[EQmWgw87pw]

Personally I’ve had encounters with LE and have not had a gun drawn yet, so it’s obviously not the default. But I disagree, I think brandishing a knife is already extreme behavior, I don’t think it’s logical to think “because he has a weapon he probably doesn’t have another!”. And why would someone threatening people with a knife deserve benefit of the doubt?

[danlitt]

> Personally I’ve had encounters with LE and have not had a gun drawn yet, so it’s obviously not the default.

What does the default have to do with it? We are already not in the default situation. Interacting with police at all is not the default! If you mean to say something like "it's not likely" or "they're not doing it in unreasonable cases" then your anecdote is not relevant.

> And why would someone threatening people with a knife deserve benefit of the doubt?

Several reasons, which would be obvious if you tried to think of them. Most knife-wielding maniacs are, well, maniacs, and aren't fully in control of their actions. Innocent bystanders are regularly killed by police discharging guns accidentally or inappropriately (in fact, even police are frequently killed this way). People are routinely misidentified by police as carrying weapons when they aren't. Police often give misleading or unclear instructions while trying to de-escalate, and with a gun drawn, failure to comply can and does result in the suspect being shot.

Bear in mind that what you are excusing is essentially a (substantially increased likelihood of) extrajudicial execution. It should be a last resort. It's not enough to say "well he's clearly a bad guy, why give him the benefit of the doubt?".

[socalgal2]

> Innocent bystanders are regularly killed by police discharging guns

False. Innocent bystanders are killed by police discharging guns, but rarely. And, while the goal should be zero, it will never be zero

[ToucanLoucan]

Why is it not zero? This strikes me as the exact sort of calculus they used way back when they stopped chasing fleeing suspects in vehicles: the danger to the public is too high to justify the use of force. If you can't hit your suspect without hitting other civilians, then don't fucking fire! And no I don't particularly care if the LEO's life might be in danger either, that's literally the job they signed up for: to put themselves in danger to enforce the law. It's ridiculous that cops just get complete power of life and death every time they feel a spot of stress, and have to be handled with kid gloves by the general public less they be murdered in the streets.

[socalgal2]

I will never be zero because perfection is impossible. It's like saying there should be zero car fatalities. We should work to get them down (enforcement against drunk driving, maybe checkpoints, stronger driving tests), but asking for zero accidents just isn't reality.

[ceejayoz]

> It's like saying there should be zero car fatalities.

https://www.politico.eu/article/helsinki-no-traffic-death-ro...

"Helsinki hasn’t registered a single traffic-related fatality in the past year, municipal officials revealed this week."

"The limits were enforced with 70 new speed cameras and a policing strategy based on the national “Vision Zero” policy, with the goal of achieving zero traffic injuries or deaths. Data collected by Liikenneturva, Finland’s traffic safety entity, shows Helsinki’s traffic fatalities have been declining ever since."

[Dylan16807]

That's one city, for one year. Their rate of traffic fatalities is still above zero, I guarantee you.

[ToucanLoucan]

That's not analogous at all. Everyone drives, and so everyone is a possible source of a car crash. Police are not (in theory) just whoever wanders into the goddamn precinct. They're (in theory) trained professionals, educated in what they do, and therefore entrusted with both the force of law, and the deadly force they wear on their belts.

And no we probably can't make it ZERO, but we could surely get it under 1,300!?

[socalgal2]

1300 is not the rate of innocent bystanders being killed. It's the rate of people killed by police period. Maybe if we didn't have police being killed by criminals in the USA then they wouldn't need to go in armed and scared for their lives.

[vostrocity]

Has anyone done a study on correlation between no-chase policy and increase in robbery or retail theft? Would be pretty interesting

[tsimionescu]

Let's aim for a max of once every year, then, over the entire USA. And once that's achieved, let's aim for once every few years. Once a decade should be good enough, you probably won't get better than that.

The EU has a much bigger population than the USA, in a smaller space, and I'd bet they're already around this number.

[socalgal2]

The EU doesn't have armed criminals like the USA. The EU also doesn't have police being killed by criminals. It's close to 50 to 1.

[realo]

Well... the sicilian mafia comes to mind... the french can be quite violent too... Western Europe is not so bad either, with guns.

