What Dog Shootings Reveal About American Policing(theatlantic.com)
theatlantic.com
What Dog Shootings Reveal About American Policing
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/what-dog-shootings-reveal-about-american-policing/533319/?single_page=true
135 comments
No kidding, this is exactly what pepperspray was invented for. Before I was even allowed to touch the stuff in the military I had to read a short history of it and a load of technical facts, oh and then get sprayed in the face before running an obstacle course...
I really don't see how cops are able to have their cake and eat it too, with the whole "gotta do whatever to get home at the end of the day" and "we bravely risk our lives to hold the thin blue line".
I really don't see how cops are able to have their cake and eat it too, with the whole "gotta do whatever to get home at the end of the day" and "we bravely risk our lives to hold the thin blue line".
Sabre Red and similar pepper-sprays have a UV dye so it's possible to see on whom and where it was deployed under a blacklight.
That sounds like a solution looking for a problem. Anybody who was sprayed, even after they washed the orange crap off their face, is given away by the bloodshot eyes/red face/running nose and pungent smell. Also, I wonder how effective that would be if they put on sunblock[0] before the blacklight test.
[0] http://samanthagouldson.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/uv_an...
[0] http://samanthagouldson.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/uv_an...
That's not what it's for. It's to determine where it was sprayed.
"Police should have a loud speaker and strobe light on their uniform that trigger when they unholster their firearm."
Interesting idea, really. In addition to the warnings, the unholstering should also activate body and dash cameras (if not already on), and send a signal of the event to authorities (plural) which records the date/time/lat/lon/etc...
Interesting idea, really. In addition to the warnings, the unholstering should also activate body and dash cameras (if not already on), and send a signal of the event to authorities (plural) which records the date/time/lat/lon/etc...
This might have a side-benefit of not amping up the officer with extreme shouting. A loud megaphone, tactical breathing and a calming voice can defuse more situations instead of self-fulfilling prophecies causing bad outcomes.
Meta: also, the US needs more of citizen-led policing a-la Michael A. Wood, Jr. where the police are part of, and communicate with, the community, instead of being merely a mandatory, occupying, paramilitary mafia resting on the monopoly on violence with impunity, lackadaisical/inconsistent training and blue wall of silence.
Meta: also, the US needs more of citizen-led policing a-la Michael A. Wood, Jr. where the police are part of, and communicate with, the community, instead of being merely a mandatory, occupying, paramilitary mafia resting on the monopoly on violence with impunity, lackadaisical/inconsistent training and blue wall of silence.
This is a cool idea for IoT based policing. As a public entity, they should be confident for all actions to be scrutinised and hold up in a court of law.
I was going to suggest connected guns (for additional data harvesting) but realised a connected gun that could be hacked is a terrible idea.
I was going to suggest connected guns (for additional data harvesting) but realised a connected gun that could be hacked is a terrible idea.
As long as the firing mechanism is purely mechanical hacking the gun becomes meaningless. Picture gun with attacked tiny video camera, hack it and the guy is still holding a working gun.
If a police officer is not capable of maintaining their cool and issuing clear commands relevant to the context they're in, they shouldn't be issued a lethal weapon in the first place; a recorded voice shouldn't be a replacement for this, and might just add to the confusion of voices and noises, and wouldn't have understanding of the specific situation (until we get to robocop level AI)
The strobe idea might have some merit for the deaf, or folks who don't understand the local language, so long as there is a long standing education campaign.
The strobe idea might have some merit for the deaf, or folks who don't understand the local language, so long as there is a long standing education campaign.
Pardon my rant, but...
People say "baton" and I always think of the lightweight tube runners carry around a track. In this context, a baton is a nightstick. Have you ever examined one? A friend showed me his grandfather's. It was about 2 feet long, made of cherry, and filled with lead. It would break down a door or ruin a car. It would certainly break bones. With the lead weight and small diameter, it would be more effective (lethal) than a baseball bat.
