What's the point of American police saying "Show your hands" after they shot a man?
This looks toxic, by the way.
This looks toxic, by the way.
Because it's harder to pick and choose trial evidence that exonerates the cops of their malfeasance unless you have something evidencing that they told them to stop before they fired their gun, regardless of whether they actually said it before firing their gun.
A(A)CAB crew checking in, I guess, without a solution in hand. Show me a solution without cops and I'll show you a warzone.
show me a solution without cops
when my car got stolen and the cops just gave me a report number and then me and my insurance did literally everything else
When I was assaulted by a drunken idiot in broad daylight in full view of the cops, and they did nothing to stop him assaulting me or running off
When I was randomly pulled over and my car meticulously inspected for defects/illegal modifications and when they couldn't find anything they gave me a fine for the car being 'too low'. And when I take it up with the magistrate it magically gets tossed out due to lack of evidence
Fuck cops.
I was once handed five tickets for driving without insurance, while the cops held my valid insurance in their hands. I had to take time off of work to go to traffic court and get them thrown out. They almost didn't because of systematic bureaucratic hell but that's a different story.
I don't think in general the ACAB crowd means "no police". It means better training, independent oversight, and a division of roles (e.g. social work, welfare check).
Basically actually having accountability would go a long way towards weeding out the root problem
That’s because there is no such thing as a unified “ACAB crowd.” It’s turned into a catch-all used by people from full on abolitionists to liberals upset over specific events. In reality, ACAB is an abolitionist phrase. If all cops are bastards, the entire concept of policing as we know it is flawed and needs to be done away with.
That’s the problem with catchy phrases spreading over the internet: they lose all meaning.
My apartment was broken into and stuff stolen. The cops came, took notes, took one of my vases for evidence (which they lost), then left.
So besides stealing even more of my shit, and providing paperwork for my insurance company, what exactly did they do?
Well if they didn’t shoot your dog, it doesn’t even sound like these were cops at all. Are you sure it wasn’t the burglars who came back for the vase they couldn’t take the first time around?
Wounded people can still shoot you back/stab you. They may even be more likely to do so due to the shock and adrenaline rush. Also the fact that one has been shot indicates that they probably had something in their hands in the first place or were unwilling to show that they didn't.
After they've been shot, lethal force has already been determined to be necessary. Cops don't stop until they stop moving or they're making it very, very obvious they surrender. (side note. Having something in your hand is not justification for lethal force. 'I thought it was a weapon' as an excuse has worn too thin. but they'll say other bullshit too like, 'they had an aggressive posture' and 'were verbally combative'. )
Also, people typically fall back on their training in stressful situations, and they're taught to shout things. like "show me your hands" ... a lot. they may not even be entirely aware of why they're shouting it. or even what they're shouting. (Cops have been known to yell some freaking dumb shit after shooting people. You see the videos of them yelling "Get on the ground" when the dude is already... on the ground? just saying)
If the person is able and willing to surrender after being shot, showing their hands (empty of anything they may have been holding before) and following instructions means the police can start first aid and bring in EMS sooner. The ambulance doesn't come in until it is safe to do so which won't be until after a search is done and handcuffs are applied. Specific details beyond that and exceptions to the norm would depend on local policies.
Assuming there was ever anything in the victim's hands to begin with. Plenty of cops will go on to deny the person emergency treatment under the guise of the individual being "too dangerous"
Edit: To anyone daring to question the veracity of this statement, just go ahead and watch the last moments of this man's life then take a good long look at yourselves and think about just what you're trying to defend here. This is nothing but murder. Decided on by an overly-sensitive EMT and endorsed by six different cops. Be ashamed of yourselves.
...So if you use your hands to put pressure on the wound to stop the bleeding, you won't get an ambulance?
No, but it's going to take longer for them to confirm the scene is safe for first aid and paramedics.
In normal countries, normal people don't pay for use of emergency services.
