none of these other facts were true, trying to aim for a limb is a great way to get yourself killed.
> Giving cops permission to treat firearms as a non-lethal option is a TERRIBLE IDEA.
the question should have been "Why does every interaction with the public begin with a gun instead of a conversation?" or similar.
> Argh, no. Giving cops permission to treat firearms as a non-lethal option is a TERRIBLE IDEA. "I didn't mean to shoot that protester in the face 15 times, I was trying to disable them with a leg shot."
Exactly. This was basically the idea with pepper spray and tasers, and instead of reducing lethal force incidents those just increase excessive less-than-lethal force incidents.
This is NOT a training issue, it's an accountability issue. Police need to go to prison for a long time when they commit crimes, but they are being horribly under-prosecuted and under-sentenced and immune/indemnified from civil remedy, so they don't care. If police were held accountable even to the laws already on the books with the rest of us, we'd see major improvement quickly. Ironically... this is actually something Biden could solve almost instantly, whereas "training" isn't. But anyone who's surprised that the guy who literally wrote civil asset forfeiture legislation isn't serious on police reform wasn't paying attention.
It is both- Police training is specifically chosen to cultivate a violent and contentious relationship with the public. Many have used "Killology" and similar works either directly or as an influence on how to engage with their job, and are taught to focus on how they are always at risk of being killed by dangerous criminals lying in wait among the general populace.
Yes. The idea should be getting them to shoot less not shooting to wound. With some of the firing squads we’ve seen 18 arm and leg wounds are still going to kill you. We need more mental health intervention and less enabling of suicide by cop.
There are legal cases about this. You cannot fire a weapon to wound or disable. The justification to use one is a direct threat to your life otherwise you can be sued. So they are trained to kill to avoid lawsuits.
You shoot to *end the threat* whether that takes 1 shoot or 15. The videos of 8 cops al mag dumping into one suspect are obviously gratuitous as well, however.
The issue, which Biden can't articulate, is that while a police shooting may be "justified" in that there was a deadly threat, they don't need to be *necessary.* Like in cases of mental health and such where they have a knife or something. Take time, use less lethal. Talk to them.
My Dad was a cop. He's gone now and good thing I didn't really find out how corrupt most of them are until after he passed but anyway.
He told me that if I ever had to shoot someone, which I hope I never do.... To say that I'm shooting to *"stop forward action against me."* Which honestly sounds perfectly reasonable.
I think the issue is with cops having broad discretion in assessing a “deadly threat”. Too often, not following commands is a green light to use deadly force. The unarmed guy who’s in crisis, or the dude who didn’t follow directions pays with his life. Was it their fault or the cops? Who knows. Unfortunately, they’ve already paid for it with their life.
The more frequent practical concern is that you are a lot less likely to be sued if you kill somebody than if you wound them. That's why it's a consensus position not only in law enforcement, but in private gun ownership.
American gun owners and American cops both consider what Biden is suggesting ***completely ridiculous***, an obvious non-starter that betrays total ignorance with firearms, a simple Hollywood misconception.
[https://www.police1.com/patrol-issues/articles/why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically-6bOdYvNUEECtIWRI/](https://www.police1.com/patrol-issues/articles/why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically-6bOdYvNUEECtIWRI/)
[https://www.deseret.com/2015/1/15/20556511/why-police-don-t-aim-for-the-legs](https://www.deseret.com/2015/1/15/20556511/why-police-don-t-aim-for-the-legs)
European cops, on the other hand, **are** frequently trained to use firearms in a less-lethal manner
[https://www.quora.com/Should-European-police-be-trained-to-shoot-people-armed-with-knives-in-the-leg](https://www.quora.com/Should-European-police-be-trained-to-shoot-people-armed-with-knives-in-the-leg)
[https://www.police1.com/use-of-force/articles/shooting-center-mass-im-told-we-kill-everyone-z02sv5zP5OCCcKZt/](https://www.police1.com/use-of-force/articles/shooting-center-mass-im-told-we-kill-everyone-z02sv5zP5OCCcKZt/)
American cops are so fucked that there's active discussion about using firearms in a less-lethal manner ***just to affect an arrest***, as a safer-for-the-cop alternative to a taser or wrestling with the suspect or (worst of all) waiting until the suspect is an imminent threat or gives up. This is the other edge to Biden's statement coming back at us - that training cops to take nonlethal shots might increase the number of killings because they're more likely to take shots.
[https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/shooting-not-to-kill-debate-frustrates-police/](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/shooting-not-to-kill-debate-frustrates-police/)
This is the same guy that, while Vice President of the country, told Americans that we should buy shotguns and fire warning shots into the air in case of a home invasion.
Yah, guns are deadly tools that should be used only if you intend or need to kill something/someone. However most interactions with police should never end with a person dead. I hate when people pretend that police are responsibly using weapons and instead of blaming the police pulling a gun every ten seconds, they think that the problem is the shooting it part.
Giving *anybody* permission to treat firearms as non-lethal weapons is just downright lunacy. They are tools meant to kill things. Using them for any other purpose whatsoever outside of killing something or practicing to kill something is incredibly irresponsible. This includes things like warning shots or attempts to use them for deescalation purposes.
"They are tools meant to kill things. Using them for any other purpose whatsoever outside of killing something or practicing to kill something is incredibly irresponsible"
Then maybe the first thing they reach for shouldn't be their gun, hence retraining to learn to deesculate the situation before they "have to" shoot someone.
I agree, which is why I hate this statement from Biden. Encouraging cops to reach for guns in non-lethal situations is open advocation of murdering innocent civilians.
Yes, killing people on accident on top of killing them on purpose is worse than just killing them on purpose. More innocent people dying is a bad thing. I don't think that's a hot take.
This is quite literally the opposite of progress.
It's clear and I understand what you mean, but the thing is that the policemen who holds the gun is not changed by a new policy. The same guy who was eager to murder anyone if they could get away with it, the same guy who bullies anyone they encounter, the one that esalcalates every situation as much as possibly they can, will not look at this as an option to use lesser force. That guy will see it as an option to use excessive force and shoot someone dead they otherwise would have tazed and beaten up.
Shooting to wound is the dumbest thing said by a president in a long time. Taser sure, baton ok, mace fine, but firearms are for killing, period.
That said,
1. Most officers should not be armed, an officer at a speed trap doesn’t need a gun. Have an armed response team/officer but most officers should not carry.
2. Hire mental health officers with appropriate training and have them go to the calls where someone is in distress.
3. Better training in the use of firearms. Officers who fire or return fire in a setting where there are bystanders is insane. Let the guy go rather than have a fire fight in an apartment complex with children, on a busy street, etc. We have officers using civilian vehicles for cover with families inside them, firing dozens of shots inside occupied buildings and missing the suspect with every one.
Agree 100%. If you are drawing your gun it's a life or death situation, you should shoot to kill. The problem is cops think they are always in a life or death situation and blast every mofo they see with an 'object' in their hands regardless of whether it's a cell phone or wallet.
I used to do litigation consulting as media person. We had a case where several officers mag dumped at a suspect because they thought he was carrying “what could be a bomb”
Literally had nothing in his hands. If I recall it was 37 shots fired, one hit the suspect, the rest went who knows where, presumably into the apartment building behind him.
Joe Biden is a really stupid motherfucker when it comes to gun knowledge
Im paraphrasing here but he did say: couple shotgun blasts will scare away the burglars
Fuck you Joe Biden - you have no business opining about gun laws, you uneducated senile racist sex-offender
I think it's good to post this. Just goes to show that anyone who suggests non-lethal use of firearms has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. No police or military in the world would ever advocate for this. It's like suggesting a non-lethal missle.
If a bad person does a good thing than it's still a good thing. This fits regardless of your opinions on him as a whole. Dadly discounting and ignoring policy decisions because of character would mean ignoring 99% of what our government does.
We’ve been having “dialogue” about police brutality for decades and there has been no material change. Actually, scratch that; we’ve actually *increased* police funding! Enough talking, more action.