"Baton" is just a euphemism that papers over extreme violence.
"Baton" is just a euphemism that papers over extreme violence.
When is the last time you saw something like that carried around that wasn't a rerun of "Cops" recorded in '89? Today you see telescoping steel tubes that certainly couldn't break down a door and could only break bones intentionally and with effort. You rarely see them deployed, which is unfortunate in my opinion, because it is an escalation of force step designed to counter physical but non-life-threatening aggression. So essentially you're abandoning a spectrum of force and adopting a model of only two modes - subjugated or dead.
I don't see police much. But I agree that the police batons I see advertised for sale seem to be metal collapsible things, though I never find a weight mentioned in the adverts. How much lead has been added to the tip?
An alternative I've seen used on campus is a big Maglight. I'll agree that it represents a step that's usually less violent that reach for a gun, but when I read of police striking a woman "21 times with a baton", I have a hard time.
An alternative I've seen used on campus is a big Maglight. I'll agree that it represents a step that's usually less violent that reach for a gun, but when I read of police striking a woman "21 times with a baton", I have a hard time.
I've never seen a leaded telescoping baton, but you might want to reconsider the fixation on weight - because strike damage depends a lot more on the angle and targeted zone. If the cops are getting anything like the military in training on these things - they spend a lot of time learning where and how you can hit somebody without risking permanent damage. I'm pretty much the last person to stick up for cops, but beating somebody with a baton is hard work - so I'd be more inclined to think the cop dealing out the blows is trying harder than his fellow officers to not shoot a person to death.
"Baton" is no more a euphemism than "night-stick". Baton is French for "stick".
Today, they're frequently collapsible, made of metal and can be used to break car windows.
That sounds more like a blackjack than a standard police baton.
On the other hand, you have two unknown dogs approaching you. They are of a potentially dangerous breed, and will likely defend their territory.
Sure, your pitbull might be a lover but this type of dog is frequently in the news for biting people and killing children/elderly.
Sure, your pitbull might be a lover but this type of dog is frequently in the news for biting people and killing children/elderly.
Heh, pitbulls. I was at the crowded dog park one weekend and this family showed up with a muzzled pitbull. The first thing it did was attack my dog. Even with the muzzle on it was able to nip my dog in the ass a few times before it got pulled off.
But that's not about the pitbull. It's about the asshole who brought his pre-muzzled dog to a dog park knowing it was vicious.
But that's not about the pitbull. It's about the asshole who brought his pre-muzzled dog to a dog park knowing it was vicious.
[deleted]
> It's about the asshole who brought his pre-muzzled dog to a dog park knowing it was vicious.
In my opinion, muzzling a dog you know is vicious before bringing them to the part is exactly what makes you a non-asshole. I don't understand why you're using "pre-muzzled" as a point against the owner.
In my opinion, muzzling a dog you know is vicious before bringing them to the part is exactly what makes you a non-asshole. I don't understand why you're using "pre-muzzled" as a point against the owner.
Because if you know you have to restrain your dog like Hannibal Lecter going on a prisoner transport, don't bring him to a park with other dogs and little kids in the first place.
Especially if he can still nip though the mask.
Especially if he can still nip though the mask.
The "nipping through the mask" part and "Hannibal Lecter" rhetoric aside, if you have a good muzzle, why not bring the dog to the park? That's why you muzzle dogs, so they can take walks in the part without biting.
Perhaps it would be informative to look at how many policemen have been killed or injured by dogs in countries where they do not routinely shoot them.
Not sure if you watched the video, but the dog was at least 10 feet away from him when he shot it, and it wasn't approaching any further. And if you read the article, there's also an example where a cop shot at a labrador on a leash (and hit a 4-year old girl instead).
Or we should just disarm police officers.
I've seen video of police in Australia who are unarmed run away from armed criminals. It's pretty humiliating.
Serious question: so what? We shouldn't design public policy around the self-esteem of individual police officers, should we?
