[Fluffy]

 dwar0123, on 2013-July-30, 18:33, said:

So, you can take a finesse which due to your practice and counting you figure will work 75% of the time. Success means you both live.

Failure means you die.

Or you can go up with the Ace.

It is easy to win real life double dummy after the fact.

But single dummy, I think I will go with the safety play.

Not really, you don't have the time to use logic, so you just do what yo were trained for, but thinking of t tonight I realized I would never ever want to see a trial against a cop for not doing what he was trained to do.

[billw55]

I really don't understand all the hostility and judgment against these police officers. From what I read in this thread, very little in the way of actual facts is presented. I find it very unlikely that the police just shot an old man for no reason. "News stories" for public consumption are often written this way by "reporters" who want to gin up a particular sentiment.

I don't see any information about whether this man was armed, or with what weapon if any. I see nothing about what people he may have been threatening. Don't forget that this includes people other than police officers. It could be any bystander, many of whom are much less able to defend themselves than the police. Indeed, criminals and crazies are most likely to threaten those weaker than themselves. In such a case, a comparatively minor weapon or even no weapon can be enough to cause a serious threat of bodily harm. If a crazy old guy was threatening my child with a fork, I would be perfectly happy if the police shoot him. In fact I would do it myself.

[onoway]

Sorry Dwar It was Fluffy who was using the "I play a lot of airsoft" reference and I should have checked down further to make sure I had the right author. My apologies.

I was interested to read the comment "bolas are not easy to use." offered presumably as a reason why they (or other such non lethal techniques,I assume) should not be considered. If that's the criteria for what the police do, i.e. something that's easy (which I don't believe btw, at least most of the time) then why not just "shoot them all and let God sort it out?" That would be the easiest, surely, and no risk at all to the police.

According to the story, the police were sent out in response to a call "that a man was suicidal." Nothing at all about a man threatening anyone other than himself, which I think it is fair to assume would have been given higher priority as the reason police were being called if that had been the case. Even reporters would give that priority over a story about a suicidal 70 year old.

When the police DO do something right in difficult circumstances people are more than willing to give them credit, such as arresting the Boston Marathon bomber. When they do something wrong they should be held accountable.

Though it seems sometimes as though nobody much is held accountable any more, it's always someone else's fault. Drunk drivers successfully blame the waitress who served them. Politicians who "didn't understand " the rules about expense accounts and residence requirements for subsidies because they weren't written clearly enough. Maybe it's too much to ask.

[Trinidad]

 billw55, on 2013-July-31, 07:30, said:

If a crazy old guy was threatening my child with a fork, I would be perfectly happy if the police shoot him. In fact I would do it myself.

That pretty much sums it up. You really think that they (or you) shouldn't try some other ways to prevent him from harming your child?

And then I am not even mentioning the fact that the police shooting an old man with a fork in front of your child might damage your child more than the damage that the old man can do with a fork. (I know, I am comparing apples and oranges.) And think about the damage you do to your child if you shoot the old man.

Think what might happen to you if you see a child drop a fork and you are friendly enough to bend over, pick it up and give it to the kid. Someone like billw55 sees it, recognizes the situation as discussed on BBF and he knows what to do. Your last words are: "I have wiped it for y....". Silly you! Mind your own business! What were you doing? Trying to be helpful?

Rik

[kenberg]

Probably not surprisingly, I come in strongly on the side of mikeh, billw, and others on this. I think everyone hopes that an irrational person can be calmed down and, if needed, taken into custody to protect himself or others. And sure, police have accepted the responsibility to try to bring this about without violence, if they reasonably can. But it is an irrational world that we live in.

Whatever those who know me might think of me, I am pretty sure no one thinks that I am an imminent threat to their safety. But times change. When I was 16 I saw the flashing light of a police car behind me and decided, if decided is even the right choice for what a sixteen year old does, that I could out run him. Not wise. And far from the most irrational thing I did when I was young. A cop has to decide, with very little time and very little evidence, which kenberg he is dealing with.

My (fortunately very modest) experience with the police leads me to believe that investigations into misbehavior are often whitewashes. So some vigilance is needed. But this is no different from many other investigations. Most organizations have specially trained people for hiring customer complaints. Their job is to assure the disgruntled customer that his complain is being taken most seriously and will be thoroughly looked into. Then on to the next disgruntled customer.

As far as other countries are concerned, I read various Scandinavian mysteries. Most of them seem to come from Sweden, and I am genetically Norwegian, so maybe I have a bias here, but it does not seem to me that Wallander et al are all that concerned about the use of force. But it's fiction, of course. Anyway, I concede that we have more killing here. Not where I live now though, and not even in the somewhat less genteel area where I grew up. We have rough places. Don't go there.