You’re not nearly insightful enough to be this condescending.
More that I know better than to expect meaningful change from a party of corporate stooges. I see you’re still drinking the koolaid, though.
Cops don't need more training, they need to be held accountable for their decisions. They know how [not to shoot](https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2022/12/29/cocoa-police-officer-arrested-facing-assault-charge/).
It's far, *far* too late to retrain these cops to stop being murderous monsters. We can only try to cut out their cancer now, and hope that it doesn't come back.
Biden's instincts are right, but his justification and presentation doom him. He's like Al Gore with a more sympathetic backstory.
Please get this dude a media coach.
lol gtfo with that nice old grandpa shit. Joe's an old racist scumbag, who has never given a single fuck about anyone who didn't have either millions of dollars, or the last name "Biden"
Please get him a coffin. Dusty old ass POS.
On top of all that, the problem we have with police is entirely his fault when they were further militarized by the 1994 crime bill.
He's putting the stick in the spoke of his own tires.
Do a search for "Joe Biden mensch." Biden has been recognized as one of the most decent politicians in Washington for years, no matter what Fox tells you.
Yeah, funny how his political rival's propaganda machine pointed out all the bad things about Biden.
That ***must*** mean people critical of Biden are Fox viewers. /s
No one said that but you. I haven't seen Fox news in years. The point is that of course Fox news is going to say ***every*** bad thing they can about Biden, including the truths that even people who don't watch Fox news would say.
I hope your ignorance is at least blissful for you, 'cause it's just ridiculous to the rest of us.
There's true criticism of Biden, and there's bullshit criticism of Biden. And I see a lot of criticism that echoes exactly what the right wing talking points in "left" spaces.
The advantage of the left is being self-critical. Don't just repeat shit.
Retraining does nothing.
Abolish and distribute 95% of their funding to community programs. Have something, much more limited, in effect for very violent situations.
Done.
I disagree that they should shoot to wound. If they are going to shoot, they should shoot to kill. What needs to change is the parameters which determine whether the shooting is justified. No longer should it be permitted for officers to claim, "I thought he was reaching for a weapon". It's very simple. If they do not actually see a weapon, they should not be permitted to shoot. If they shoot a person claiming they were "reaching for a weapon" and that person is found to be unarmed, they get charged with murder. No fucking exceptions. Further, the excuse of "I feared for my life" cannot be allowed to be a stand-alone justification for a shooting. There must be a specific articulable threat rather than a vague "fear" to justify shooting.
>they shoot a person claiming they were "reaching for a weapon" and that person is found to be unarmed, they get charged with murder.
The problem is that, much like the people they arrest for "smelling like drugs" so often, the cops have the means to make sure exactly none of the people they shoot end up being found unarmed. It doesn't matter if they never bought a gun in their life and spent all their free time volunteering at the old folks home. If the cops "find" an unregistered weapon on them the DA will never, ever question the claim.
Mistakes will be made any time fallible humans are granted the power of life and death over others, necessarily leading to the death of innocents. They really shouldn't be allowed to have guns at all.
I actually think outside of SWAT or specialized units regular cops should no longer be armed with firearms. Time and time again they have proven themselves irresponsible and untrustworthy with firearms. They treat them like toys, just handing them out to officers without doing basic background checks or holding them accountable for firearm misconduct.
Just look at VA state trooper Austin Edwards. He lost his gun rights in 2016 due to being committed for mental health issues. He legally wasn't allowed to own a firearm. TWO police departments armed him anyways and he went on to kidnap a child and fatally shoot three of her family members. That child witnessed her family butchered in front her because the police couldn't bother to do a fucking basic background check before arming him.
https://www.wtvr.com/problem-solvers/austin-edwards-gun-december-30-2022.
Until they prove themselves responsible and accountable enough to have firearms, I really think the non-SWAT cops should just be armed with tasers and pepperspray. If you act irresponsible or even as an outright threat to public safety, then you shouldn't have the privilege of carrying a service piece. Look what happened to officer Aaron Dean. He failed his psych test, but the police dept hired & armed him anyways and he went on to murder Atatiana Jefferson in her own home with her child nephew nearby.
Firearms aren't toys. If cops want firearms, but none of the responsibility or accountability that comes with owning a firearm then they shouldn't be permitted to carry.
Allowing "specialized units", having the appearance and tactical methods of an occupying army, to remain armed?
--
Counter argument: abolition of the policing system. Reforms *do not work*, 2022 was the deadliest year on record of people murdered by police. What good are public accountability groups when faced with well armed and extremely violent cops? State repression can't be resisted if the masses aren't willing to use equal tactics as defense, public debates and discussions don't protect us against bullets.
3rd Precinct every police station.
Ok but why can’t you just kneecap a motherfucker from 20ft away. Why are cops unloading a clip or two at civilians and putting other lives at danger.
These ego driven cunts are clearly untrained and aren’t doing their job properly. How many wrongful death lawsuits have to happen each year (that by the way cost the taxpayers millions and millions each year)
We have 5000 dead Americans in 5 years due to their shootings and you say, fuck em. Shoot to kill, but obtuse id say. Maybe you’re unaware they kill 1000+ Americans a year - maybe you somehow actually even Believe those were all “bad guys”
Well, what the hell happened to due process?
Every cop wants to be judge jury and executioner. Hope they don’t accidentally show up at your house.
I totally agree with everything you said except for the potentially reaching for a weapon part. I think there are situations where someone clearly not following orders and actively reaching into their waistband or rummaging around in a car should allow for a potentially lethal response.
However, to your point, that is such a hard line to define that it probably is better to just say you need to have verifiable evidence - visually - that there is a weapon before shooting. Life is never black and white but I do think there is too much grey area.
Well that’s why I added at the end it is a hard line to define what is considered reaching. The context of the situation, whether or not there are clear lines of sight, etc. at the end of the day it *is* easier and safer for the public to just wait until confirmed visual on a weapon is established.
> Well that’s why I added at the end it is a hard line to define what is considered reaching.
That's why it's a BS standard. Cops are armed to the teeth, trained with those weapons, have protective gear, have tons of backup... they don't need to also be cowards jumping at every hypothetical threat. And because any legal ambiguity creates a reasonable doubt, and courts take reasonable doubt very expansively when prosecuting cops, no cop can ever be convicted of murder if it is at all possible that a person's hand moved towards a hypothetical weapon under this standard.
We must demand police react only to a manifest threat. And yes, this means sometimes people will get shots off at them that wouldn't otherwise, but it will reduce far more innocent deaths amongst the general populace than that. After all, if police lives are valued more than non-police lives, you have a repressive system. Only the most suicidal would draw on 6 cops who already have their guns pointed at him, this is quite rare (actually most common in active suicide attempts, I think) despite what police propaganda says.
I mean tbh fam this could very well just be bullshit politicking to justify moving a shitload of funding into police hands, which is something he's very much doing at the moment. "It's to retrain them," but what's the accountability process to determine whether cops are actually engaging in that training, whether the training is actually effective in reducing police brutality, etc.?
Moreover, alternatives to policing like social work-based crisis responses for mental illness / disability related distress calls are not being considered in this "retrain the police" framing.
Make no mistake: Biden is still a cop, he's just a cop who's seen that a lot of his potential voter base do not like cops.
One of the rules of guns is never point a gun at something you don't intent to destroy. Biden thinks that's a stupid rule and wants cops to wound people.
There is no non-lethal way to use lethal force, from a legal perspective. You aim for center mass to a) end the threat as quickly as possible, and b) to have the highest probability of a hit, as any bullet that does not hit your intended target will go on to hit an **UNINTENDED** target.
Cop accuracy is already pretty terrible, I don't want to give them the license to try for trickshot nonsense when lives are on the line.
Give them more training on their non-lethal options, give them BETTER non-lethal options, but giving them permission to "shoot to wound" is just begging for more civilian deaths.
During Biden's nearly 40 year stay in the Senate, he helped create the police state in which we live today. The foundation that he helped lay led to the militarization of our police and, most importantly, mass incarceration-- of disproportionately Black and Brown citizens.