I think this is the exact point that the US police force isn't getting. It's okay to run away from an armed thief. It's not okay to kill a thief. It's not okay to kill people for simple theft, and certainly fucking not for "smoking marijuana in front of a kid".
I'd agree the feelings of individuals should generally not drive policy on such matters. I should have wrote pathetic in place of humiliating, since that better communicates the weakness of the structure of the setup rather than the focus on any individual. Mine was a commentary much like the fun poked at here with the "security monitor" bit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8FNVsbnwWE
I don't think we should care what Youtube commenters find pathetic. Or even what reasonable people find pathetic. The individual dignity of police officers is not a top-tier policy concern.
Yes, but how many innocent citizens have they killed? I think a little humiliation is tolerable if it saves lives.
touché, it's a valid question for sure. Not sure how the figures net out in total, i.e. lives lost because a law enforcement officer could not disable the threat vs innocents taken out. I'm not sure the former is a very quantifiable thing, and the later is clearly measurable. I've also been curious about that question in its more generic form, i.e. not just armed law enforcement but any citizen able to stop a threat.
Where/when? Australian police officers are generally armed when on duty to my knowledge.
I saw it here https://youtu.be/BBrN-ax2eJA?t=118. Looks like the cop pulls up in a car, and then officer drives off, not the same thing I realize about being unarmed. I might have confused the unarmed police with the British bobbies perhaps. I thought I heard somewhere Australian police don't carry firearms.
I stand corrected.
"Unlike some other countries under the Commonwealth such as Great Britain itself, Australian state and federal police routinely carry firearms. While on duty, most officers' duty belts consist of: a handgun, a Taser, an expandable baton, pepper spray, a set of handcuffs, ammunition magazines, gloves, torch and a two-way radio."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_Australia
It's not about disarming police officers, it's about disarming the public. We have armed police officers in Germany. The number of people they shoot per year is close to nil. They can expect no one is going to kill them and act that way.
Really.. just make it harder to get a gun license. Only hunters and security personel should be able to get one. Plus a limited license for people who shoot for sports. No one whatsoever should be able to buy automatic machine guns and the like.
That won't immediately solve the problem, but is IMO the only way to start a solution.
What you SHOULD take away from cops are the supposedly NON-LETHAL weapons. Cops use them, as if they did no harm and don't think twice about using a less problematic option.
Really.. just make it harder to get a gun license. Only hunters and security personel should be able to get one. Plus a limited license for people who shoot for sports. No one whatsoever should be able to buy automatic machine guns and the like.
That won't immediately solve the problem, but is IMO the only way to start a solution.
What you SHOULD take away from cops are the supposedly NON-LETHAL weapons. Cops use them, as if they did no harm and don't think twice about using a less problematic option.
Very few American police officers get shot. It's an imagined threat, like terrorism: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6373798.
And yes, people should be able to own at least some kinds of guns. Though, I think you could constitutionally ban handguns: the 2nd amendment exists to let the people defend the homeland against external threats and possibly the government, not for personal defense. It's automatic rifles that people should be allowed to own.
And yes, people should be able to own at least some kinds of guns. Though, I think you could constitutionally ban handguns: the 2nd amendment exists to let the people defend the homeland against external threats and possibly the government, not for personal defense. It's automatic rifles that people should be allowed to own.
Or maybe disarm the population a little so that police don't feel like they're in an arms race?
We can disarm most police by fiat: police departments do not have a Constitutional right to bear arms on the job, and could be compelled to follow a new General Order that limited their access to firearms.
We cannot disarm the population by fiat, because the Supreme Court has held that the 2nd Amendment provides an individual right to bear firearms. Changing that would require radically altering either the composition of the Supreme Court, or the text of the Constitution.
We cannot disarm the population by fiat, because the Supreme Court has held that the 2nd Amendment provides an individual right to bear firearms. Changing that would require radically altering either the composition of the Supreme Court, or the text of the Constitution.
That seems like a problem that only the US could have.