I favor looking into any use of potentially deadly force by the police, and I presume it happens. I favor psychological training that could be useful in defusing trouble. But I will always be very slow to second guess someone when it his his ass, not mine, that is on the line.

[mikeh]

 onoway, on 2013-July-31, 09:04, said:

Sorry Dwar It was Fluffy who was using the "I play a lot of airsoft" reference and I should have checked down further to make sure I had the right author. My apologies.

I was interested to read the comment "bolas are not easy to use." offered presumably as a reason why they (or other such non lethal techniques,I assume) should not be considered. If that's the criteria for what the police do, i.e. something that's easy (which I don't believe btw, at least most of the time) then why not just "shoot them all and let God sort it out?" That would be the easiest, surely, and no risk at all to the police.

According to the story, the police were sent out in response to a call "that a man was suicidal." Nothing at all about a man threatening anyone other than himself, which I think it is fair to assume would have been given higher priority as the reason police were being called if that had been the case.

Your biases are showing!

You 'don't believe' that bolas are hard to use as weapons to control dangerous individuals.

Do you have ANY expertise, or are you simply making assumptions and treating your belief as knowledge?

Can you imagine using a bola in a confined space or to impose control over a mentally ill person? 'Stop or I'll throw my bola!'

The same is true of your notion that tranquilizer guns could be used.

I once cross-examined the widow of a man shot by police. She said that she had expected, when she called the police, that people would show up and inject her husband who would immediately become sedated. This was, it seemed to me, based on what she had seen on television.

It doesn't work that way in real life. In real life no paramedic will attempt to inject anything into a patient unless the patient is already controlled.

And as for the idea of an officer shooting someone with a dart...have you even begun to think about the problems with that? Hint: look to the street outside at any time other than the summer....what are people wearing?

Another hint: dosages? Drug reactions? Number of shots needed to score a hit? Time for the drug to take effect?

I listened recently to a list of 'things we learn from the movies'.

I loved it. For example: every window in Paris has a view of the Eiffel Tower. If you're on foot, and being chased in a town or city, there is always a parade that you can mix into.

The list didn't include: that sedating drugs always knock people out immediately.

The list also didn't include but could readily enough: good guys can shoot any part of the anatomy of a bad guy with any weapon at any range and in any circumstances, while bad guys can never kill the hero.

Try actually setting aside your beliefs and learn something about the topic. It will make your posts more relevant. Gaining knowledge can be uncomfortable because sometimes the facts are contrary to the way we'd like things to be. But it is more intellectually honest to accept facts and change opinion than it is to ignore or refuse to learn facts and cling to opinion. Or as an alternative, stop making posts on topics on which you are ignorant.

Please note that, as always in this thread, I am not defending nor criticizing the conduct of officers in circumstances about which I know almost nothing. Nor am I commenting on the societal differences between Europe, the US, and Canada (which, for the European readers, is NOT the US and is probably somewhere mid-way between the US and Europe in terms of guns and police use of force).

[mikeh]

 onoway, on 2013-July-31, 09:04, said:

Drunk drivers successfully blame the waitress who served them

citation needed.

There are cases in which the victims of a drunk driver have successfully sued the drinking establishment that over-served the driver. This is, invariably in my experience, in conjunction with a claim against the driver.

But there are no cases in Canada, to my knowledge and I am very knowledgeable in this area, where a drunk driver has ever avoided criminal or civil liability by blaming the 'waitress who served them'

This seems to be yet another example of you making assertions based on belief rather than knowledge. I hope it makes you feel superior because it has the opposite effect on my view of your arguments.

[Cyberyeti]

 mikeh, on 2013-July-31, 09:57, said:

citation needed.

There are cases in which the victims of a drunk driver have successfully sued the drinking establishment that over-served the driver. This is, invariably in my experience, in conjunction with a claim against the driver.

But there are no cases in Canada, to my knowledge and I am very knowledgeable in this area, where a drunk driver has ever avoided criminal or civil liability by blaming the 'waitress who served them'

This seems to be yet another example of you making assertions based on belief rather than knowledge. I hope it makes you feel superior because it has the opposite effect on my view of your arguments.

There was a case in the UK where the driver successfully blamed his hostess at a private gathering, for serving him a trifle that had a lot more booze in it than it tasted like, in the knowledge that he was driving home afterwards (and was drinking water). The hostess wasn't prosecuted, the driver got off.

[mikeh]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-July-31, 10:11, said:

There was a case in the UK where the driver successfully blamed his hostess at a private gathering, for serving him a trifle that had a lot more booze in it than it tasted like, in the knowledge that he was driving home afterwards (and was drinking water). The hostess wasn't prosecuted, the driver got off.

