[mikeh]

billw55, on 2013-August-01, 08:53, said:

Certainly, if the threat was imminent (say, he had the fork to the baby's throat or similar) and if shooting was judged safe enough for the baby, considering the danger it was already in. In fact with a baby, no weapon at all is needed. If an unarmed man was threatening to kill a baby and had his hands on its throat, or was positioned to dash it on the pavement - yep, shoot him, no regrets.

I might shoot him but I am certain that I would have a lot of regrets. I'd like to think you would, as well. Most people who act out are under the influence of something or have become 'monsters' through things that happened to them in early life. Note that I say 'most', not 'all'. I'd be wishing that somebody, whether me or others, had done something earlier that had allowed me to avoid killing another human being, flawed or otherwise.

Any time any human has to kill another, there has been a failing of some kind. I can't think of an exception to that proposition, can you?

[billw55]

mikeh, on 2013-August-01, 09:17, said:

I might shoot him but I am certain that I would have a lot of regrets. I'd like to think you would, as well. Most people who act out are under the influence of something or have become 'monsters' through things that happened to them in early life. Note that I say 'most', not 'all'. I'd be wishing that somebody, whether me or others, had done something earlier that had allowed me to avoid killing another human being, flawed or otherwise.

Any time any human has to kill another, there has been a failing of some kind. I can't think of an exception to that proposition, can you?

I agree. Perhaps I should be more clear: if I shot him myself, it would likely haunt me, even knowing it was justified. I imagine that many police officers who kill a criminal or dangerous person also suffer some psychological consequences. I suppose this could be called a regret, but not in the sense of having doubt about the justification.

[blackshoe]

"All I knew is that he wasn't going to kill any more little girls. That suited me. I went to sleep." — Recruit Private Juan Rico, mulling over whether it was right to have hanged a man for desertion and for killing a four year old girl, in Robert Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers.

[dwar0123]

blackshoe, on 2013-August-01, 13:55, said:

"All I knew is that he wasn't going to kill any more little girls. That suited me. I went to sleep." — Recruit Private Juan Rico, mulling over whether it was right to have hanged a man for desertion and for killing a four year old girl, in Robert Heinlein's novel Starship Troopers.

I love Heinlein, his world view is very attractive, but not very practical. It is something, the idea of people solving their own problems, but that generally requires that people are better then they actually are. Lazarous long solving his own problems, sure, but most people are not so wise and I am not sure I want the general public to take it upon themselves to decide willy nilly who shall live and who shall die.

In real life, people make mistakes, lots of mistakes and the thing about mistakes is you don't usually know you are making it when you make it. Some people are skeptical of their own beliefs, but most are not and it is handy for Rico that Heinlein was the author because in someone else's story Rico would be the clueless villain who murdered the wrong guy.

[Bad_Wolf]

I've had a lot of dealings with the cops over the years (and before the right wing &^%$wits around here jump on me I am not a criminal). Sorry but half of them are just bogans who get off on bullying unarmed people. These thugs are paid by us to protect us, and yet around here the gang you are most likely to get killed by drive fast cars, blare sirens and swagger more than Tyson. Talk about cowards. No one forced them to take up this 'career'. Why is it too much to ask for a bit of professionalism.

[blackshoe]

dwar0123, on 2013-August-01, 16:39, said:

I love Heinlein, his world view is very attractive, but not very practical. It is something, the idea of people solving their own problems, but that generally requires that people are better then they actually are. Lazarous long solving his own problems, sure, but most people are not so wise and I am not sure I want the general public to take it upon themselves to decide willy nilly who shall live and who shall die.

In real life, people make mistakes, lots of mistakes and the thing about mistakes is you don't usually know you are making it when you make it. Some people are skeptical of their own beliefs, but most are not and it is handy for Rico that Heinlein was the author because in someone else's story Rico would be the clueless villain who murdered the wrong guy.

You've misinterpreted the quote. What actually happened (sic) was that during Rico's recruit training at Camp Curry, in Canada, one of his fellow recruits deserted. In the course of this person's travels he kidnapped and later killed a four year old girl. He was captured by local police and turned over, IAW the law, to the military. The military returned him to his unit, he was tried by court-martial, convicted of murder, and sentenced to hang. The Regiment was formed to observe the hanging. It was a troubling experience for Rico - he wasn't sure the death penalty was morally correct. There was absolutely nothing in it about Rico or any other individual taking the law into his own hands.

[billw55]

Bad_Wolf, on 2013-August-01, 19:37, said:

I've had a lot of dealings with the cops over the years (and before the right wing &^%$wits around here jump on me I am not a criminal). Sorry but half of them are just bogans who get off on bullying unarmed people. These thugs are paid by us to protect us, and yet around here the gang you are most likely to get killed by drive fast cars, blare sirens and swagger more than Tyson. Talk about cowards. No one forced them to take up this 'career'. Why is it too much to ask for a bit of professionalism.