I guess you mean "normal" non-criminal people in the EU are not allowed to have AR-15 assault rifles in their homes, that they can use if they have mental health issues.

I personally believe that is one of the reasons the USA has so much gun violence. Get rid of the guns in people's homes and things will change for the better.

I mean ... look at this ... Only in the USA!

https://dimages2.corriereobjects.it/files/image_572_429/uplo...

[cwillu]

> And, while the goal should be zero, it will never be zero

Why the fuck not?

[horacemorace]

Personally as a teenager I’ve been met with a group of cops all pointing guns at me when I was just walking around at night with no weapons whatsoever. They got a call from a paranoid homeowner nearby. They’re trained to shoot first and ask questions later.

[californical]

Actually same happened to me - small group of friends maybe ~14 years old walking around late at night through our middle-class very safe neighborhood.

Two cops in a car rolled up and jumped out of the car with guns drawn and screamed at us to put our hands up because we “looked suspicious”.

They then asked us what we were doing, we said “walking home”, and they put their guns away and said “be safe out there, we didn’t realize you were kids”.

Absolutely no idea why it warranted guns pointed at us

[singleshot_]

> They’re trained to shoot first and ask questions later.

If this was true, would you have survived?

[watwut]

They should not have guns out at all. Also, expectation on cops are super weirdly low.

Untrained random civilians encountering cops are supposed to have perfect sefl control. Supposedly trained professionals can be irresponsible, escalate for no reasom, risk others and shoot if they merely feel afraid - regardles of actual danger.

[johnnyanmac]

As that woman said out loud in the video: "preservation of the pecking order" .

You start asking questions like this and it becomes clear how we voted in the current administration. We spent generations structuring around such buly mentality.

[gus_massa]

"Never point a gun at anything you are not willing to kill"

[t-3]

I got pulled over in Cleveland and had a cop point a gun at me and threaten to shoot - I was apparently wearing the wrong color on the wrong side of town with out-of-state plates and reached for my ID instead of waiting for the cop to tell me to get it. In later stops I've been admonished many times for not preemptively getting out my ID, but I really can't help thinking about almost getting my brains blown out for grabbing my ID too quickly.

[akimbostrawman]

Hands on the steering wheel for your and the officers safety until they ask you to do something. It really is not that difficult you can always just ask. Legally speaking a traffic stop means you are detained = follow orders.

They don't know you or what you could be capable off.

[mindslight]

While this is certainly pragmatic advice, we should not normalize it for "what ought" to be. It should not be an individual's job to act perfectly (while being assaulted!) to compensate for police officers' (supposed professionals!) inability to remain in control of their emotions and properly judge what is going on. A police officer who is unable to remain in control in such situations should not be doing traffic stops (or really any interaction with the public) in the first place.

(Also there are some mistakes in your framing. For a regular motorist who isn't planning on attacking the police officer, putting your hands on the steering wheel does nothing to effect the officer's safety. We're talking about a point before they've given you any orders beyond signalling you to pull over, so there is nothing to follow. Furthermore they're also generally pointing a bright spot light directly at you, destroying your awareness and ruining your judgement, so it's reasonable to expect that orders are going to be followed sluggishly and imperfectly)

[akimbostrawman]

>For a regular motorist who isn't planning on attacking the police officer, putting your hands on the steering wheel does nothing to effect the officer's safety.

It very much does. Cops are humans if they see you know how to behave instead of making there job harder they will notice and appreciate that.

>Furthermore they're also generally pointing a bright spot light directly at you, destroying your awareness and ruining your judgement, so it's reasonable to expect that orders are going to be followed sluggishly and imperfectly)

Only if it's too dark to see, so once again help them to help yourself and turn on the light inside the car. If these simple instructions are too hard to follow you shouldn't be driving in the first place.

[mindslight]

> making there job harder they will notice and appreciate that

Their comfort is not safety. Your original claim was that this had something to do with safety.

> these simple instructions

What "instructions" ? You have no authority to issue instructions that others must [0] follow. And if the cop hasn't gotten to the vehicle yet, then they haven't credibly given instructions (orders). So there are no relevant "instructions" here.

The reality is that the police officer is the party aggressing to create a confrontational situation. Therefore they are responsible for managing that situation. This includes not capriciously harming individuals who are acting reasonably but perhaps inconveniently. As I said, if they cannot handle their job of being public servants, then they have no business being in a position of authority over the public in the first place.