I take it that he was acquitted because he lacked the necessary element of intent, which (for most cases) is required for a criminal conviction. If someone gave you a brownie, and you ate it innocent of the hash content, you shouldn't be guilty of consuming hash.

The hostess would never be convicted (I can't imagine any crown counsel approving charges) because she hasn't committed an offence (at least, not under any criminal provision I am aware of). She MIGHT have been found civilly liable had her guest injured someone through drunk driving. He would almost certainly have been found liable, in negligence, had he injured someone. He MIGHT have been able to claim indemnity against the hostess, in the civil case, but getting indemnity or contribution is not at all the same as 'getting off'.

Btw, I am not disputing that it happened as you suggest, but I would caution against relying on newspaper accounts of legal decisions: they are usually written, here at least, by reporters with no training in the law or procedure, and edited to build circulation rather than to inform the public, which is at best a secondary factor in most media. I have rarely seen any of my cases reported with even a semblance of balanced description (this isn't all sour grapes...the distortions are as often neutral or favourable to my side as they are adverse).

[billw55]

 Trinidad, on 2013-July-31, 09:24, said:

That pretty much sums it up. You really think that they (or you) shouldn't try some other ways to prevent him from harming your child?

And then I am not even mentioning the fact that the police shooting an old man with a fork in front of your child might damage your child more than the damage that the old man can do with a fork. (I know, I am comparing apples and oranges.) And think about the damage you do to your child if you shoot the old man.

Think what might happen to you if you see a child drop a fork and you are friendly enough to bend over, pick it up and give it to the kid. Someone like billw55 sees it, recognizes the situation as discussed on BBF and he knows what to do. Your last words are: "I have wiped it for y....". Silly you! Mind your own business! What were you doing? Trying to be helpful?

Rik

If the threat of bodily harm is imminent, then no, I do not think that either I or the police are under any obligation to try other methods. So if the guy phones me and says he's going to stick my kid with a fork, then no, I can't go over to his house and shoot him. If he is standing over her with the fork, then yes.

Yes of course, potential harm to the victim must weighed in choosing a response action. A common theme i.e. in hostage situations.

And, are you serious? Surely you see the difference in handing over a fork: there is no threat involved.

[PassedOut]

 mikeh, on 2013-July-31, 09:51, said:

Please note that, as always in this thread, I am not defending nor criticizing the conduct of officers in circumstances about which I know almost nothing. Nor am I commenting on the societal differences between Europe, the US, and Canada (which, for the European readers, is NOT the US and is probably somewhere mid-way between the US and Europe in terms of guns and police use of force).

As a side note, one of my Norwegian cousins is a police officer in Bergen. The years of training that he and his fellow officers received before taking on those responsibilities far exceeds the training that officers in the US receive. This is one of those areas where, I believe, we in the US should reconsider.

[Cyberyeti]

 mikeh, on 2013-July-31, 10:28, said:

I take it that he was acquitted because he lacked the necessary element of intent, which (for most cases) is required for a criminal conviction. If someone gave you a brownie, and you ate it innocent of the hash content, you shouldn't be guilty of consuming hash.

Intent is NOT required in some cases in this area, it's closer to the "You are responsible for what's found in your body" found in athletics. People have been convicted (and the convictions upheld on appeal) on the way home from fire-eating as the substance used for that which never enters your system triggers the breathalyser.

[billw55]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-July-31, 11:45, said:

Intent is NOT required in some cases in this area, it's closer to the "You are responsible for what's found in your body" found in athletics. People have been convicted (and the convictions upheld on appeal) on the way home from fire-eating as the substance used for that which never enters your system triggers the breathalyser.

That doesn't really sound like a judgment of intent though. More of an assumption that the breathalyser is infallible.

[mikeh]

 PassedOut, on 2013-July-31, 10:49, said:

As a side note, one of my Norwegian cousins is a police officer in Bergen. The years of training that he and his fellow officers received before taking on those responsibilities far exceeds the training that officers in the US receive. This is one of those areas where, I believe, we in the US should reconsider.

In one of my cases, the claimant hired a police practices expert from Pennsylvania, and I had to cross examine him at length. This meant I had to learn a lot about the differences between police training in the US and in Canada. What I learned was shocking.

The larger US forces do generally have police academies or the equivalent and the training is comparable to that in Canada. The laws are far different, and the intensity of the threats faced by US police seems higher than in Canada if only in that it is routine for individuals to be carrying handguns in many parts of the US, and the social security net is weaker, and the inequality of opportunity far more severe than here, which all rachet up the societal stress levels. However, the training is, as I say, much the same.

