Should police give warning before using deadly force?

[Anonymous]

One agency’s policy on using deadly force against a fleeing suspect,

[CandiceK]

About you're so ago there was a cop that responded to some kind of domestic violence thing. When you got there there were two black women arguing and one pulled out a very large knife and was lunging towards the other one's chest. The cop shot the woman with the knife and killed her. All of the left was outraged, because they said it was just a knife. Why would you shoot someone with just a knife? I think even The view had that attitude did the cop was wrong.

I'm not sure what ever happened to the cop but I know he's put on suspension, and probably had to go stand trial. Expert medical people said that a knife that large would most likely have killed The other woman.

But if he could magically go back in time, knowing what he knows now, I wonder what he would do differently. If it were me, I would let the one woman just kill the other one. Then I would have called for backup and we would have arrested the woman with the knife.

But you just know that the folks on The view would still be slamming the cop for not shooting the knife out of there other woman's hand. Lol

[MrOracle]

The police officer would have been faulted in the media either way, because the facts of the case didn't matter, only the narrative that they were trying to spread.

Ask any ER doctor or nurse and they will tell you that you are far more likely to survive a gunshot than a knife wound.

[CandiceK]

@MrOracle
Mr. Oracle, thanks for making the time to respond. The author of the question can't be bothered with responding to people who respond to him. That's why I'll no longer respond to his questions.

You're right. That cop should have called in and said he had a flat tire. There's nothing he could have done, to not lose his job in that fucked up situation.

[MrOracle]

Oh, that would have been made his fault too. That's the problem for the police: when facing unrealistic expectations because of a combination of complete ignorance of what their job actually entails plus a massive political bias, they're routinely put into situations where they're going to be blamed no matter what they do - including doing nothing. That's not right - and it's why so many cities with far-left governments aren't able to hire police officers - no one wants to work for those cities that don't have the backs of the police who risk their lives to protect them.

[CandiceK]

@MrOracle

Yes, and the author of this question is a pussy. I like that you are a DJ on your days off. That seems like a cool job to have. I wish I had that type of courage. I went to one comedy club in my life, and I cried laughing. One guy talked about his turtle. The entire crowd was crying with laughter.

I'm not against porn in comedy, but it's kind of a crutch. This dude was talking about turtles, and he had the house in tears. lol.

[theothersider]

I don't know... a person with a gun pointed at you. Yelling at you to stop doing something, you would think would cause most intelligent people to stop doing that thing. " police! Don't move !! Put your hands were I can see them !" Sounds like a pretty good warning to me. It only needed to be said to me once and the cop sticking his gun in my face didn't say it nearly as nicely. Spoiler alert. I was the victim of the crime that ended up with said cop gun in my face.

[normalice]

I think police should no longer be equipped to use deadly force. They can't be trusted to do the right thing and make no effort to earn said trust by holding their own accountable when that trust is violated. Their only argument for having them is to respond to someone else with a gun (which seems like an argument that ignores our nd amendment rights) but when an active shooter happens cops always piss themselves and wait for backup. If they are going to run away anyway then there is no need for them to have a gun - or at least no need beyond the same need as everyone else.

[Asker]

When you say “police” and “they”
do you mean every single one of the nearly 1 million peace officers serving in the US?

[normalice]

I suppose it would be fair to do it by department. I. e. any department with at least a history of not actively blocking efforts to hold cops accountable for garbage behavior can have their guns back on a probationary basis.

[Asker]

There’s hundreds upon hundreds of law enforcement agencies in the US.

I don’t believe there’s any evidence or research into every single one of them about whether or not they’ve “actively blocked” efforts to hold officers accountable or unbecoming behavior.

[normalice]

Why don't you believe something that has an abundance of evidence including open admissions? Have you just never heard the term qualified immunity before?

[Asker]

Wouldn’t you say there’s just as much evidence for the other side of the argument? Also, for both sides, there’s all sorts of deceit, misinterpretation of data, etc.

[normalice]

The other side of the argument? There isn't an argument. The fact is police unions protect cops from criminal prosecution when they do something wrong. That's what they are for. If you think there is room for argument in plain fact that only underscores two things: 1) it's not something you have ever dealt with yourself and 2) you have been lied to.