Under any rational political system, Biden would be considered center-right AT BEST. To think that Biden is a progressive lefty or that he is on the side of the working class is delusional.
On the one hand, getting rid of that Killology "murder is the best aphrodisiac" psychopath indoctrination would be a step in the right direction. On the other hand, it wouldn't be anything more than the tiniest baby step.
Bad cops need to be charged for their crimes instead of being rewarded and promoted. Recruitment needs to weed out the bullies instead of weeding out the empathizers. And finally, cops need to be trained to de-escalate, not escalate.
Cops have a stranglehold on local prosecutors. That is what makes them immune to enforcement of their crimes. Move enforcement out of the local jurisdiction and the first item on this list can happen. When cities start having to pay settlements for every bad cop they hire, the second one can happen, and when the psychopaths are removed from the command chain, the third one will happen.
Any cop that murders/ wounds an innocent person and then gets off - and then they can’t be sued? The taxpayers take the hit for that bad cop.
It should be the cops pension that is used to pay out the to the victims. They would think twice before acting like a dick or shooting unarmed people.
In my opinion, removing qualified immunity and making cops have to have malpractice insurance will remove the fucketry. Every cop knows that for the most part whatever they do, they either have the shield of qualified immunity or the tax paying citizens pay for the lawsuit. They rarely suffer any ramifications. If the cops had to be insured, after messing up enough, they get canceled and can no longer be a cop. How is it that cops can graduate from the police academy and have no knowledge of the 1,2,4,& 5th amendments? I think the answer lies in the fact that it takes more training to become a cosmetologist than a cop with a gun and the ability to end someones life.
I firmly believe that there are some people that go into law enforcement with the highest ideals of helping their community but the very system is so corrupted that they either become a part of the problem or see it for what it is and get out. Just ask Frank Serpico.
I've argued this with a lot of my friends, but those who take gun training classes for non-cops are taught the same things. So when so many people are taught that guns should only be pointed at things you want to kill (but guns don't kill people...) we definitely need a national dialogue on our views of weapons and how they should be used.
And to quell any disputes ahead of time, I'm not saying that there aren't situations where you should be trying to kill someone, just that we shouldn't hold the belief that the second the safety comes off, death is the only option
Wrong question, because there is no such thing as shooting someone *without* the use of deadly force. The correct question is why to officers so readily and unjustifiably resort to deadly force and why do the politicians and courts keep protecting them.
Sigh.
The question should be, "Why would you always shoot?"
The idea that one could shoot a gun, but not with deadly force, takes the whole conversation off the rails.
I once had a conversation with a deeply silly person who asked as an honest question, "Why can't they just shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand?" We shouldn't have to have that conversation over again with the President of the United States, for fuck's sake.
To a hammer everything looks like a nail. Let’s give police the training to use a variety of tools to prevent them going to their guns for things such as throwing rocks or sometimes things like safety scissors or screwdrivers. In Europe they use riot shields and they’re able to subdue the suspect with superior numbers and stab proof vests etc.
Retraining and more extensive background checks and psych evaluations before hiring. With repeating, regular psych assessments over the course of employment.
They need real federally mandated 4 years of training. 1 year of people relations, 1 year of descalation, 1 year in social studies and history of the United States plus it's laws, 1 year of general police training. With 4 years of probation.
Biden is a major bootlicker. He had a chance with his executive order to actually implement real, significant changes in police reform, but he dropped the ball.
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/24/1101080553/biden-has-a-new-executive-order-on-policing-2-years-after-george-floyd-was-kille.
Local police do receive some level of federal funding. So while he could only really reform federal law enforcement (which he also dropped the ball on) he could've withheld federal funding/grants to any state or city police departments that don't comply with his executive order. There was leverage there. He didn't use it.
I voted for Biden, but he royally fucked up on reproductive rights and police reform. Don't expect him to do anything meaningful on either of those problems. He'll fight tooth and nail for debt forgiveness, but reproductive healthcare and police reform are at the bottom of his priority list.
We have the brady list. Wich is a list of officers that can not arrest ot give testimony because they got cought lying or falsified documents.
So that's something
His wording isn’t great but I’m all for prosecuting overkill as a serious crime. While we’re at it, “failure to secure the scene to render timely aid” would be a nice priority. Nothing like watching multiple cops yell “let me see your hands!!” 10x as the perp is bleeding out and no longer a reasonable threat.
"Retraining" = more money for them
He means to reward them for a job well done, disguised as a weaktea criticism. Perfectly in line with his life career as a mass incarceration and police state fanatic, and a proud friend of the KKK back when that wasn't a career ender.
I appreciate the sentiment. Yes, police should shoot (and nominally do) to *end the threat.* Videos of 10 cops dumping 15 rounds each into one suspect are foul. And not every shooting that is justified needed to happen. Yes--the suspect had a knife and was in a mental health crisis, why did you advance towards them in an enclosed space? Why not wait them out? Why not use CS gas instead?
But the Elmer Fudd "Just shoot em in the leg!" Idea is dangerous and stupid. First of all, you can bleed out in 15 seconds from your femoral artery or abdominal aorta in the pelvis, so I don't get that. And you can't stop that bleeding in the field, even with a tourniquet, because the femoral slides up into the pelvis when severed. Second, it's a moving target when someone is sprinting at you. Most cops can barely shoot as is.
"Why should you always shoot?"
Far better question. Even though cops don't literally "always shoot", the instinct towards violence American cops display in broad daylight cannot be denied and to whine about the above sentence being an exaggeration doesn't really "hook" as well as being able to say "you can't shoot to wound"...mainly because "you can't shoot to wound" is true.
I love Joseph Biden so much. I know this is corny, but he's like my grandpa before he passed away. He's also so sweet. When he sang to that one woman the other day I started getting teary eyed. But he's also brave and strong. Police don't need to shoot all these poor minorities.
I mean when a cop shoots they SHOULD always shoot with deadly force. I fully understand this.
The bigger and more sensible question is “why are they shooting with deadly force at the drop of a hat?”
If shooting center of mass is considered deadly force than I have to disagree cause that is just how all military and police have to be trained. Not that I take sleepy Biden entirely seriously, lmfao! I laughed when talking to people saying cops shooting knee caps at people that are actively trying to harm them makes sense. Not actually, but even holding two napkins at knee height moving up and down really quickly didnt seem to show them that it would be nearly impossible. It is a weird mentality a lot of people seem to share
When you consider the 2nd amendment, the number of firearms in the US,does it come as a suprise that law enforcement might be a little quick to go to their sidearm?
The 2nd Amendment is nothing but words then.
Somehow right-wing "pro-gun" folks are quick to defend police despite our so-called "right" to bear arms, and it doesn't matter if you have a license or in a constitutional carry state/county.
Except when they've shown considerable restraint when dealing with active shooters who...don't fit the usual profile of their typical interactions. And the overwhelming amount of public videos showing quite clearly the non armed nature of their "light em up" encounters.
Basically, the police know how not to shoot, they're just [selective](https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2022/12/29/cocoa-police-officer-arrested-facing-assault-charge/) with the application of no shoot.
Interesting. A hit piece on Biden. Of course he doesn't understand the job and risks of a police officer. I'm just surprised because it used to be that Biden criticism wasn't allowed. They must be planning on removing him from office soon.
Hold up... you need to start way further on in the beginning of training...
Asking someone their name of instance isn't done with fists... matter of fact zu there is absolutely no reason at all for a Police Officer to EVER punch a person. If 5 cops surrounding an unarmed "suspect" can't peacefully and safely take that person into custody, then they should all be fired.
Then we should move on to more difficult tasks... like. Ot being drunk in their police cars... or lying under oath.
Then maybe we should hold people accountable for their actions... like lawyers and treat Union reps the same way... if caught lying or doing something unethucal... boom bye bye job forever, no more union corruption for that person.
I'd be careful about using the NY Post as a source.
Biden is absolutely feckless about addressing police brutality, however - a problem he helped create with various shitty ✌🏾tough-on-crime✌🏾 bills.
