Daniel Shaver shooting

[heydaralon]

This cop was like a more ominous version of Rod Farva from super troopers...

[clubgop]

I’m sure that will give his kids some comfort. “Cultural issues”

More truthful than the "catch rule" excuse. Fuck Kate Steinle right?

[C-Mag]

Scared Cops Are Scary

The acquittal of the officer who killed Daniel Shaver illustrates a double standard in judging self-defense claims

http://reason.com/archives/2017/12/13/s ... -are-scary



3 Officers in tactical kit with AR's and a man an a woman on their knees are a threat

[Smitty-48]

Scared Cops Are Scary

The acquittal of the officer who killed Daniel Shaver illustrates a double standard in judging self-defense claims

http://reason.com/archives/2017/12/13/s ... -are-scary



3 Officers in tactical kit with AR's and a man an a woman on their knees are a threat

Doesn't really matter, unless you say that the police are required to give the suspect a chance to open fire before they can return fire, you can have somebody surrounded and outgunned, but it could be a suicide by cop scenario for all you know. Could be a domestic meltdown, maybe the woman is his wife and he's trying to kill her, murder suicide, maybe they're terrorists and they're not going to be taken alive, you really don't know what you're dealing with, just by looking at it at first glance.

And the judge is right, there is two standards, this ain't somebody defending their home from a burglar, it's not somebody being accosted on the street, the police were summoned to what was plausibly a de facto terrorist attack, and they have to go in, and it's a time critical mission to sweep and clear.

[Viktorthepirate]

Scared Cops Are Scary

The acquittal of the officer who killed Daniel Shaver illustrates a double standard in judging self-defense claims

http://reason.com/archives/2017/12/13/s ... -are-scary



3 Officers in tactical kit with AR's and a man an a woman on their knees are a threat

Doesn't really matter, unless you say that the police are required to give the suspect a chance to open fire on them before they can return fire, you can have somebody surrounded and outgunned, but it could be a suicide by cop scenario for all you know.

It really boils down to how much danger we are willing to put police in. And how much we believe in our gun laws.

You tell cops they need to pay attention to context and pretty soon we will see a video of officer friendly getting gunned down for being too trusting.

the video of that deputy who got gunned down by a lunatic with a garand in his truck is a great example.

We do need to dial back the tactical mindset though. Smitty's assertion that crawling was necessary to cover the door and suspect correctly is absolutely correct, but how often are there ambushes of cops compared to how often are we shooting innocent people (I really don't know the answer)

Who is training these swat teams? I can't speak for all of them but the couple I knew in Austin had a braggadocio and attitude about their work I found disturbing, and I had done more shit than either of them probably ever will. It could have just been those two individuals but are we teaching our Swat teams the wrong kind of attitudes?

[Smitty-48]

You can certainly increase the risk, even in the military not all missions are the same, for example, on peace support operations, chapter 6, you have to let the belligerent open fire before you can return fire, but that is risky, my buddy got hit seven times in a rain of AK-47 fire, while "peacekeeping".

But bear in mind, if they open fire on you, they can hit bystanders, and then you're gonna be blamed for that too. There are all sorts of ways that innocent people will be killed, once you let the two way range kick off.

[Viktorthepirate]

You can certainly increase the risk, even in the military not all missions are the same, for example, on peace support operations, chapter 6, you have to let the belligerent open fire before you can return fire, but that is risky, my buddy got hit seven times in a rain of AK-47 fire, while "peacekeeping".

But bear in mind, if they open fire on you, they can hit bystanders, and then you're gonna be blamed for that.

Yea... and a policy like that will lead to more dead cops, no way around it.

It's a hard problem to solve, tragedy is inevitable with either decision.

[Smitty-48]

See the reality here is that the cop did not actually plead self defense per se, he pleaded public safety, said he thought the woman was in peril too, if he allowed the suspect to draw.

And that's what the judge is saying, he's not just responsible for defending himself, he's got everybody in the hotel on his watch there.

If it does turn out to be a mad shooter interrupted in the process of going on a rampage, they can't let that by, they can't let themselves get taken down.

[C-Mag]

The Primary change over 25 years ago is that today, Public Safety is not the primary things taught these guys, its a nice mantra and legally it works in court. But the real thing is LEOs are now taught that Blue Lives are more important than all other lives. It's an awful engagement, the fact that he was let off shows that the system needs to be reformed.

[Viktorthepirate]

See the reality here is that the cop did not actually plead self defense per se, he pleaded public safety, said he thought the woman was in peril too, if he allowed the suspect to draw.

And that's what the judge is saying, he's not just responsible for defending himself, he's got everybody in the hotel on his watch there.

If it does turn out to be a mad shooter interrupted in the process of going on a rampage, they can't let that by, they can't let themselves get taken down.

And do we ask the police to take those risks?

Mad shooter scenario:
Call received, no reports of gun fire. Witnesses are credible however and perhaps the shooter is just preparing to begin.

Do we tell them the police they need to be prepared to take a bullet in that situation by assuming a different ROE based on threat assessment?