Police and Lethal Weaponry

Written by: Lurch

---

An armed society is a polite society.

---

Written by:

---

Nothing defines the central role of police in society better than its monopoly over the unquestionable use of force. Aggressiveness, toughness, relentlessness, and (one might say) a cult of violence all tend to permeate the adrenaline-soaked nature of police work. A couple of horrific examples where the monopoly on force was abused would include the Abner Louima case in 1997, where the aggressive tactics of New York City's Street Crimes Unit (SCU) involved rectal damage on a suspect with a toilet plunger. Over a two year period, the SCU unit processed 45,000 people with their get-tough methods. Another example would be the Amadou Diallo case in 1999, where an immigrant who fit the profile of a serial rapist was shot 41 times after reaching for his wallet. Extreme examples such as this are called illegal use of force, where criminal and civil liability issues arise.

About two million people a year are subjected to police force if we include handcuffing along with physical touching and verbal threats. Weaponless tactics are the most common use of force, and it occurs most frequently when alcohol, drugs, or mental illness is involved on behalf of the suspect. A small percentage of officers appear to be over-represented among the more extreme incidents of force. It makes sense to refer to excessive force as what some individual officers do and excessive use of force as what is practiced on a department-wide basis.

In an average year, 600 suspects are shot and killed by police, while another 1,200 are shot and wounded, and 1,800 are shot at and missed. Black property offenders are twice as likely as any other group to be shot at by police, and another interesting statistic is the growing percentage of cases (over 10%) that involve suicide by cop, where a note is usually found saying "Sorry to get you involved. I just needed to die."

---

To repeat it: Another example would be the Amadou Diallo case in 1999, where an immigrant who fit the profile of a serial rapist was shot 41 times after reaching for his wallet.

41 times!!!!! To spell it out for you: fourty-one bullets from 4 officers! We're talking about guns, not MP's or assault rifles! You have to pull the trigger each and every time you shoot! This is 4 officers emptying their magazines into the body of a SINGLE man... at a time where he was already on the ground...



breathe, Tom, breathe

Please don't get me wrong: I regard cops as humans! Not as devils.... but they do carry a certain power that certainly holds a responsibility and they have to live up to it! It's not about fault and guilt - it's about proper subpervision!

Written by: Sethis

---

I know I feel very intimidated by police carrying either pistols or automatic rifles...

As soon as they pick up asault rifles though, then they become these impassive killing machines that you're afraid to go near or look at.

---

Written by: Lurch

---

There is absoluetly nothing wrong with firearms in modern society. In fact I'm willing to guess if you're in the states there are a whole lot more armed people than you would imagine walking around. *legally* armed is the key. An armed society is a polite society.

---

Written by: FireTom

---

To repeat it: Another example would be the Amadou Diallo case in 1999, where an immigrant who fit the profile of a serial rapist was shot 41 times after reaching for his wallet.

41 times!!!!! To spell it out for you: fourty-one bullets from 4 officers! We're talking about guns, not MP's or assault rifles!

---

Written by:

---

The song has quickly won the ire of New York's police chief, its mayor and the head of the state chapter of the Fraternal Order of Police, who publicly labeled Springsteen a "[censored] dirtbag." The Patrolmen's Benevolent Association has called for a boycott of Springsteen albums and concerts.

---

Written by:

---

Lena gets her son ready for school
She says "on these streets, Charles
You've got to understand the rules
If an officer stops you
Promise you'll always be polite,
that you'll never ever run away
Promise Mama you'll keep your hands in sight"

---

The violence and strength which he was met with for exercising his "God-given" and constitutional right to free speech is shocking, when he's only singing about something which appeared in all the papers and on every TV news, but that's a bit OT.

All I'm saying is that American culture glosses over, and is in fact pathologically opposed to acknowledging, the fact that it has the highest rate of gun crime in the world, as well as some of the most readily available guns (through its combination of a huge consumer culture, paranoia and glamourising violence in its entertainment industries). It's not hard to see that less guns would mean less gun crime, and perhaps tougher controls on gun ownership would be a step towards this.

Y'know, that, and taking guns out of supermarkets

Anyway, armed police... necessary in cultures where guns are readily available. Like I said, it's escalation. You need to be able to combat those who turn certain weapons against you, and the only effective way to combat someone with a gun is to point one back at them. But that's for the POLICE, who are highly trained and practised, as well as belonging to a community which (by and large) is responsible in its use of firepower, and (supposedly) psychologically monitored for their suitablility to bear arms. Regardless of this, you're always going to get some psycho pulling the trigger in a uniform, that's unfortunately just an unavoidable aspect of human nature which no amount of psychological evaluation can stop.

What I am opposed to, however, is things like the Bruce Sprinsteen example where the police feel they have a right not to acknowledge (and learn from) the mistakes which every group of people makes. The fact is, if you have to give a group of people the amount of power they need to effectively combat the power criminals have access to, they will eventually make mistakes. The best answer is to make it more difficult for the criminals to access that sort of power, so the police can downgrade their response to it as well.

