[08-15]

> I think when the police's top priority is to get home to their families rather then protect and serve... That speaks volumes.

No, that's not a problem, that's everyone's priority. But if shooting innocent citizens got policemen into jail, which is far from home and their family, they'd probably think twice about using guns, cattle prods, or poisonous chemicals.

[MrLeftHand]

I haven't said, it is a problem. I said that this shows the problem. The problem that a police officer is more afraid for his/hers own safety then actually protecting and serving others. For me this shows why US police is trigger happy. Where they are trained always for the worst, where they always expect the worst. No wonder a lot of them can't tell right from wrong. Also, when you have to deal with mentally ill people, in certain cases for an untrained person might be really hard to identify and know the difference between a person suffering from mental illness, or being high on crystal meth and ready to chew your face off.

If the civil population wouldn't have all these guns and gun crimes wouldn't be the top concern in the country, maybe then the police could change it's training to be more calm and helping in diffusing dangerous situation rather then go in guns blazing.

Not going to say, that having guns is the No. 1 cause, but it certainly makes the whole situation worse.

[08-15]

Oh, come on! It's decision theory, plain and simple. As an officer, I have two options: (1) shoot first, (2) talk to the victim. The cost in case (1) is ZERO (well, actually a couple bullets...) and in case (2) it is somewhat higher, because I run a small risk of dying on duty. Since \epsilon > zero, I shoot until the mag is empty, then empty the spare mag, too.

The values in this line of reasoning change depending on whether the victim has a nuclear bomb, a gun, a knife, bare hands, or nothing at all. The conclusion does not. Any small risk is still bigger than no risk.

It is obvious to me, that reducing the cost to the officer who chooses option (2), by taking guns away from citizens, does not work, because the cost won't become negative. Instead, the cost in case (1) has to be increased, and that means prosecuting trigger happy cops as the murderers they are.

[MrLeftHand]

Decisions are based on experience. If you are trained to expect the worst and you have experience on that, you will decide for the most favourable outcome for yourself. Not to get killed and pull the trigger sooner as the other person, even without the knowledge of him having a gun or not.

And there is a reason why cops became murderers. So instead finding the cause and fixing it, you say that they should go to jail and end of story?

The problem is, that this is how our current prosecution system works and it fails on so many levels. So why do you think it would work on them? It doesn't make the world a better place and there aren't less criminals because of it. Then why do you think there will be less trigger happy cops on the force?

People still commit crimes even with the risk of getting in to jail. Cops will still shoot people, because they will rather go to jail then be dead. Even if there is no gun, it is much safer for them shooting first and asking later.

[08-15]

> So instead finding the cause and fixing it

The cause for cops murdering innocent civilians is that the cost for doing so is zero. Increase the cost and the problem goes away. Moreover, bad cops are bullies who thrive on bossing people around without consequences. Introduce consequences, and these lowlives who shouldn't be cops find a more suitable profession.

> this is how our current prosecution system works and it fails on so many levels.

It deters me from killing people who pissed me off.

> Cops will still shoot people, because they will rather go to jail then be dead.

And guess what, that's fine. There is probably no perfect solution, you know, the kind where nobody gets shot and no cop goes to jail. It's almost as if the real world requires some sort of compromise. Who would have thought?

[MrLeftHand]

> The cause for cops murdering innocent civilians is that the cost for doing so is zero.

Usually this falls under self defence. As far as I know, if someone is on your property and you shoot them, you can say it was self defence and you have the chance to get away with it clean. I heard so many stories about this, like where a guy shot a teenager dead because the kid was drunk and wanted to steal a garden gnome or something.

> It deters me from killing people who pissed me off.

Well, I don't know what your job is, but I presume it doesn't involve guns in any shape or form, or the possibility to go to a place and get shot at. And hey it deters you, but there are a couple of other million people whom it does not. With this mentality we wouldn't have mass shootings and gun crimes at all, not even a simple robbery.

> There is probably no perfect solution

Yup, that is very true.

Anyway, all I think is that the US gun laws are responsible in some extent for police brutality. Take away guns from civilian hands and you can have a much more relaxed and non-lethal approach to law enforcement. This might not work 100%, or it might not work at all, but it would be worth a try. Too many people are shot to death in the US. Sooner or later people get to used to it and then nothing will change.