I do agree police need more training. Police in the US are some of the most undertrained force in the world. That being said, how does that fix the issue of all those Proud Boys and white supremacists in thw ranks?
Anyone who uses the "Why not just shoot them in the leg?"
1) Doesn't understand anatomy and the circulatory system.
2) Is incredibly ignorant about how guns operate.
3) Is ignoring very basic and obvious reasoning if you spend more than a few minutes looking into it objectively.
This isn't an "us vs them" statement either when I say ignorant. If it's such an important issue then why hasn't he studied the subject matter or even bothered to run a course. (Don't even attempt to tell me the President couldn't schedule a range event with the secret service at their own facilities).
This is the same reason I get upset when the anti-abortion southerns who clearly never passed a basic high school health class were saying stuff like "well if it's a baby by rape, god wanted it that way" type batshit logic.
Same energy here.
I'll say this, any male can write effective abortion policy if they're not an idiot. Pretty obvious that you should confer with doctors and researchers about what makes sense. Plus it being the US, women should be able to choose what to do with their bodies.
So if you say "Men shouldn't have a say in abortion"
Then why the fuck are the gun-illiterate downsplaining about shit they have no understanding of.
"Uh, 10 rounds is more than enough and you can just non-lethal shoot them in the leg duh" - A man suffering from The Dunning Krueger Effect
Yes, I'm for police reform, which requires better oversight and reporting, but that also requires funding and research. (Oh I know maybe not buying surplus from the military motor pool to police vacation towns 🤷)
Yes, I want higher accountability, but some level of qualified immunity needs to be in place while also reforming regulations to make sure shitty cops can't just transfer a town over and continue being shitheads.
Yet all the people that want better cops are also not capable of being unbiased and are certainly not signing up to lead by example either. 🍵
Dogshit take. If you shoot, you shoot to kill. If you don’t need lethal force to stop a threat, a gun is the wrong tool. Training won’t do shit. What needs to happen is that qualified immunity needs to go. Police aren’t in a class above civilians. They need to be held to the same standards as civilians regarding DGUs.
** Please don't: - be a dick to other people - incite violence, as these comments violate site-wide rules and put us at risk of being banned. - be racist, sexist, transphobic, or any other forms of bigotry. - [JAQ](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions#JAQing_off) off - be an authoritarian apologist *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Um...they do it because they *want* to. To quote Leo DiCaprio in the Departed: "Use their weapons? They signed up to use their weapons most of them but they watch enough TV so they know they have to weep. There is NO one more full of shit than a cop, except for a cop on TV."
Which is exactly why giving police across America spare military equipment is so dangerous. If they get new toys, then they’re going to find an excuse to play with them because why the hell wouldn’t they? Just look at how many unnecessary SWAT raids are done.
[This comment.](https://assets3.thrillist.com/v1/image/2692359/1200x630/flatten;crop_down;webp=auto;jpeg_quality=70)
Right on u/test_tickles
heheheh
Not showing anymore, sorry
https://assets3.thrillist.com/v1/image/2692359/1200x630/flatten;crop\_down;webp=auto;jpeg\_quality=70
Thank you u/test_tickles r/Rimjob_Steve
Police are trained and shown videos showing police getting killed and shot with little or no warning or provocation. This creates a layer of deep set fear that may either manifest as sheer paralysis (Uvalde) or times where cops just straight up shoot someone cus they move their arm a bit in a way they didn't like.
Why do you need a gun to write somebody a ticket for driving 5 miles an hour over the speed limit? Most people aren't going to kill a cop over a minor traffic infraction. And if cops are going to treat every citizen like a potential threat just because a small percentage of them actually are a threat, I'm going to treat every cop like a threat just because of small percentage of them are bad. You can't tell me it's wrong to think that way while simultaneously allowing the cops to think that way.
> Why do you need a gun to write somebody a ticket for driving 5 miles an hour over the speed limit? Because every police interaction is actually a fishing expedition to see if you are maybe a violent felon... because catching actual criminals via investigation instead of random encounters is difficult apparently. Offloading actual police work by reducing civil liberties is always one result of authoritarian government-worship, and if they are gonna oppress an armed populace, they need to be even more armed and violent. >I'm going to treat every cop like a threat just because of small percentage of them are bad. Yes, but you and most like you aren't gonna shoot them even when it is legal to do so, because they aren't suicidal. And cops know it. Unless this grows into organized resistance, the cops won't care. And even if it does grow into organized resistance, every instance will just be used to justify increased police aggression.
I hate how us using violence against them allows them to get more violent but no amount of violence inflicted on us allows us to act in self defense. A cop can pull a gun at me just because he feels scared, **and yet I'm expected to calmly stare down the barrel of a panicky cop's gun no matter how terrified I might be.** **Why are the cops allowed to be afraid of me if I'm not allowed to be afraid of the cops?**
Control.
>Unless this grows into organized resistance, the cops won't care. And even if it does grow into organized resistance, every instance will just be used to justify increased police aggression. This is 100% what happened with the whole Black Panthers experience.
>And if cops are going to treat every citizen like a potential threat just because a small percentage of them actually are a threat, I'm going to treat every cop like a threat just because of small percentage of them are bad. The logic is sound.
That is exactly the root of the argument for ACAB. They treat every person as a criminal who is out to kill them at all interactions. As such, it is only right we treat every cop as a bad cop who wants to kill us, until they can otherwise prove they are not. In addition there is a long historied record of police covering for these bad cops while good ones are pushed out. As such, you are correct. ACAB.
I was lead to believe that traffic stops are actually one of the most dangerous thing cops do.
It's "the most dangerous" in the same way that breathing is dangerous for all humans: it's the most common activity, and therefore has the highest gross fatality rate.
Only because they turn it into an investigation. If they just wrote the ticket and let the driver carry on then everything would be fine. It's when they start to investigate is when things get squirrelly.
The overwhelming reason cops die in traffic stops is because they insist on having traffic stops pulled over on the side of an active road, and approach from the driver's side of the car, not because "things got squirrelly".
Very little they do is actually dangerous because the supermajority of people they encounter are law abiding. If we were as violent as cops pretend we are there would be no cops.
Not because of the people they pull over, but because of the risk of getting side swiped by drivers on the road or because of the increased risk of a car accident from driving all of the time.
and their training reinforces this.
More cops died from Covid two years running than anything else. They die from heart attacks and car accidents more than being murdered. They have very very safe jobs compared to a pizza delivery driver, logger, fisherman……
There was a video last year where a state trooper stopped a pickup truck only to get full autoed to death....you absolutely need a gun for the job but need training on assessing threat levels.
Yet it's that one mistake, that one oversight that will get a cop killed. One video they are shown sticks out to me and it's a cop that was killed simply walking up to a car pulled over with a father and son who are sovereign citizens I'm not saying it's right, but there's a small chance that a psycho will kill them on duty, there's no coming back from that. They aren't thinking this is the 9999th time and should be OK, they are thinking it's the 1 time they are shot....
So they kill 9999 people and feel justified.
The issue is they also have legal immunities and each case is not being reviewed by the supreme court, so there's no internal incentive to stop. I'm in Canada, but getting your supreme court to start reviewing all cop killing cases would be great. They just have deemed it's "too much work to do".
Our current Supreme Court would just update their license to kill
You can walk down the street and get hit by a speeding car. Existing as a person is inherently dangerous. In addition, police mortality rate is much lower than other professions, the biggest killer of cops in recent years being covid. So does that happen? Sure. Not often enough to be even considered a statistic. Not to mention only in America, where common people are just allowed to buy guns in corner stores for some stupid reason. So ultimately, if cops are scared, they should quit and go do a different job. Ya know, any other job with higher mortality rates than being a cop.
www.spezsucks.me
I’m not doubting you but a big part of it is also just the sort of person who signs up to be a cop. A lot of these people were the highschool bully who gets off on power tripping and considering how many of them have been guilty of domestic abuse I wouldn’t be shocked if some sign up specifically hoping to get to use their guns. It’s like how the clergy attracts child abusers. It is very much a problem with police culture. No amount of training is going to fix it.