Still, less guns on both sides seems more likely to succeed than disarming only the police.
Still, less guns on both sides seems more likely to succeed than disarming only the police.
Again, the question isn't whether reducing the number of guns would improve things. I'm confident it would! I don't like guns and would support the modification of the 2nd Amendment (if modifying the Constitution weren't so dangerous).
The problem is, in the United States, you can't reduce the number of guns in civilian hands. But you can reduce the number of guns in the hands of the police. Strange, but true.
The problem is, in the United States, you can't reduce the number of guns in civilian hands. But you can reduce the number of guns in the hands of the police. Strange, but true.
Yeah, let's disarm the police officers while the criminals keep their guns. Sounds like a great plan! /s
Extreme solutions are rarely the answer. I wouldn't walk through South-side Chicago unarmed as a civilian.
Extreme solutions are rarely the answer. I wouldn't walk through South-side Chicago unarmed as a civilian.
> Extreme solutions are rarely the answer.
It's not an extreme solution. Regular policemen aren't armed in several countries: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/18....
Nothing's going to happen to you walking around the south side of Chicago unarmed. It's this kind of cowardice and paranoia that causes so many police shootings in the U.S.
It's not an extreme solution. Regular policemen aren't armed in several countries: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/02/18....
Nothing's going to happen to you walking around the south side of Chicago unarmed. It's this kind of cowardice and paranoia that causes so many police shootings in the U.S.
Well stuff almost happened to me in Fairfax County VA and Newark DE, both areas with much lower violent crime rates than South Chicago. Particularly as a white mid-upper-class male who carries a laptop in his backpack I'd be a target in South Chicago. How about you take a walk through it and find out if you're so sure?
And those countries that article lists are the definition of apples to oranges when compared to the United States. The economic, cultural, gun ownership rate and racial situations are completely, utterly different. To use the logic that something works in any of those countries, particularly Iceland, therefore it'll work in the United states if just blindly applied, is the height of ignorance.
And those countries that article lists are the definition of apples to oranges when compared to the United States. The economic, cultural, gun ownership rate and racial situations are completely, utterly different. To use the logic that something works in any of those countries, particularly Iceland, therefore it'll work in the United states if just blindly applied, is the height of ignorance.
I've walked around Chicago drunk plenty of times. There is nothing to be afraid of. I grew up in Fairfax County, and have been in Newark plenty of times and if you're worried about stuff happening to you there I don't know what to tell you. I lived in downtown Wilmington and Baltimore and never felt the need to be armed. (These days I kind of do but mainly for when Maryland decides to secede from the union.)
I'm not "worried" about stuff happening anywhere on a day-to-day, just acknowledging that stuff CAN happen anywhere, and statistically it's much more likely to happen in areas with worse crime rates. Same way I don't actively "worry" about getting in a car crash when I'm driving, but I still wear a seat-belt despite having never been in a major accident.
As has been explained to you by two different residents, you are not in fact a target in "South Chicago", which is, by the way, not the same thing as "The South Side Of Chicago", where you are also not a target.
People of a particular political persuasion who do not live in Chicago (and, probably, many people of that persuasion who do) like to believe that violence in Chicago is motivated by race or class. In fact, white dudes carrying laptop bags are not the natural adversaries of the people doing the shooting in Chicago.
I think you should stop talking about Chicago now; the examples you've provided, all of them poor, are not making your arguments more persuasive.
People of a particular political persuasion who do not live in Chicago (and, probably, many people of that persuasion who do) like to believe that violence in Chicago is motivated by race or class. In fact, white dudes carrying laptop bags are not the natural adversaries of the people doing the shooting in Chicago.
I think you should stop talking about Chicago now; the examples you've provided, all of them poor, are not making your arguments more persuasive.
So no one steals laptops/phones/wallets from vulnerable people walking through the worst parts of Chicago? As I said before, that's legitimately interesting if true. Would be nice to see some sort of motivation-based breakdown of crime, not sure if those numbers exist.