[theothersider]

In the usa police officers have roughly 400 million interactions with civilians a year. Responding to everything from cats stuck in sewer drains to active shooters. Out of those 400million interactions roughly 1000 people are killed by a bullet fired from a police officers service weapon. I think in 2018 of the top of my head the number was 980. The vast majority of those shootings was while the victim was in commission of a crime. The reality is that 99.9998% of the time so long as you are obeying the law. You will be just fine. Bring afraid of the police is as illogical as being afraid to fly when statistically you are more likely to win the lottery than being hurt or killed in either of those situations.

[normalice]

Statistics mean very little when it's you who had a gun pointed at them by a cop who is making no effort to be reasonable.

In any case you failed to mention in how many of these interaction cops are killed, which would no doubt underscore the that, for the exact reasons you listed, they don't need guns.

[theothersider]

In a average year. Some 600 police officers are killed in the line of duty. Via shooting assault vehicular assault stabings etc etc. Nearly 8 times as many are shot and wounded and survive and 100s are shot in the vest. Police officers are also shot at and not hit, no return of fire between 8 and 15 thousand times. There is also the fact that every time a police officer draws his gun he has to fill out a report. In a average year police draw thier guns to force compliance 7 million times. In the same year police draw and deploy less lethal 23 million times to force compliance. When looking at the statistics and also being a nra certified firearms instructor and knowing how many armed civies deploy firearms in a defensive manner yet never fire a shot ( 3-5 million). I am certain in the fact that if you disarm police officers. The amount of them getting killed would go up dramatically with a massive spike in crime. I mean just in places where they have defunded them you see massive spikes in violent crimes. Proving that neutering police dosnt make anyone any safer it just emboldens criminals to be more brazen. If anything refund them at a massive increase. Get better training in hand to hand skills and recognizing when is the time to pull your tazer and when is a gun needed. See if that 8 million times a cop has to pull his gun can't get down to 4 million. But also they really don't pull thier gun much more than the average for armed civilian defenders so a case could be made that civilians really don't need a gun either. 🤔

[normalice]

So, assuming your numbers are accurate, 600 police are killed in the line of duty each year but 1000 civilliand are killed by police. Seems like if there is no need for civilians to have a way to defend themselves from police then by the exact same logic there need be no way for police to defend themselves from civilians.

[ShadezMcgee]

You can't afford to do that in terms of deadly force. If you can diffuse the situation with nonlethal methods, then they usually give the warning, but having them literally take the time to warn someone they are about to use deadly force is foolish. Why warn them? That will just create more problems in terms of potential lawsuits, dead cops and giving dangerous criminals more leeway.

Fuck those clowns, they should have enough common sense that if they retaliate with deadly means, they are willing to be shot in the face in return.

[OlderAndWiser]

Ideally, a warning before the use of deadly force would be preferable, but. . . warnings are not always feasible and requiring someone to do that in an emergency situation is not always realistic.

[libsaretards]

Most do if given the chance to do so. You see it so many times where officers warn suspects repeatedly to drop weapons even when being fired at. Typically cops will give more warnings if it is only cops in danger than they will if the suspect is a deadly threat with civilians around. If an innocent bystander is in danger, officers are less likely to give the suspect a warning. The only times cops do not give a warning before using deadly force is when the chance to give the warning is not available. At the end of the day, no cop wants to kill a suspect.

[Andres77]

"stop, or I'll shoot."
Specifically when they are fleeing and likely to commit a felony.
Yes. A warning ONLY in that instance.
In just about every other situation the cop is trying to beat a suspect to the draw in order to save his life because the suspect is making a threatening move.
Bottom line... when the cops show up, shut the fuck up and cooperate.
Chris Rock seems to be getting lots of praise for maintaining his cool under pressure.
Let's listen to what Chris has to say on the matter, shall we?

[Andres77]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OEvMc-K8XHY

[Andres77]

Oh, and watch it to the end and see what MLK Jr. has to say about some "societal norms."

[Goforit1010]

No. There's rarely any time when an Officer needs to pull their weapon and use it, to give any warning. In nearly every situation where that's done, a warning is pointless. It's either respond with deadly force or become a victim.

[Kaamraj]

It depends, if they can safely then they should. But if suspect is armed and presents an immediate danger to the officer or anyone else than dont waste time in formalities.