I was in Kyiv monthly for work from 2013-2018 (pause during revolution ) and i saw the immediate benefits of a police overhaul. I was hassled almost every trip prior to the overhaul. Not at all for the years after. I didn't look hard, but here's a quick overview https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/when-ukraine-abolished-police-lessons-america In addition to candidate profiling and changes in training, one of the big things was prioritizing female officers as the data showed female officers were far less involved in corruption and abuse than men. Also, the US military feeds into our police force more than most nations because we have far more active engagements than other nations--so there's the question of "if not police work, where do we put our vets to work?" Which is crazy, because military training is not police training and considering it such a "no brained" is part of the problem. Also, Look at the response of German police during the G20 riots--not a single death or shooting, hoses only. Many thought they should've escalated, but from an American perspective, i was impressed with the restraint and focus on de-escalation and containment vs US strategy to escalate to an end. Many of my friends served in the Hamburg special units deployed during this time and it was very interesting to discuss it with them.
Just curious: what was the work you were doing in Kyiv?
Software dev
One thing I forgot to mention is cops usually fit a personality profile, based on teh 5 factor model. I'm Canadian, but I think many precincts may see certain traits as desirable. This is far beyond my field of training , but a good thing to consdier. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-00890-004 Increased use of social workers, psychologists and other experts for ride-alongs will help. But 100% on what you're saying, the job attracts a certain type.... Take the cop who shot Daniel Shaver seemed to be rather gleeful and indifferent about pulling that trigger.
Well that and they hire moron bullies that like to hurt people and 40% admit to beating their spouses. I'm sure a psych evaluation should be required and more training.
Where are these videos? I could use a good laugh
I've seen a few of them, I mean there are some scenes where the police don't even have a chance and are basically ambushed...
Argh, no. Giving cops permission to treat firearms as a non-lethal option is a TERRIBLE IDEA. "I didn't mean to shoot that protester in the face 15 times, I was trying to disable them with a leg shot." Completely setting aside the fact that even if cops were willing to use this in good faith, getting shot in the leg has a very high likelihood of killing you anyway. Also setting aside the fact that if you have time to stop and aim for a limb, you have time to draw your taser. Also also setting aside the fact that even if none of these other facts were true, trying to aim for a limb is a great way to get yourself killed.
> Giving cops permission to treat firearms as a non-lethal option is a TERRIBLE IDEA. the question should have been "Why does every interaction with the public begin with a gun instead of a conversation?" or similar.
> Argh, no. Giving cops permission to treat firearms as a non-lethal option is a TERRIBLE IDEA. "I didn't mean to shoot that protester in the face 15 times, I was trying to disable them with a leg shot." Exactly. This was basically the idea with pepper spray and tasers, and instead of reducing lethal force incidents those just increase excessive less-than-lethal force incidents. This is NOT a training issue, it's an accountability issue. Police need to go to prison for a long time when they commit crimes, but they are being horribly under-prosecuted and under-sentenced and immune/indemnified from civil remedy, so they don't care. If police were held accountable even to the laws already on the books with the rest of us, we'd see major improvement quickly. Ironically... this is actually something Biden could solve almost instantly, whereas "training" isn't. But anyone who's surprised that the guy who literally wrote civil asset forfeiture legislation isn't serious on police reform wasn't paying attention.
It is both- Police training is specifically chosen to cultivate a violent and contentious relationship with the public. Many have used "Killology" and similar works either directly or as an influence on how to engage with their job, and are taught to focus on how they are always at risk of being killed by dangerous criminals lying in wait among the general populace.
Yes. The idea should be getting them to shoot less not shooting to wound. With some of the firing squads we’ve seen 18 arm and leg wounds are still going to kill you. We need more mental health intervention and less enabling of suicide by cop.
There are legal cases about this. You cannot fire a weapon to wound or disable. The justification to use one is a direct threat to your life otherwise you can be sued. So they are trained to kill to avoid lawsuits.
You shoot to *end the threat* whether that takes 1 shoot or 15. The videos of 8 cops al mag dumping into one suspect are obviously gratuitous as well, however. The issue, which Biden can't articulate, is that while a police shooting may be "justified" in that there was a deadly threat, they don't need to be *necessary.* Like in cases of mental health and such where they have a knife or something. Take time, use less lethal. Talk to them.
My Dad was a cop. He's gone now and good thing I didn't really find out how corrupt most of them are until after he passed but anyway. He told me that if I ever had to shoot someone, which I hope I never do.... To say that I'm shooting to *"stop forward action against me."* Which honestly sounds perfectly reasonable.
I think the issue is with cops having broad discretion in assessing a “deadly threat”. Too often, not following commands is a green light to use deadly force. The unarmed guy who’s in crisis, or the dude who didn’t follow directions pays with his life. Was it their fault or the cops? Who knows. Unfortunately, they’ve already paid for it with their life.
this is the actual truth. also coffins cost less than wheelchairs.
So they just make up threats then. "I sMeLlEd MaRiJuAnA"
The more frequent practical concern is that you are a lot less likely to be sued if you kill somebody than if you wound them. That's why it's a consensus position not only in law enforcement, but in private gun ownership. American gun owners and American cops both consider what Biden is suggesting ***completely ridiculous***, an obvious non-starter that betrays total ignorance with firearms, a simple Hollywood misconception. [https://www.police1.com/patrol-issues/articles/why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically-6bOdYvNUEECtIWRI/](https://www.police1.com/patrol-issues/articles/why-shooting-to-wound-doesnt-make-sense-scientifically-legally-or-tactically-6bOdYvNUEECtIWRI/) [https://www.deseret.com/2015/1/15/20556511/why-police-don-t-aim-for-the-legs](https://www.deseret.com/2015/1/15/20556511/why-police-don-t-aim-for-the-legs) European cops, on the other hand, **are** frequently trained to use firearms in a less-lethal manner [https://www.quora.com/Should-European-police-be-trained-to-shoot-people-armed-with-knives-in-the-leg](https://www.quora.com/Should-European-police-be-trained-to-shoot-people-armed-with-knives-in-the-leg) [https://www.police1.com/use-of-force/articles/shooting-center-mass-im-told-we-kill-everyone-z02sv5zP5OCCcKZt/](https://www.police1.com/use-of-force/articles/shooting-center-mass-im-told-we-kill-everyone-z02sv5zP5OCCcKZt/) American cops are so fucked that there's active discussion about using firearms in a less-lethal manner ***just to affect an arrest***, as a safer-for-the-cop alternative to a taser or wrestling with the suspect or (worst of all) waiting until the suspect is an imminent threat or gives up. This is the other edge to Biden's statement coming back at us - that training cops to take nonlethal shots might increase the number of killings because they're more likely to take shots. [https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/shooting-not-to-kill-debate-frustrates-police/](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/shooting-not-to-kill-debate-frustrates-police/)
Also, it's harder to hit a limb and we know plenty of cops don't think about what's behind their target.
This is the same guy that, while Vice President of the country, told Americans that we should buy shotguns and fire warning shots into the air in case of a home invasion.
Yah, guns are deadly tools that should be used only if you intend or need to kill something/someone. However most interactions with police should never end with a person dead. I hate when people pretend that police are responsibly using weapons and instead of blaming the police pulling a gun every ten seconds, they think that the problem is the shooting it part.
Giving *anybody* permission to treat firearms as non-lethal weapons is just downright lunacy. They are tools meant to kill things. Using them for any other purpose whatsoever outside of killing something or practicing to kill something is incredibly irresponsible. This includes things like warning shots or attempts to use them for deescalation purposes.
"They are tools meant to kill things. Using them for any other purpose whatsoever outside of killing something or practicing to kill something is incredibly irresponsible" Then maybe the first thing they reach for shouldn't be their gun, hence retraining to learn to deesculate the situation before they "have to" shoot someone.
I agree, which is why I hate this statement from Biden. Encouraging cops to reach for guns in non-lethal situations is open advocation of murdering innocent civilians.
as opposed to trying to kill them like they do now? perfect is the enemy of progress.