You're as likely to get mugged in Chicago as you are in any big city. You saw the bet I offered downthread. If you think I'm wrong, take it.
What I won't let you do is move the goalposts. You invoked "south Chicago" as a symbol of urban violence so great that a person like yourself couldn't function in it unarmed. That was bogus on several different levels, only a few of which we've described so far.
What I won't let you do is move the goalposts. You invoked "south Chicago" as a symbol of urban violence so great that a person like yourself couldn't function in it unarmed. That was bogus on several different levels, only a few of which we've described so far.
I'm not going to read the article, but I predict that those countries are ones with fewer guns per capita than the US. This is an easy bet to make, because the US has wayyyy more guns than any other country.
Maybe read the article? Some of the countries on the list are disarmed (UK, Ireland). Some (Iceland, Norway) have quite a lot of guns.
Ha.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_c...
Norway has 31.3 guns per capita. Iceland has 30.3. The US has 112.6.
Norway has 31.3 guns per capita. Iceland has 30.3. The US has 112.6.
Sure, that's fewer than the US, but it's still quite a lot in absolute terms. It's high enough rate where a cop would routinely encounter armed people.
"These numbers do not clarify which percentage of the population owns those guns." from the very same source. You cannot reliably draw conclusions about the likelihood of encountering an armed citizen.
Millions of people walk through the south-side of Chicago every year as unarmed civilians. The repeated invocation of south-side Chicago as a sort of synecdoche for the entire phenomenon of urban violence is both offensive and obtuse. Literally nobody on the planet cares on which public street in Chicago "scottLobster from Hacker News" walks on.
You say that, and yet I've almost been mugged twice in locations with much lower violent crime rates.
That's super fascinating. I live next to (as in, across an alley from the border of) the "highest crime" neighborhood in Chicago, and nobody has ever once pulled a gun on me.
If this map is any indication, there's a big difference between "living next to" and "walking through". I'll admit it does seem pretty contained.
http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/shootings/
I "walk through" that neighborhood many times every week. This may surprise you, but there are also plenty of white people on the south side, too.
This, by the way, is the legit Chicago shooting map:
http://heyjackass.com/
The awful truth of Chicago is that unless you're a black person aged 16-40, crime in Chicago poses very little risk to you, very much including at those times you find yourself in the highest-crime neighborhoods in the city. Which is what makes Chicago's use as a rhetorical device in conversations about violence so galling.
This, by the way, is the legit Chicago shooting map:
http://heyjackass.com/
The awful truth of Chicago is that unless you're a black person aged 16-40, crime in Chicago poses very little risk to you, very much including at those times you find yourself in the highest-crime neighborhoods in the city. Which is what makes Chicago's use as a rhetorical device in conversations about violence so galling.
Interesting. So you're saying I could, as a mid-upper-class white guy, wearing a collared shirt, khakis, leather shoes and a backpack with a laptop in it (what I wear and carry on a daily basis), walk through references heyjackass map Englewood or Austin, and on a given night have a better than 99% chance of coming out untouched?
You'd think noticeable outsiders, who dress like they have some money, carrying valuables (or at least a recognizable laptop bag) would be a target in places with essentially double the US national average crime rate. You're the local, why isn't that the case?
You'd think noticeable outsiders, who dress like they have some money, carrying valuables (or at least a recognizable laptop bag) would be a target in places with essentially double the US national average crime rate. You're the local, why isn't that the case?
I've done precisely what you are talking about many, many times. I lived near Englewood for ~12 years. I qualify by any measure as a mid-upper-class white guy. The worst treatment I got was being jeered at and called "Adam Sandler" by middle schoolers.
Further, many many people who live in those neighborhoods do it daily with hardly any criminal problems. Property crime is a thing, cars/houses do get broken into more frequently in those areas than other areas but the incidence difference is such a small difference that it is virtually indistinguishable from a human perspective than any other part of the city. Look at the numbers and see just how low the rate is even at double the average.