What kind of hell do you live in where an ambulance is a cost/benefits equation?
Just a guess, but I'd think it'd be based on fault. If it's a justified shooting, they'll probably tack it into the suspect's fines. Ideally, if the shooting isn't justified, the govt would pay, but I wouldn't count on it.
I'm afraid your guess is wrong, at least in the US.
The patient is on the hook for any services rendered. If the patient has insurance, that will pay according to the patient's policy. The insurance company may then sue the city (subrogation) for causing the injuries, but that will go through lawyers and the courts.
To have a court excuse in case they shoot again. "Didn't comply. Hid hands. I felt threatened."
It helps the murdering cop if it is one of the extremely few shootings that makes it to a jury.
Ever hear about medal of honour winners killing 12 people with 5 bullets in them? Bullets aren't always show stoppers
Add some meth or fentanyl to the mix and it's sadly pretty much zombie rules to put them down.
this is why cops dump entire mags without thinking.
that and most of them can't actually shoot for shit.
Yep:
Nine bystanders were wounded by stray bullets fired by the officers and ricocheting debris, but none suffered life-threatening injuries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Empire_State_Building_shooting
You say that but most cops still will go their whole career without firing their gun statistically.
Plus hand guns are crazy hard to aim over any distance
You say that but most cops still will go their whole career without firing their gun statistically.
you know the other part of that statistic, right? that those who do tend to get into substantially more situations that 'require' lethal force in the first place. Some of this has to do with where they happen to work.... cops working in departments within large cities are much more likely than cops out in the burbs or sticks. Part of it is also their specific occupational specialty- SWAT for example is just put into more situations where it's necessary, compared to state highway patrol vehicle inspectors. or the Federal Reserve Cops.
Plus hand guns are crazy hard to aim over any distance
Yeah, that's true enough when your average cop has less than 15 hours of range time annually, and only quals out once a year. The vast majority of distance for police engagement is 3-6 feet. I can put a four inch grouping at fifty feet, a six inch grouping at thirty feet in stress simulations. And I am not some badass. I just get a lot of range time for work.
If you're going to carry... you need to be able to hit what you're aiming at. a miss isn't just a miss. Its a chance to clip that kid playing ball a hundred yards a way, or the grandma poking her head out the curtains to see what the fuck is going on outside.
Cops need to be better- every round that misses it's target is potentially some random kid caught in the crossfire. Personally, cops need way more training on not going to lethal force in the first place. but that's a different topic.
cops need way more training on not going to lethal force in the first place. but that’s a different topic.
Yeah, that tends to be my response as well. I usually try not to second guess a stressful situation where I wasn’t there, but all too often it really seems like lethal force is the goto response in way too many cases.
The example above where a female cop killed a junkie approaching her …. The post was intended to demonstrate multiple shots may be necessary, but what I saw was that after telling the guy to stop, the cops only option was lethal force. I’d really like to see some of these anecdotes show cops trying other options, even if it eventually escalated to lethal force
So, like, there's a lot to be learned from UK cops in how they handle knife-armed subjects. In general, you tend to fight how you train; so when you spend a lot of the focus of your training on lethal force, that usually becomes where your focus is.
For example that lady that shot a guy, shouting 'TAZER TAZER TAZER', even though she drew her firearm. What I assume she meant to go for tazer, but in the stress of the moment, muscle memory took over and she spent hours practicing her pistol draw and not much at all practicing the taser draw. (she could have meant to do it, too, shouting tazer for the body camera, but while recognizing that... i wasn't there and I don't know her.)
Increasing training on less-lethal or non-lethal methods; and actually training soft skills in the same way as firearms is how you solve that. The other thing, personally, that we really need to ramp up recruitment for police. This gets you a lot of things. Enough bodies means you can now spend a few hours a week training something rather than one or two classes a year, spread it out; physical training, yes, but soft skills like negotiation, deescalation and the basics of EDP-stuffs. the other reason is, then you can start firing all the fucking assholes. (which this is how you get institutional change. you change the institution by changing the poeple that make it up.)