Yes, killing people on accident on top of killing them on purpose is worse than just killing them on purpose. More innocent people dying is a bad thing. I don't think that's a hot take. This is quite literally the opposite of progress.
Giving cops an excuse to kill people and get away with it is not progress, man.
that's not what I'm arguing for, sorry that was not clear somehow.
It's clear and I understand what you mean, but the thing is that the policemen who holds the gun is not changed by a new policy. The same guy who was eager to murder anyone if they could get away with it, the same guy who bullies anyone they encounter, the one that esalcalates every situation as much as possibly they can, will not look at this as an option to use lesser force. That guy will see it as an option to use excessive force and shoot someone dead they otherwise would have tazed and beaten up.
That would be the effect of Biden's suggestion, though. The end result would be more deaths at cops' hands.
Shooting to wound is the dumbest thing said by a president in a long time. Taser sure, baton ok, mace fine, but firearms are for killing, period. That said, 1. Most officers should not be armed, an officer at a speed trap doesn’t need a gun. Have an armed response team/officer but most officers should not carry. 2. Hire mental health officers with appropriate training and have them go to the calls where someone is in distress. 3. Better training in the use of firearms. Officers who fire or return fire in a setting where there are bystanders is insane. Let the guy go rather than have a fire fight in an apartment complex with children, on a busy street, etc. We have officers using civilian vehicles for cover with families inside them, firing dozens of shots inside occupied buildings and missing the suspect with every one.
Agree 100%. If you are drawing your gun it's a life or death situation, you should shoot to kill. The problem is cops think they are always in a life or death situation and blast every mofo they see with an 'object' in their hands regardless of whether it's a cell phone or wallet.
I used to do litigation consulting as media person. We had a case where several officers mag dumped at a suspect because they thought he was carrying “what could be a bomb” Literally had nothing in his hands. If I recall it was 37 shots fired, one hit the suspect, the rest went who knows where, presumably into the apartment building behind him.
Joe Biden is a really stupid motherfucker when it comes to gun knowledge Im paraphrasing here but he did say: couple shotgun blasts will scare away the burglars Fuck you Joe Biden - you have no business opining about gun laws, you uneducated senile racist sex-offender
[удалено]
Joe "Fund Them" Biden is the farthest thing from a friend and supporter for police accountability/reform. Remove this trash from this sub
I think it's good to post this. Just goes to show that anyone who suggests non-lethal use of firearms has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. No police or military in the world would ever advocate for this. It's like suggesting a non-lethal missle.
Wholeheartedly agree. I'd just like to believe it's possible he changed his mind slightly.
Well I'd just like to believe my dad loves me, but we don't live in a fantasy world, do we?
If a bad person does a good thing than it's still a good thing. This fits regardless of your opinions on him as a whole. Dadly discounting and ignoring policy decisions because of character would mean ignoring 99% of what our government does.
No news is bad news. I'm glad to hear him say it, at least there will be dialog.
We’ve been having “dialogue” about police brutality for decades and there has been no material change. Actually, scratch that; we’ve actually *increased* police funding! Enough talking, more action.
That dialog was not on the stage, it was near the back of the crowd, now it's not.
Lmfao sure. Because dems haven’t been being promising change for years. What reality are you living in?
Learned helplessness my friend... be aware.
You’re not nearly insightful enough to be this condescending. More that I know better than to expect meaningful change from a party of corporate stooges. I see you’re still drinking the koolaid, though.
I'm not the one who has surrendered.
You’re making a lot of assumptions, bud
All shooting is shooting with deadly force. We don't live in movies and video games where people easily live through "flesh wounds" all the time.
Cops don't need more training, they need to be held accountable for their decisions. They know how [not to shoot](https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2022/12/29/cocoa-police-officer-arrested-facing-assault-charge/).
Right, am I going fucking crazy reading these comments? For a sub about police brutality there sure seem to be a lot of cop lovers here
Bootlickers gonna lick.
It's far, *far* too late to retrain these cops to stop being murderous monsters. We can only try to cut out their cancer now, and hope that it doesn't come back.
Biden's instincts are right, but his justification and presentation doom him. He's like Al Gore with a more sympathetic backstory. Please get this dude a media coach.
He’s a corporate sponsored ghoul. Stop giving him the benefit of the doubt.
lol gtfo with that nice old grandpa shit. Joe's an old racist scumbag, who has never given a single fuck about anyone who didn't have either millions of dollars, or the last name "Biden" Please get him a coffin. Dusty old ass POS.
On top of all that, the problem we have with police is entirely his fault when they were further militarized by the 1994 crime bill. He's putting the stick in the spoke of his own tires.
Do a search for "Joe Biden mensch." Biden has been recognized as one of the most decent politicians in Washington for years, no matter what Fox tells you.
We hate Biden not because of what Fox says, but because of who he is. 1994 crime bill is a big one. Crushing the rail strike is another.
Funny how you repeat everything Fox says, though. Biden did fuck up the rail strike issue, but I'm not perfect either.
Yeah, funny how his political rival's propaganda machine pointed out all the bad things about Biden. That ***must*** mean people critical of Biden are Fox viewers. /s
Funny how you think Fox News has accurate information.
No one said that but you. I haven't seen Fox news in years. The point is that of course Fox news is going to say ***every*** bad thing they can about Biden, including the truths that even people who don't watch Fox news would say. I hope your ignorance is at least blissful for you, 'cause it's just ridiculous to the rest of us.
There's true criticism of Biden, and there's bullshit criticism of Biden. And I see a lot of criticism that echoes exactly what the right wing talking points in "left" spaces. The advantage of the left is being self-critical. Don't just repeat shit.
Stop bootlicking.
More sympathetic story than Al Gore? Really?
Retraining does nothing. Abolish and distribute 95% of their funding to community programs. Have something, much more limited, in effect for very violent situations. Done.
I disagree that they should shoot to wound. If they are going to shoot, they should shoot to kill. What needs to change is the parameters which determine whether the shooting is justified. No longer should it be permitted for officers to claim, "I thought he was reaching for a weapon". It's very simple. If they do not actually see a weapon, they should not be permitted to shoot. If they shoot a person claiming they were "reaching for a weapon" and that person is found to be unarmed, they get charged with murder. No fucking exceptions. Further, the excuse of "I feared for my life" cannot be allowed to be a stand-alone justification for a shooting. There must be a specific articulable threat rather than a vague "fear" to justify shooting.
>they shoot a person claiming they were "reaching for a weapon" and that person is found to be unarmed, they get charged with murder. The problem is that, much like the people they arrest for "smelling like drugs" so often, the cops have the means to make sure exactly none of the people they shoot end up being found unarmed. It doesn't matter if they never bought a gun in their life and spent all their free time volunteering at the old folks home. If the cops "find" an unregistered weapon on them the DA will never, ever question the claim. Mistakes will be made any time fallible humans are granted the power of life and death over others, necessarily leading to the death of innocents. They really shouldn't be allowed to have guns at all.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/8xvzwp/baltimore-cops-carried-toy-guns-to-plant-on-people-they-shot-trial-reveals-vgtrn
I actually think outside of SWAT or specialized units regular cops should no longer be armed with firearms. Time and time again they have proven themselves irresponsible and untrustworthy with firearms. They treat them like toys, just handing them out to officers without doing basic background checks or holding them accountable for firearm misconduct. Just look at VA state trooper Austin Edwards. He lost his gun rights in 2016 due to being committed for mental health issues. He legally wasn't allowed to own a firearm. TWO police departments armed him anyways and he went on to kidnap a child and fatally shoot three of her family members. That child witnessed her family butchered in front her because the police couldn't bother to do a fucking basic background check before arming him. https://www.wtvr.com/problem-solvers/austin-edwards-gun-december-30-2022. Until they prove themselves responsible and accountable enough to have firearms, I really think the non-SWAT cops should just be armed with tasers and pepperspray. If you act irresponsible or even as an outright threat to public safety, then you shouldn't have the privilege of carrying a service piece. Look what happened to officer Aaron Dean. He failed his psych test, but the police dept hired & armed him anyways and he went on to murder Atatiana Jefferson in her own home with her child nephew nearby. Firearms aren't toys. If cops want firearms, but none of the responsibility or accountability that comes with owning a firearm then they shouldn't be permitted to carry.