By contrast, many US police or sheriff departments in the rural or small town US are small and poorly funded. The departments can't afford a lot of training and the screening process for hire is rudimentary. Thus many police officers, out there with powers of arrest, and lots of firepower, have little training and little oversight by people who do have training. This problem may be exacerbated, at least imo, by the habit of electing sheriffs.

Having said that, police officers in Canada do not, usually, get 'years of training'. They typically get about 8-9 months of classroom type training, with 'practicums' in the field, and then most departments offer a lot of ongoing education, but this still seems to fall way short of what you are describing. They also undergo some psychological evaluation. Typically there are far more unsuccessful candidates than successful ones.

Btw, and unrelated to anything in my own experience with police, there was a news item out of the US a year or two ago wherein a candidate sued for his being rejected: the reason he was rejected? He scored too high on an IQ test!

The rationale was that most policing work was relatively undemanding intellectually and people with a high IQ (and he wasn't genius level) would tend to get bored and quit, which meant the organization was likely to have thrown away the time and money spent training him.

Maybe policing should be more like a 2 year college programme? With maybe degrees available for ambitious officers?

[Fluffy]

 onoway, on 2013-July-31, 09:04, said:

Sorry Dwar It was Fluffy who was using the "I play a lot of airsoft" reference and I should have checked down further to make sure I had the right author. My apologies.

I am a bit lost, you know airsoft is not a videogame right?


This is the first time I see bola used as an english word, for all that I knew it is a spannish word that means 'ball'. What is the difference between 'ball' and 'bola' for you?

[billw55]

 Fluffy, on 2013-July-31, 11:53, said:

This is the first time I see bola used as an english word, for all that I knew it is a spannish word that means 'ball'. What is the difference between 'ball' and 'bola' for you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolas

[PassedOut]

 mikeh, on 2013-July-31, 11:51, said:

Maybe policing should be more like a 2 year college programme? With maybe degrees available for ambitious officers?

That sounds about right to me.

As in Canada, many candidates wash out of even the very short police academy courses common here. With taxes going lower and lower, it is hard to find the money to attract strong candidates. I've never heard of someone being excluded, though, for being too intelligent!

I live in a rural area, so the sheriff's department is all we have. Our most recently elected sheriff is competent, but does not have an easy time hiring strong folks.

[Trinidad]

 billw55, on 2013-July-31, 10:38, said:

And, are you serious? Surely you see the difference in handing over a fork: there is no threat involved.

Yes, I am serious. It doesn't matter whether there is a threat involved. What matters is whether a threat is perceived. Or do you think that you always see the objective truth? Go and talk to the numerous fathers who shot their kids hiding in a closet because they perceived they were dealing with a burglar.

Rik

[onoway]

Mike, I was basing the comment about cocktail waitresses on what someone I knew ( a neighbor) told me. She was working as a cocktail waitress in Dawson Creek and quitting after 8 years when she was told that she had to start cutting people off because otherwise she was liable to be held responsible if they got into an accident. She was told by her boss that someone in BC had crashed and the waitress had been held liable for serving him when he was already past the ability to drive safely. This was something like maybe 15 years or so ago.

She quit because she felt pressured from both sides, the drunk customers and the fear of the law if she didn't and they got into trouble and it rebounded on her.So yes, it is hearsay but she had no reason to quit..She was well liked by her boss and co-workers, she liked the job and made very good money, didn't have another job to go to, no reason to make such a thing up and no history of lying about other things so I believed her.

It's an odd thing to be an urban myth.

Also, I said absolutely nothing whatsoever about tranquilizer darts except in reference to gorillas, and even then it was in the context of how people managed to capture and control them BEFORE the use of tranquilizer darts. Clearly darts aren't a sensible option with the drugs we now have, although the police are able to use tazers and that equally clearly sometimes messes people up physically rather dramatically far beyond what's normal or expected.
~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just for interest's sake I googled a bit just now and almost immediately found this http://www.go2hr.ca/...riving-accident
<snip>
An important consideration is that "duty of care" also extends off-premises. Pub employees must not permit patrons to leave their establishment in a manner that is likely to result in foreseeable injury to themselves or others; namely, while intoxicated. In other words, commercial providers of alcohol have a duty of care to see that intoxicated patrons get home safely.
<snip>
This is MUCH more recent than I expected, as I said, the conversation with my neighbor was years ago. Maybe it took that long to get through to the Supreme Court?

This post has been edited by onoway: 2013-July-31, 14:08

[billw55]

 Trinidad, on 2013-July-31, 13:03, said:

Yes, I am serious. It doesn't matter whether there is a threat involved.

Well, to use your phrase - that pretty much sums it up.