Easier said than done, but like I said, if you're talking about the US there are a few steps I can think of that would help!

Written by: Dom

---

I notice that these are rather paranoid perceptions that are influencing your opinions.

---

I'm afraid you might have mis-interpreted what I was trying to say. I wasn't saying that they become killing machines as soon as they pick up a gun, but rather that I become a lot more alienated from them. When I see an officer on patrol with a baton, then I feel alright walking up to them to ask about parking restrictions. I don't feel alright walking up to the same officer when they are carrying an assault rifle.

Lurch: You seem to be mostly of the opinion that: "If you with the police, then don't be suprised to get your ass capped." My issue with this is that 1. Police make mistakes just like everyone else. When they have batons, this is police brutality. When they have guns, this is murder. 2. What is the ethical justification for shooting someone? I'll show you:

Possession of a knife, and assault: Max 6 years.
Threatening a police officer with a weapon: Maybe 8 years.
Theft: Depends on the type, but not normally exceeding 5 years.
Drug dealing: Depends on the drugs, and America is much harsher on this than the UK. In the UK then maybe 12 years for Grade A (and lots of it).
Murder: 25 years in jail. ("Life" does not mean life any more)

None of the above crimes are punishable by execution in the UK. Why then is it alright to shoot someone who is commiting said crimes? How can you say it's alright to kill someone who is comitting a crime that would normally get them 6 years in prison? Is that justice?

With all respect Lurch, I do know a little about fire arms. I know that the vast majority of armed american civilians have little training in their use, and commonly keep them in their bedside drawer. I think the last statistics I saw was that you were 18 times more likely to cause the death of a member of your family than you were to shoot an intruder.

Another issue (don't know what it's like in the US) is the attitude of officers armed with "above average" weaponry. The Independent did a bit of interviewing and found out that police officers trained to use assault rifles were more prone to posing and bragging than they were to treat their weapons seriously. An ex-SAS officer had a look round the place (at the newspapers request), and the most common question was "Hey, what's it like to shoot someone?" accompanied with comments along the lines of "Wow, that must have been cool".

ALSO I don't know how much you know about the incident I referred to in my first post.

Jean Charles Menezes lived in a flat that was under surveillance. He was followed by officers that had been watching the flat.

Original Police Version: He was wearing a bulky jacket and carrying a backpack. He jumped the barriers to the tube and ran towards a train. Police officers ordered him to halt, but he did not comply. He reached the train, where he was shot dead.

Leaked documents (confirmed by CCTV and eyewitness accounts) Version: He was wearing a light denim jacket. He did not jump the turnstile, he used a travel pass to go through normally. He picked up a free copy of a newspaper. He only started running when his train pulled up to the platform. He sat down on the train. He was shot 8 times. 7 times in the head, once in the shoulder, and the other three bullets missed. A plain clothes police officer had just emptied the clip of his handgun into Menezes' head. The officers did not shout a warning, or tell him to stop.

The public enquiry continues.

This man could NOT have been carrying a bomb. He did NOT commit any criminal acts. He did NOT refuse an order from the police. He WAS shot 7 times in the head.

Written by: Lurch

---

An armed society is a polite society.

---

Written by: Lurch

---

A simple windshield of a car just defeated your tazer and your rubber bullets.

---

Written by: FireTom

---

This is 4 officers emptying their magazines into the body of a SINGLE man

---

Not quite, if we assume that they were carrying standard issue 9mm pistols with 11 shot magazines, then 3 of the officers had one bullet left in their pistols. Or maybe it was one officer with 3 bullets left. Whatever.

And I agree with kevlarsoul about the escalation issue.

Surely people could design a better system of alternate weaponry...?

Written by: ducky2108

---

As for reaching for something, what would have been the effect of shooting someone in the shoulder with one bullet on their capability to hold a firearm. I think it'd probably slow them down somewhat. This could be seen as the minimum force needed to incapaitate someone. It's like if they're running away. Do you a) shoot them in the leg, b) shot them in the leg and shoulder, c)shoot them in the torso (bigger area) to hit, so easier.

---

Written by:

---

However, some may still question why it is necesarry to put 41 bullets in someone to incapacitate someone. That is technically known as killing someone.

---

Written by: Sethis

---

Jean Charles Menezes lived in a flat that was under surveillance. He was followed by officers that had been watching the flat.

Original Police Version: He was wearing a bulky jacket and carrying a backpack. He jumped the barriers to the tube and ran towards a train. Police officers ordered him to halt, but he did not comply. He reached the train, where he was shot dead.

Leaked documents (confirmed by CCTV and eyewitness accounts) Version: He was wearing a light denim jacket. He did not jump the turnstile, he used a travel pass to go through normally. He picked up a free copy of a newspaper. He only started running when his train pulled up to the platform. He sat down on the train. He was shot 8 times. 7 times in the head, once in the shoulder, and the other three bullets missed. A plain clothes police officer had just emptied the clip of his handgun into Menezes' head. The officers did not shout a warning, or tell him to stop.