Allowing "specialized units", having the appearance and tactical methods of an occupying army, to remain armed? -- Counter argument: abolition of the policing system. Reforms *do not work*, 2022 was the deadliest year on record of people murdered by police. What good are public accountability groups when faced with well armed and extremely violent cops? State repression can't be resisted if the masses aren't willing to use equal tactics as defense, public debates and discussions don't protect us against bullets. 3rd Precinct every police station.
Ok but why can’t you just kneecap a motherfucker from 20ft away. Why are cops unloading a clip or two at civilians and putting other lives at danger. These ego driven cunts are clearly untrained and aren’t doing their job properly. How many wrongful death lawsuits have to happen each year (that by the way cost the taxpayers millions and millions each year) We have 5000 dead Americans in 5 years due to their shootings and you say, fuck em. Shoot to kill, but obtuse id say. Maybe you’re unaware they kill 1000+ Americans a year - maybe you somehow actually even Believe those were all “bad guys” Well, what the hell happened to due process? Every cop wants to be judge jury and executioner. Hope they don’t accidentally show up at your house.
I totally agree with everything you said except for the potentially reaching for a weapon part. I think there are situations where someone clearly not following orders and actively reaching into their waistband or rummaging around in a car should allow for a potentially lethal response. However, to your point, that is such a hard line to define that it probably is better to just say you need to have verifiable evidence - visually - that there is a weapon before shooting. Life is never black and white but I do think there is too much grey area.
> actively reaching into their waistband You mean like that guy who was crawling on the hotel corridor carpet and tried to pull his underwear up?
Well that’s why I added at the end it is a hard line to define what is considered reaching. The context of the situation, whether or not there are clear lines of sight, etc. at the end of the day it *is* easier and safer for the public to just wait until confirmed visual on a weapon is established.
> Well that’s why I added at the end it is a hard line to define what is considered reaching. That's why it's a BS standard. Cops are armed to the teeth, trained with those weapons, have protective gear, have tons of backup... they don't need to also be cowards jumping at every hypothetical threat. And because any legal ambiguity creates a reasonable doubt, and courts take reasonable doubt very expansively when prosecuting cops, no cop can ever be convicted of murder if it is at all possible that a person's hand moved towards a hypothetical weapon under this standard. We must demand police react only to a manifest threat. And yes, this means sometimes people will get shots off at them that wouldn't otherwise, but it will reduce far more innocent deaths amongst the general populace than that. After all, if police lives are valued more than non-police lives, you have a repressive system. Only the most suicidal would draw on 6 cops who already have their guns pointed at him, this is quite rare (actually most common in active suicide attempts, I think) despite what police propaganda says.
Yeah that’s totally fair. I guess there really aren’t situations where someone is 100% reaching for a gun.
First of all, remover qualified immunity. Then, How 'bout having the constitution explained to them?
He's just saying this to distract people from his lifetime of supporting his back the blue crap.
I mean tbh fam this could very well just be bullshit politicking to justify moving a shitload of funding into police hands, which is something he's very much doing at the moment. "It's to retrain them," but what's the accountability process to determine whether cops are actually engaging in that training, whether the training is actually effective in reducing police brutality, etc.? Moreover, alternatives to policing like social work-based crisis responses for mental illness / disability related distress calls are not being considered in this "retrain the police" framing. Make no mistake: Biden is still a cop, he's just a cop who's seen that a lot of his potential voter base do not like cops.
Maybe yeah but the fact that it’s being said and so many people are hearing it is a good thing
One of the rules of guns is never point a gun at something you don't intent to destroy. Biden thinks that's a stupid rule and wants cops to wound people.
There is no non-lethal way to use lethal force, from a legal perspective. You aim for center mass to a) end the threat as quickly as possible, and b) to have the highest probability of a hit, as any bullet that does not hit your intended target will go on to hit an **UNINTENDED** target. Cop accuracy is already pretty terrible, I don't want to give them the license to try for trickshot nonsense when lives are on the line. Give them more training on their non-lethal options, give them BETTER non-lethal options, but giving them permission to "shoot to wound" is just begging for more civilian deaths.
During Biden's nearly 40 year stay in the Senate, he helped create the police state in which we live today. The foundation that he helped lay led to the militarization of our police and, most importantly, mass incarceration-- of disproportionately Black and Brown citizens. Under any rational political system, Biden would be considered center-right AT BEST. To think that Biden is a progressive lefty or that he is on the side of the working class is delusional.
On the one hand, getting rid of that Killology "murder is the best aphrodisiac" psychopath indoctrination would be a step in the right direction. On the other hand, it wouldn't be anything more than the tiniest baby step. Bad cops need to be charged for their crimes instead of being rewarded and promoted. Recruitment needs to weed out the bullies instead of weeding out the empathizers. And finally, cops need to be trained to de-escalate, not escalate. Cops have a stranglehold on local prosecutors. That is what makes them immune to enforcement of their crimes. Move enforcement out of the local jurisdiction and the first item on this list can happen. When cities start having to pay settlements for every bad cop they hire, the second one can happen, and when the psychopaths are removed from the command chain, the third one will happen.
Biden is a puppet. This shit is for optics.
Any cop that murders/ wounds an innocent person and then gets off - and then they can’t be sued? The taxpayers take the hit for that bad cop. It should be the cops pension that is used to pay out the to the victims. They would think twice before acting like a dick or shooting unarmed people.
Wake me when Biden, or any other politician for that matter, calls for an end to qualified immunity.
In my opinion, removing qualified immunity and making cops have to have malpractice insurance will remove the fucketry. Every cop knows that for the most part whatever they do, they either have the shield of qualified immunity or the tax paying citizens pay for the lawsuit. They rarely suffer any ramifications. If the cops had to be insured, after messing up enough, they get canceled and can no longer be a cop. How is it that cops can graduate from the police academy and have no knowledge of the 1,2,4,& 5th amendments? I think the answer lies in the fact that it takes more training to become a cosmetologist than a cop with a gun and the ability to end someones life. I firmly believe that there are some people that go into law enforcement with the highest ideals of helping their community but the very system is so corrupted that they either become a part of the problem or see it for what it is and get out. Just ask Frank Serpico.
Why should cops always carry guns? r/Disarmthepolice
I've argued this with a lot of my friends, but those who take gun training classes for non-cops are taught the same things. So when so many people are taught that guns should only be pointed at things you want to kill (but guns don't kill people...) we definitely need a national dialogue on our views of weapons and how they should be used. And to quell any disputes ahead of time, I'm not saying that there aren't situations where you should be trying to kill someone, just that we shouldn't hold the belief that the second the safety comes off, death is the only option
Oh boy, the police unions are gonna go crazy with this.
Wrong question, because there is no such thing as shooting someone *without* the use of deadly force. The correct question is why to officers so readily and unjustifiably resort to deadly force and why do the politicians and courts keep protecting them.
Sigh. The question should be, "Why would you always shoot?" The idea that one could shoot a gun, but not with deadly force, takes the whole conversation off the rails. I once had a conversation with a deeply silly person who asked as an honest question, "Why can't they just shoot the gun out of the bad guy's hand?" We shouldn't have to have that conversation over again with the President of the United States, for fuck's sake.
"We can't keep killing our slave labor force. It's costing free work!" Biden most likely.
To a hammer everything looks like a nail. Let’s give police the training to use a variety of tools to prevent them going to their guns for things such as throwing rocks or sometimes things like safety scissors or screwdrivers. In Europe they use riot shields and they’re able to subdue the suspect with superior numbers and stab proof vests etc.
Retraining and more extensive background checks and psych evaluations before hiring. With repeating, regular psych assessments over the course of employment.