Person crime on the other hand is heavily targeted. Young poor black men who live in those areas are incredibly more likely to be shot than anyone else. The reasons for this are complicated (though easy access to Indiana guns mixed with gang violence describes most of it). But its not just mid-upper-class white guy tourists who don't have to worry about their personal safety that much, its also older black folks.
The gun violence problem in Chicago is very real and in need of solving. But its not because white people are in danger for wondering into the wrong neighborhood. The armed police problem is also very real and in need of solving. The CPD is literally one of the worst examples you could use as an example of appropriate use of violence as part of their jobs.
Further, many many people who live in those neighborhoods do it daily with hardly any criminal problems. Property crime is a thing, cars/houses do get broken into more frequently in those areas than other areas but the incidence difference is such a small difference that it is virtually indistinguishable from a human perspective than any other part of the city. Look at the numbers and see just how low the rate is even at double the average.
Person crime on the other hand is heavily targeted. Young poor black men who live in those areas are incredibly more likely to be shot than anyone else. The reasons for this are complicated (though easy access to Indiana guns mixed with gang violence describes most of it). But its not just mid-upper-class white guy tourists who don't have to worry about their personal safety that much, its also older black folks.
The gun violence problem in Chicago is very real and in need of solving. But its not because white people are in danger for wondering into the wrong neighborhood. The armed police problem is also very real and in need of solving. The CPD is literally one of the worst examples you could use as an example of appropriate use of violence as part of their jobs.
Well I'll admit, you and tptacek have given me something to think about. As I said though, I find it confusing that my University had a rash of random muggings over cell phones, almost a victim of one such (or similar) attack myself, and yet in a place with nearly twice the average crime rate and certainly more shootings/robberies/thefts per capita I'd apparently be relatively safe. And you guys are actually defending it, so... I don't know. Maybe crime is different in Chicago. Or maybe Englewood is fine and I'm just naming the wrong street over, that heyjackass map isn't exactly precise. Regardless, thanks for your perspective, it's something I didn't have before.
For the record I'm also not blind to some cops being murderous dicks. I just think disarming cops would ignore the root of the problem and cause at least as many issues as it solves. But that's another issue.
For the record I'm also not blind to some cops being murderous dicks. I just think disarming cops would ignore the root of the problem and cause at least as many issues as it solves. But that's another issue.
Yes. Fly to Chicago and I will bet you $10,000 to your $1 that you'll be just fine.
A word of warning: I wouldn't take this bet if I were you.
A word of warning: I wouldn't take this bet if I were you.
I'd take that bet, only cause I saw how your giant check bet ended up with `idlewords.
But, I'd bet the cost of his ammo to the cost of a nice dinner that he's more likely to be invited to a bbq than accosted in Englewood.
Further, I'd bet an even money amount that he's in more danger from the armed police in Englewood than he is from the people living there and thats knowing he's white.
But, I'd bet the cost of his ammo to the cost of a nice dinner that he's more likely to be invited to a bbq than accosted in Englewood.
Further, I'd bet an even money amount that he's in more danger from the armed police in Englewood than he is from the people living there and thats knowing he's white.
Shit. I revise my bet. Police violence does not count.
Prologue: Yes, this is basically copy-paste. It's 2 AM and I'd be saying roughly the same stuff anyway. :)
Well I'll admit, you and kasey_junk have given me something to think about. As I said though, I find it confusing that my University had a rash of random muggings over cell phones, almost a victim of one such (or similar) attack myself, and yet in a place with nearly twice the average crime rate and certainly more shootings/robberies/thefts per capita I'd apparently be relatively safe. And you guys are actually defending it, so... I don't know. Maybe crime is different in Chicago. Or maybe Englewood is fine and I'm just naming the wrong street over, that heyjackass map isn't exactly precise. Regardless, thanks for your perspective, it's something I didn't have before.
