21–30 of 107 posts
Brit here. Is the 'stop or I'll shoot' thing a myth or does it actually happen in the US? i.e. do police in the US shoot suspects when there is no threat other than the risk they will get away?
Brit here. Is the 'stop or I'll shoot' thing a myth or does it actually happen in the US? i.e. do police in the US shoot suspects when there is no threat other than the risk they will get away?
Brit here. Is the 'stop or I'll shoot' thing a myth or does it actually happen in the US? i.e. do police in the US shoot suspects when there is no threat other than the risk they will get away?
From Wikipedia: Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or…
> he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
> Which to say, yes. Although I don't think there's actually a requirement to verbally warn them.
Which is to say: not legally.
I wonder how the London police manage to keep order without carrying guns ?
Because western European cities are vastly less violent: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/lets-hold-off-cel... . Baltimore, where I live, has 25x the per-capita murder rate of London. Chicago has 13x the murder rate. New York, the safest large city in the country, has 3x the murder rate.
Maybe what's needed are better non-lethal weapons for police.
Brit here. Is the 'stop or I'll shoot' thing a myth or does it actually happen in the US? i.e. do police in the US shoot suspects when there is no threat other than the risk they will get away?
At distances of ~5 meters the officer could be overpowered, wrestled to the ground, and have their own gun used to shoot them. So "unarmed" is a pathetic joke when people (and the media) use it as a synonym for "not dangerous".
This all makes a very compelling case for "using firearms in an optimal way is outside the limits of human ability, so police should not use firearms." That's assuming your terminal value is not "police life matters more than any other consideration."
This article also makes a compelling case that when the necromorphs come, cops will be useless to protect humanity.
Brit here. Is the 'stop or I'll shoot' thing a myth or does it actually happen in the US? i.e. do police in the US shoot suspects when there is no threat other than the risk they will get away?
April 4, 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Walter_Scott
July 19, 2015: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Samuel_DuBose
Shooting to wound is absurd. However, keep in mind that Bill Lewinski is a pseudoscientist who makes his living justifying killings by police. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/training-officers-to...