The public enquiry continues.

This man could NOT have been carrying a bomb. He did NOT commit any criminal acts. He did NOT refuse an order from the police. He WAS shot 7 times in the head.

---

Written by: TheBovrilMonkey

---

If the police are pointing their guns at someone, then they think he's armed. If he then suddenly goes to pull something from a pocket, how do they know if it's going to be his wallet or a pistol? Waiting until it's pulled out and being waved at them's too late to make the call - they could be dead before have a chance to stop him firing.

---

Written by: TheBovrilMonkey

---

I think that it's a little misleading to ask why 41 bullets was needed - each policeman had to choose to fire by himself, without looking to see what the others were doing. A hesitation could have meant being shot, so they make up their own mind.
As an answer to why they each shot 10 times, it's not unheard of for people to be shot 5 or 6 times and still be able to shoot back.

If the police are pointing their guns at someone, then they think he's armed. If he then suddenly goes to pull something from a pocket, how do they know if it's going to be his wallet or a pistol? Waiting until it's pulled out and being waved at them's too late to make the call - they could be dead before have a chance to stop him firing.

---

Written by: Lurch

---

An armed society is a polite society.

---

Written by: Gnarly Cranium

---

I guess our mentality is some kind of holdover from the Wild West? Hell if I know. It's always been like this, we're used to it. And I guess if pretty much the entire populace is armed, people figure the police should be even with them? It's not a logic that makes a ton of sense to me. I mean what is this, some kind of police vs civilians Cold War mentality?

I personally find it deeply disturbing. Say I have a taillight on my car out, like a couple weeks ago. I get pulled over. The cop comes up to me to ask for my license and registration. Sure, I might be a dangerous nutcase or something-- but how the hell does that justify the fact that this guy next to my car is carrying a -lethal- weapon ready for use? The sole function of that gun is to kill people-- that's specifically what they're designed for. Since when does 'serve and protect' also mean 'and maybe KILL YOU' ? There's no justification for police to carry lethal weapons. They are civilians, and they're here to help, not to hurt anybody. It's not like they even -want- to use them. It makes absolutely no sense. I -like- the police, being able to dial 911 when you catch someone breaking into your house is a beautiful thing-- but the guns still make me cringe.

I think it was last year at New Years, I remember seeing the footage of the different celebrations going on in different cities... in Vegas they had put up 20 foot chain link fence barricades across many streets, erected a 30 foot guard tower in the middle of a main square, and there were military helicopters circling overhead. In my own state, the biggest city has a population of about 1 million-- even there, they had teams of police in riot gear, with armored trucks, fully outfitted with things like AK-47s. They also bring that stuff out whenever there is a protest, or on various other days of the year. And then they make sure to send out reporters to get as many clips as possible of passersby on the street saying things like "Oh it all makes me feel so much safer!" ....Which would be worse, I wonder-- if they were -paying- them to say it, or if the American populace is really so gullible and paranoid that so many of them actually would -mean- it?

Okay, ostensibly the purpose of all these guns is mainly psychological-- but even so, what the hell possible psychological good does it do anybody to create a situation where you have large crowds of unruly people mixing with groups of men outfitted for mass slaughter? ...How does it -help-, to make the general populace -afraid- of the very force that's supposed to be their protection? Are they less 'approachable' you ask-- how the everloving crap could they NOT be? It exacerbates the criminal element's vile hatred and anger at the mere -idea- of police... just the -sight- of them, knowing they're carrying guns, is enough to incite a twinge of some kind in just about anyone. It's a deeply rooted social stigma now, one we've grown up with for hundreds of years, it's even -intended- to have that effect, and even the peaceniks have to agree that even if we -did- take the guns away from the police, just about every criminal in the country would promptly go nuts in delight.

If you guys in the UK -do- successfully arm your police with guns... you probably -won't- be able to go back. If one of these days here in the US, the mix does go bad, and the police end up shooting a bunch of harmless students or something like they did back in the 60s, there will be an uproar-- which could easily result in -more- riots, and who knows where it might escalate from there. That 'special relationship' is important, else things degenerate into all-out war someday.

The more I hear about how things are going across the pond, the more it worries me. Please, please, -please- you guys, don't let the paranoia and the propaganda get to you, don't end up any more like the US than you already have! Europe is supposed to be smarter than all this!

---

Written by: TheBovrilMonkey

---

I've just read the linked article on Amadou Diallo.

He fit the description of a serial rapist.
He ran away when the police shouted at him to stop and show his hands.
He reached for something in his pocket while knowing full well that the police were there.

I'm not saying that those details make everything ok, but they go a long way to explaining why the police opened fire.

Also, he was only hit by 19 bullets. As I mentioned before, the police are trained to keep firing until the threat is removed. As far as we know, he could have still been standing after being hit 18 times. Unlikely perhaps, but not impossible.

I'm fairly worried about the officers' accuracy though - 41 shots fired and 19 hits doesn't bode well for anyone standing nearby.

---