For the record I'm also not blind to some cops being murderous dicks. I just think disarming cops would ignore the root of the problem and cause at least as many issues as it solves. But that's another issue.
Well I'll admit, you and kasey_junk have given me something to think about. As I said though, I find it confusing that my University had a rash of random muggings over cell phones, almost a victim of one such (or similar) attack myself, and yet in a place with nearly twice the average crime rate and certainly more shootings/robberies/thefts per capita I'd apparently be relatively safe. And you guys are actually defending it, so... I don't know. Maybe crime is different in Chicago. Or maybe Englewood is fine and I'm just naming the wrong street over, that heyjackass map isn't exactly precise. Regardless, thanks for your perspective, it's something I didn't have before.
For the record I'm also not blind to some cops being murderous dicks. I just think disarming cops would ignore the root of the problem and cause at least as many issues as it solves. But that's another issue.
Scott: take the bet, bring $1,000, tell me where you will be, and I'll mug you. It's a win-win.
Unarmed police have been extremely effective in numerous large cities, London for example.
Lots and lots of people walk through south side chicago every day as unarmed civilians.
Given that shots are often fired in a second or less, the strobe option is a bit of a technical solution to a non-technical problem, to say the least.
As far as being comfortable with, and trained to use all the tools at their disposal (which should include better deescalation techniques): agreed.
As far as being comfortable with, and trained to use all the tools at their disposal (which should include better deescalation techniques): agreed.
In many of these police shootings, the whole interaction is over before you could finish that warning sentence.
Maybe police shouldn't be allowed to carry side-arms. Worked in London.
Yup. Sabre Red 50 grams (with UV dye) works wonders. Every sane, normal person should carry capsaicin spray on their person to non-lethally halt the majority of (usually ambush) attacks by animals, human or otherwise.
pandaman(3)
I was just about to say I can't understand why police officers in the US just kill things at the first sign of inconvenience, but then I realized I understand exactly why:
When killing something solves every problem you may have and doesn't really have any downsides for you, why wouldn't you?
When killing something solves every problem you may have and doesn't really have any downsides for you, why wouldn't you?
Here's an exact demo of the problem
Dog Attack Forces Officer To Shoot | Active Self Protection
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJrcvFivaKI
I don't think police get pleasure from doing this sort of thing, they're amped up and trying to defend life in the end.
I don't think police get pleasure from doing this sort of thing, they're amped up and trying to defend life in the end.
How many police officers get killed by dog attacks? Why is it that only US officers' life is threatened by dogs, and officers in other countries don't have to kill dogs (or people) to do their job?
I'm not sure the threat of death is the appropriate threshold here. Even maiming and permanently injuring is plenty of justification relative to the life of a dog I'd imagine would be the reasoning.
Can't speak for other countries, but of the 12002 total weapon discharges by German police in 2015, 11901 were against "animals or inanimate objects".
Just for completeness: 101 were directed at people (half of those being warning shots and only 40 actually hitting people).
http://schusswaffeneinsatz.de/Statistiken_files/Statistiken....
Just for completeness: 101 were directed at people (half of those being warning shots and only 40 actually hitting people).
http://schusswaffeneinsatz.de/Statistiken_files/Statistiken....
You'd think the downside would be living with the knowledge you killed someone's beloved pet. Cops are people too.
>Cops are people too
The motivation to go home unharmed every night and retire with a pension probably trumps abstract moral considerations
The motivation to go home unharmed every night and retire with a pension probably trumps abstract moral considerations
I was thinking of a video where the SWAT guys got the wrong apartment. It's from a team-member's lapel cam.
Near the end of it, they have the whole family (mom, dad, and two little kids) in the living room while they're searching the place.
The dad is zip-tied, face down on the floor and starts crying out loud when he finds out they shot the family dog.
You'd have to be pretty hard core not to have some regret.
Near the end of it, they have the whole family (mom, dad, and two little kids) in the living room while they're searching the place.
The dad is zip-tied, face down on the floor and starts crying out loud when he finds out they shot the family dog.