Police in Finland regularly stop suspects by shooting them into leg which according to many Americans is impossible due to how inaccurate pistols are. That apparently means the alternative is then to dump the entire mag into the torso.
I did find a great many links to articles about this one event, but so far nothing to support that they do it regularly.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/world-news/finland-stabbing-suspect-shot-in-leg
you'll note that they don't say he was shot in the thigh intentionally. I suspect that they were aiming center mass and were just off. it happens. hitting a running target is... well here, the FBI tallies a ~47% chance to hit between 5-15 feet. (this is comparison to an 87% chance to be hit if you're standing still.)
Shots to extremities happen, nobody is saying they don't. But doing so on purpose is almost impossible. Especially on a running target. Even with a rifle. This is why you don't use a weapon fundamentally designed to be lethal as "less lethal". At best, you wing him and he's still running. at worst, you miss, and clip a mom and her infant baby behind them.
There's better tools to take some one down without lethal force. (see UK police tactics with Batons, for an example.)
Situations where Finnish police result to using their firearm are rare to begin with but you can just google it and find several articles with examples of this. However I can't find any source on how police are instructed to act when it comes to using deadly force.
Since 2000, ten people have died as a result of use of force by law enforcement officers in Finland. This includes a prison guard shot by accident during a training exercise, and a detainee who died of undetermined causes after being fired at with a taser.
Poliisi ampuu ihmistä kohti vain noin viidessä tehtävässä vuosittain / Police shoot towards people only about 5 times a year.
Miljoonasta hälytystehtävästä ampuma-asetta on käytetty vuosittain vain noin kymmenessä tehtävässä, ja niissäkin kohdistettu laukaus ihmistä kohti on ammuttu vain puolessa tapauksista / Out of a million emergency calls, a firearm has been used in only about ten incidents annually, and even in those cases, a shot aimed at a person has been fired in only half of the situations.
EDIT: Another example
EDIT2: And another
EDIT3: One more
not to be a stickler, but the source makes no mention of it being on purpose. I suspect you won't find a source that makes that claim.
Also, as for the general use of force in Finland vs America, it's two different scenarios. Vast cultural differences in general... but for some perspective... there's 2 national and 11 local agencies in finland, comprising ~7.5k cops. (per statista), all of which have direct over sight form the Ministry of the Interior.
For comparison, in the US there are 17,985 agencies, ranging from the federal government to local police to sherifs and state police. All of whom have their own oversight systems. we have more agencies than you have cops. and all of those agencies have their own, unique requirements for training and qualifications. hell, some states, they don't even have to have any education outside of highschool or GED. (actually in many places... that's preferred. for reasons.)
Americans are also rather more violent than Fins. Just saying.
Not crazy hard. Just "needs some amount of regular training and practice" hard.
E: I just found out two of you are bad shots lmao
Y'all either need better guns or better training, because I never had any trouble with it.
I saw a body cam video of a female officer confronting a (probably homeless) dude hopped up on drugs. She was on her own in this situation without backup which was fucked up in it's own right but this guy just keeps walking towards her closer and closer. Eventually she draws, warns him she'll shoot if he gets closer and ends up firing twice.
This guy took two rounds to the chest at damn near arms reach and barely even fucking blinks. He turned around, walked to a corner, layed down and died there iirc (here's the vid https://youtu.be/8oX2ChamWwc?feature=shared)
It’s possible that a less lethal response would have not only been more appropriate but more effective
I agree. That's the thing with the use of force continuum though, you aren't obligated to go step by step. If you have pepper spray, a baton and a gun and someone is kicking your ass to within an inch of your life you can go straight to gun.
This post has no business in this community
[Edit because everyone seems to disagree] OP posts these charged questions without clear answers all the time. They're not earnestly asking
Yeah. Check out their post history, they're clearly just fishing for replies with charged post titles