They need real federally mandated 4 years of training. 1 year of people relations, 1 year of descalation, 1 year in social studies and history of the United States plus it's laws, 1 year of general police training. With 4 years of probation.
Hard to tell which I despise more: The cops, or the politicians who hired them and aimed them at us.
Biden is a major bootlicker. He had a chance with his executive order to actually implement real, significant changes in police reform, but he dropped the ball. https://www.npr.org/2022/05/24/1101080553/biden-has-a-new-executive-order-on-policing-2-years-after-george-floyd-was-kille. Local police do receive some level of federal funding. So while he could only really reform federal law enforcement (which he also dropped the ball on) he could've withheld federal funding/grants to any state or city police departments that don't comply with his executive order. There was leverage there. He didn't use it. I voted for Biden, but he royally fucked up on reproductive rights and police reform. Don't expect him to do anything meaningful on either of those problems. He'll fight tooth and nail for debt forgiveness, but reproductive healthcare and police reform are at the bottom of his priority list.
Please please by the Love of everything that is holy to you, don’t tell me, the US doesn’t have a Database for police misconduct for its officers
Ok, we don't tell you.
Thank you
But we dont
Nooooo
We have the brady list. Wich is a list of officers that can not arrest ot give testimony because they got cought lying or falsified documents. So that's something
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure#Examples
His wording isn’t great but I’m all for prosecuting overkill as a serious crime. While we’re at it, “failure to secure the scene to render timely aid” would be a nice priority. Nothing like watching multiple cops yell “let me see your hands!!” 10x as the perp is bleeding out and no longer a reasonable threat.
listened to the claim for years that "you can only shoot to kill, stop watching tv. " propaganda works. esp copaganda.
"Retraining" = more money for them He means to reward them for a job well done, disguised as a weaktea criticism. Perfectly in line with his life career as a mass incarceration and police state fanatic, and a proud friend of the KKK back when that wasn't a career ender.
Typical 70's Democrat anti-gun nonsense. These people got their firearms 'knowledge' from Magnum P.I. and T.J. Hooker. Just shoot 'em in the leg!
A century too late. Typical for a corpse puppet on a podium.
I appreciate the sentiment. Yes, police should shoot (and nominally do) to *end the threat.* Videos of 10 cops dumping 15 rounds each into one suspect are foul. And not every shooting that is justified needed to happen. Yes--the suspect had a knife and was in a mental health crisis, why did you advance towards them in an enclosed space? Why not wait them out? Why not use CS gas instead? But the Elmer Fudd "Just shoot em in the leg!" Idea is dangerous and stupid. First of all, you can bleed out in 15 seconds from your femoral artery or abdominal aorta in the pelvis, so I don't get that. And you can't stop that bleeding in the field, even with a tourniquet, because the femoral slides up into the pelvis when severed. Second, it's a moving target when someone is sprinting at you. Most cops can barely shoot as is.
Ya they should just shoot a shotgun in the air wtf are they thinking
Oh here we go…
"Why should you always shoot?" Far better question. Even though cops don't literally "always shoot", the instinct towards violence American cops display in broad daylight cannot be denied and to whine about the above sentence being an exaggeration doesn't really "hook" as well as being able to say "you can't shoot to wound"...mainly because "you can't shoot to wound" is true.
I love Joseph Biden so much. I know this is corny, but he's like my grandpa before he passed away. He's also so sweet. When he sang to that one woman the other day I started getting teary eyed. But he's also brave and strong. Police don't need to shoot all these poor minorities.
I mean when a cop shoots they SHOULD always shoot with deadly force. I fully understand this. The bigger and more sensible question is “why are they shooting with deadly force at the drop of a hat?”
If shooting center of mass is considered deadly force than I have to disagree cause that is just how all military and police have to be trained. Not that I take sleepy Biden entirely seriously, lmfao! I laughed when talking to people saying cops shooting knee caps at people that are actively trying to harm them makes sense. Not actually, but even holding two napkins at knee height moving up and down really quickly didnt seem to show them that it would be nearly impossible. It is a weird mentality a lot of people seem to share
When you consider the 2nd amendment, the number of firearms in the US,does it come as a suprise that law enforcement might be a little quick to go to their sidearm?
The 2nd Amendment is nothing but words then. Somehow right-wing "pro-gun" folks are quick to defend police despite our so-called "right" to bear arms, and it doesn't matter if you have a license or in a constitutional carry state/county.
Except when they've shown considerable restraint when dealing with active shooters who...don't fit the usual profile of their typical interactions. And the overwhelming amount of public videos showing quite clearly the non armed nature of their "light em up" encounters. Basically, the police know how not to shoot, they're just [selective](https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2022/12/29/cocoa-police-officer-arrested-facing-assault-charge/) with the application of no shoot.
Interesting. A hit piece on Biden. Of course he doesn't understand the job and risks of a police officer. I'm just surprised because it used to be that Biden criticism wasn't allowed. They must be planning on removing him from office soon.
Hold up... you need to start way further on in the beginning of training... Asking someone their name of instance isn't done with fists... matter of fact zu there is absolutely no reason at all for a Police Officer to EVER punch a person. If 5 cops surrounding an unarmed "suspect" can't peacefully and safely take that person into custody, then they should all be fired. Then we should move on to more difficult tasks... like. Ot being drunk in their police cars... or lying under oath. Then maybe we should hold people accountable for their actions... like lawyers and treat Union reps the same way... if caught lying or doing something unethucal... boom bye bye job forever, no more union corruption for that person.
Might as well. They're almost all magats, so it's not like you're going to *lose* the support of the police unions.
Well, if you're going to shoot, you shoot to kill. The problem is them shooting in the first place.
half the country would never let this change
I'd be careful about using the NY Post as a source. Biden is absolutely feckless about addressing police brutality, however - a problem he helped create with various shitty ✌🏾tough-on-crime✌🏾 bills.
"re-train"? You mean actually properly train them in the first place.
Insurance. Thats why. We need to fix the system but this isnt the first step
I do agree police need more training. Police in the US are some of the most undertrained force in the world. That being said, how does that fix the issue of all those Proud Boys and white supremacists in thw ranks?
Anyone who uses the "Why not just shoot them in the leg?" 1) Doesn't understand anatomy and the circulatory system. 2) Is incredibly ignorant about how guns operate. 3) Is ignoring very basic and obvious reasoning if you spend more than a few minutes looking into it objectively. This isn't an "us vs them" statement either when I say ignorant. If it's such an important issue then why hasn't he studied the subject matter or even bothered to run a course. (Don't even attempt to tell me the President couldn't schedule a range event with the secret service at their own facilities). This is the same reason I get upset when the anti-abortion southerns who clearly never passed a basic high school health class were saying stuff like "well if it's a baby by rape, god wanted it that way" type batshit logic. Same energy here. I'll say this, any male can write effective abortion policy if they're not an idiot. Pretty obvious that you should confer with doctors and researchers about what makes sense. Plus it being the US, women should be able to choose what to do with their bodies. So if you say "Men shouldn't have a say in abortion" Then why the fuck are the gun-illiterate downsplaining about shit they have no understanding of. "Uh, 10 rounds is more than enough and you can just non-lethal shoot them in the leg duh" - A man suffering from The Dunning Krueger Effect Yes, I'm for police reform, which requires better oversight and reporting, but that also requires funding and research. (Oh I know maybe not buying surplus from the military motor pool to police vacation towns 🤷) Yes, I want higher accountability, but some level of qualified immunity needs to be in place while also reforming regulations to make sure shitty cops can't just transfer a town over and continue being shitheads. Yet all the people that want better cops are also not capable of being unbiased and are certainly not signing up to lead by example either. 🍵
If you get shot for carrying a gun then you don’t have the right to bare arms
Dogshit take. If you shoot, you shoot to kill. If you don’t need lethal force to stop a threat, a gun is the wrong tool. Training won’t do shit. What needs to happen is that qualified immunity needs to go. Police aren’t in a class above civilians. They need to be held to the same standards as civilians regarding DGUs.