[t-8900]

Imagine a cop doing that when a suspect draws on him. You can't always do it, period. But what all cops should do is follow protocol and many do not. That's why we have so many problems with them.

[Dargil]

If the situation time-permits, yes. But if a knife wielding thug is charging me. My friends Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson will have to triple tap him. 2 to center of mass, one to the forehead.

[KrisPW]

If there is time and opportunity. But if someone is already about to kill another when the officer arrives, there should be no hesitation.

[josephinelcajon]

A lot of the time this is a split-second decision. If there was time to warn, then the likelihood of alternative measures is quite high.

[bolverk]

If it is feasible to do so the Yes, if the suspect has a firearm/knife but has not threatened anyone with it etc, but if they are under fire no warnings need to be given.

[John_Doesnt]

American cops shouldn't be given guns at all. They're trigger happy and watch too many action movies.

[Asker]

All American cops?

[John_Doesnt]

Yes, all American cops.

[Asker]

Why all?

[John_Doesnt]

Because the majority cannot be trusted and it's impossible to figure out which ones are idiots. It's safer for everyone.

[Asker]

Why can’t the majority be trusted?

[John_Doesnt]

Why are you asking me questions instead of Google "US Police Killings"?
www.washingtonpost.com/.../

[Asker]

Could these people, who’ve been shot by police, be trying to kill or severely harm officers or other innocents?

[John_Doesnt]

Responding with questions is getting annoying. Google your own research on police shootings in America

[spartan55]

@John_Doesnt
OP is asking you questions because your position is ill informed.

[John_Doesnt]

You're saying my position is ill informed because you disagree with it. That's just dumb.

[spartan55]

Do you even live in the US?

[John_Doesnt]

Yes, do you?

[spartan55]

Yes, Texas

[Fireguy17]

Sadly sometimes that is not an option.
By the time you would get the first word out you might be dead.

[exitseven]

I think most cops would give a warning before firing.

[TacosRAwesome]

Deadly force should only be used as a last resort. Police should shoot at legs first so as to immobilize suspect and be able to arrest them.

[Iron_Man]

Yes when are you going to be a police officer when you get out of the Coast Guard? Or are you out already?

[Imkass]

several police officers do and others don’t Also depends on the circumstance

[KostasKouvalis]

Yes, and they do. But at the same time, the perp will probably think they're bluffing

[Pterodon]

They do. Before it gets to that point they tell the perp multiple times to drop the weapon, on the ground, halt etc

[888theGreat]

I think freeze, don't move, are pretty much a warning. People want cop shot first before they can shoot back.

[OddBeMe]

Yeah. That’s the danger part. If you can’t handle it don’t be a cop. You can’t just shoot first and drop a side piece later.

[EnglishEuropean]

If the suspect is fleeing I think it's only fair to give him a warning. If the officer is under direct attack that's a different matter.

[Kingofkings1992]

In a perfect world, sure. Unfortunately, that’s not always reality. In the heat of the moment, you don’t have the opportunity for that. Very often, it’s your life versus theirs.

[Pudsmucker]

They usually do give notice. Unless being shot at the will shoot back in response.

[nawtee_me]

Like what? If you shoot at me I am going to shoot back? Or maybe stop shooting or I will kill you?

[grega239]

They do.

They pull their gun on you. Thats the warning

[KrakenAttackin]

They absolutely do when time and the situation permit.

[jimmy2]

Well too many cops been killed on line of duty. They do are ok till they see another gun or you try to beat the shit out of them

[BLP11520]

It depends , if there is no time shoot. You draw on a cop you just forfeited your life.

[Guy13]

Freeze, is enough warning. Then let it fly‼️

[jshm2]

That would be called "murder," otherwise.

[AllThatSweetJazz]

If there’s opportunity to then they do already.

[Browneye57]

They do. The dipshits that get shot had it coming.

[blissinanarchy1]

Not every one of them.

[Browneye57]

@blissinanarchy1 - Yes, every one of them. Did you get shot? Did I? No.

[blissinanarchy1]

I got shot, not by police. Police often shoot when they shouldn't. I'm not against lethal force when warranted. But getting shot for the littlest shit isn't right.

[TX651]

They do. But people don't listen.

[fireforeffect]

You mean like, Stop or I will shoot?

[kinggeorge007]

Yes indeed!