[0] "must" being implied by your general position of "[then] you shouldn't be driving in the first place" and the fact that similar "instructions" are often trotted out as a justification after the police kill somebody.

[lucketone]

> It really is not that difficult

If you do that daily, sure it is easy. But a lot of human behaviour is automatic, based on what we are accustomed to do daily. (During covid there were many videos, where person on the screen says “… also avoid touching your face …”, while touching his/her face)

[bean469]

> Hands on the steering wheel for your and the officers safety until they ask you to do something.

Such advice always seemed weird to me, but I suppose that is because I just haven't ever encountered a paranoid cop

[jbenner-radham]

I had a gun drawn on me and was told “I’m going to blow your f** brains out” because I was a stupid teenager toilet papering a house when I was young. That’s when fight or flight kicks in and logic goes out the window. Needless to say I didn’t fight.

[tverbeure]

In most civilized societies, there's an extremely high chance that somebody wielding a knife doesn't have a gun.

[nsxwolf]

Wielding a knife is a deadly threat so I am not sure what the relevance is.

[tverbeure]

The relevance is that you don’t need to assume that the knife wielding person can hit you from a distance.

One way or the other, this doesn’t seem to be a problem in other countries.

[mothballed]

Pulling a percentage out of my ass that can't be terribly inaccurate, 99% of police encounters with guns drawn the police are under 21 ft away, at which distance a knife is as dangerous as a gun.

If someone is less than 21 ft from you and they are going to be using a knifes against you, then you should still draw a gun just as often as if they had a gun. So at <21 ft you think guns should be drawn less because they have knives you should also be thinking guns drawn the ~exact amount less no matter which of the 2 weapon they had.

[tverbeure]

And one way or the other, none of that is a problem is other countries.

[mothballed]

I don't dispute that. But in most those 'other countries' literally anyone could be hiding a knife as easily as someone in US could be hiding a gun. So it appears in the vast majority of the cases where people are already right next to each other where both a knife or gun could kill someone, whether it is a knife or a gun is almost a moot point. It's only at a distance that you can treat a knife as a less lethal threat. Therefore the problem lies with the police, by vast majority.

[rpdillon]

I'm glad you're making this point. It's something that only people trained in combat would know, and it's very non-intuitive. But it has to do with reaction times, how quickly the person wielding the gun can pull the trigger, and how quickly the person wielding the knife can move. That 21 feet can close blindingly fast.

[lucketone]

> under 21 ft away, at which distance a knife is as dangerous as a gun.

No, it is not as dangerous.

To use gun from 7 meters away, you have throw it, which takes way more movement hand movement and time. While you should not rely on it, it is very feasible to just move out of the way of the thrown knife.

Other possibility getting closer to you. Running will take 2 seconds. (Not a lot, but definitely not as dangerous as a handgun)

[rpdillon]

The statistic isn't related to thrown weapons. It's how quickly you can close the space between you and your adversary, as well as how much bearing drift you can create as you do so.

[cortesoft]

> Personally I’ve had encounters with LE and have not had a gun drawn yet, so it’s obviously not the default.

How police respond to you is very dependent on a lot of factors, including your age, race, what you are wearing, where you are, and what time it is. I don’t think you should use your own personal experience as a universal template.

> And why would someone threatening people with a knife deserve benefit of the doubt?

Because, as a society, we should do everything we can to prevent harm to everyone, even people who are acting erratically. There could be all sorts of reasons for the behavior. Anyone can have a psychotic episode, and that shouldn’t immediately earn a death sentence. Of course, I understand that even an innocent person having a psychotic episode can be very dangerous, and I don’t think they should be allowed to hurt others, and it may be necessary to use force, and potentially deadly force, to protect other people.

However, I think that is very different than saying “we shouldn’t worry about the perpetrators well being at all”, or that it is preferable to kill the person rather than take ANY risk that they could hurt someone. The answer lies somewhere in between.

[dec0dedab0de]

I had a rifle pointed at me about a week after I got my first car, because I accidentally drove on the wrong side of the median.

Guns are definitely pulled way more often by the police than they should be. but to your point I am okay with cops shooting anyone brandishing a knife or any other deadly weapon.

[johnnyanmac]

Was the couch brandishing a weapon?