So, what were the circumstances of having a lot of dealings with the cops? Are you often a crime victim?

[kenberg]

Hypotheticals can get very hypothetical. I don't carry or even own a gun, I have never seen a baby threatened with a fork and I have trouble imagining circumstances where I would, and so on. I once intervened when I came across a girl of around ten walking her large dog on a leash. The dog was being aggressively threatened by a large dog that was off leash and unsupervised. No gun, just me and my loud voice standing between the two dogs. The aggressor backed down. That's about as exciting as my life gets. Ho hum. It is my expectation that I will complete my life never having shot anyone, man or dog.

Back to cops. Situations sometimes get out of hand. The police have more responsibility than the random bystander has because they have willingly taken on the job. But that does not mean that they are always at fault if things go very wrong. Some people behave like idiots. That's just a fact. And those are the people who are most likely to come into confrontation with the police. As has been pointed out several times, we do not know the details of what happened in the OP. Perhaps the police could have done better, perhaps they should have done better. Or perhaps they did the best that they could under difficult circumstances. If any poster knows the answer, I don't see how.

Added: Since Pam started this thread I will refer to a recent hand I played with her to distinguish between could have and should have. As declarer with spades as trump, my rho guarded clubs and hearts. I had the option fo coming down to AK of clubs and two hearts on the board, with three clubs and one trump in my hand. However rho discards, I can tale the rest. I certainly could have done that. Quite possibly I should have done that. I didn't do that.

[jonottawa]

mikeh, on 2013-July-31, 11:51, said:

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!

At last! That explains everything.

I can't stand people who abuse authority. Austin police (some of the best paid in the country) are notorious for shooting unarmed (usually black) people from the East (poor) side of town. The shooting in Toronto was a travesty (18-year old kid armed with a pen knife on an empty streetcar completely surrounded by police, shot 3 times, 5 second delay (he's been knocked down,) shot 6 more times.) That officer should spend the rest of his life in prison. He probably won't even be charged.

That doesn't mean you don't give them SOME benefit of the doubt (and that benefit of the doubt is already built into the jury selection process, just look at the Rodney King verdict,) but my overwhelming impression is that no matter how ridiculous and clearcut the abuse of force, unless it's captured on film and the film can't be intercepted by the police before it's made public, the investigation invariably gets whitewashed and the cop gets away with murder.

[billw55]

jonottawa, on 2013-August-02, 12:53, said:

At last! That explains everything.

I can't stand people who abuse authority. Austin police (some of the best paid in the country) are notorious for shooting unarmed (usually black) people from the East (poor) side of town. The shooting in Toronto was a travesty (18-year old kid armed with a pen knife on an empty streetcar completely surrounded by police, shot 3 times, 5 second delay (he's been knocked down,) shot 6 more times.) That officer should spend the rest of his life in prison. He probably won't even be charged.

That doesn't mean you don't give them SOME benefit of the doubt (and that benefit of the doubt is already built into the jury selection process, just look at the Rodney King verdict,) but my overwhelming impression is that no matter how ridiculous and clearcut the abuse of force, unless it's captured on film and the film can't be intercepted by the police before it's made public, the investigation invariably gets whitewashed and the cop gets away with murder.

Sadly this seems to be true. Worse, some localities have passed laws making it illegal for bystanders to video-record police work. I don't know if such laws have been challenged in court (mikeh?) but I can't imagine them standing up.

[mikeh]

billw55, on 2013-August-02, 13:07, said:

Sadly this seems to be true. Worse, some localities have passed laws making it illegal for bystanders to video-record police work. I don't know if such laws have been challenged in court (mikeh?) but I can't imagine them standing up.

I'm Canadian: I can't imagine such a law getting passed here, even by our simplistic-thinking federal government with its ideological view of law and order and its wilful blindness to the harm done by criminalizing minor transgressions, and requiring mandatory sentencing guidelines and building ever more prisons. There are limits even to their desire to become US Republicans.

[billw55]

ArtK78, on 2013-July-31, 14:08, said:

There are laws that hold tavern keepers liable if their customers drive drunk and the tavern keeper served the customers alcohol when the customers were visibly drunk. Not criminally liable, but civilly liable. So it is not an urban myth.

Getting back to this, a high profile test case may be coming up:

http://espn.go.com/d...-had-violations

[billw55]

And sometimes police make very difficult but correct life and death decisions not to shoot:

http://movies.yahoo....-200314375.html

Despite grossly dangerous stupidity by the suspects.