You'd have to be pretty hard core not to have some regret.
I don't know the specific video you're talking about, but these kinds of raids point to an overarching problem with the police in the US, and that's the need for aggressive raids of homes, usually of the "no-knock" variety. The reason why police have the need to "no-knock" raid homes is that the crime is drug possession, and the drugs could be flushed or disposed of if there were a lengthy negotiation process to safely get everyone out of the house. Every dog killed in these raids is collateral damage from our idiotic war on drugs.
Courts have generally held that no-knock warrants are legal only in cases where critical evidence is at risk of immediate destruction if police announce normally (e.g. drugs down a toilet, bookies writing on flashpaper).
Exactly my point. (And it's overwhelmingly drugs, not bookies.)
It's a bad trade off as a society for us to make police work more dangerous for the public and the officers in order to criminalize possession of certain plants.
It's a bad trade off as a society for us to make police work more dangerous for the public and the officers in order to criminalize possession of certain plants.
In this case his motivation was to avoid a few splinters jumping back over the fence.
When exactly did this become the entirety of a cop's job description?
Lots of people in all sorts of awful companies/government positions normalize what they contribute to every day. And they go home and sleep fine.
I'm sure there are dozens of people reading and agreeing with your comment right now and many go to work everyday for companies that have a negative effect on society. Yet, they won't see in that way. They have a job and it's all about "looking out for number one."
I'm sure there are dozens of people reading and agreeing with your comment right now and many go to work everyday for companies that have a negative effect on society. Yet, they won't see in that way. They have a job and it's all about "looking out for number one."
It seems to me there's quite a bit of selection bias there. The cops killing pets are the ones who don't care if they kill a pet. The whole point is that the system needs to be set up in such a way that even the ones who'd kill a dog for nothing don't get to.
This seems like a small price to pay.
This bothers me. One of my dogs (Australian Cattle Dog) is very protective of her home. Although she behaves very well at others' homes, in public and in cars, once at home she will attempt to "heel" strangers away from the house. She can appear very intimidating.
I could easily see a police officer shooting her. The thing is, I like that my dog is protective of her home. It's really comforting to know that if, by chance, I forget to lock my door she will absolutely not allow a stranger to enter.
I could easily see a police officer shooting her. The thing is, I like that my dog is protective of her home. It's really comforting to know that if, by chance, I forget to lock my door she will absolutely not allow a stranger to enter.
I could easily see a police officer shooting her. The thing is, I like that my dog is protective of her home.
If you choose to encourage your dog to use violence to protect your home, IMO any consequences are on you. Would it be any different, if you shot an intruder without following the rules of engagement?
If you choose to encourage your dog to use violence to protect your home, IMO any consequences are on you. Would it be any different, if you shot an intruder without following the rules of engagement?
I think you don't understand what "heeling" is. It's not "violent".
Furthermore, dogs (at least mine) do indeed have rules of engagement. They attempt to identify who is entering their home, assess their body language and "vibes" and then make a decision as to what needs to be done.
I trust my dogs. Having them around greatly reduces the likeliness of me ever having to resort to real violence (you know, where death is involved).
Furthermore, dogs (at least mine) do indeed have rules of engagement. They attempt to identify who is entering their home, assess their body language and "vibes" and then make a decision as to what needs to be done.
I trust my dogs. Having them around greatly reduces the likeliness of me ever having to resort to real violence (you know, where death is involved).
I've already warned my family to not, under any circumstances, allow the police to enter our home or yard (without a warrant) while the dogs are there, because there's a good chance that our dogs will end up dead.
Even if the officer is there to discuss a robbery, do not allow him in unless the dogs are secured outside the house.
Even if the officer is there to discuss a robbery, do not allow him in unless the dogs are secured outside the house.
It is really an extension of the "Don't talk to cops" rule[1].
I wish I lived in a world where I trusted the police.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
I wish I lived in a world where I trusted the police.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
You live in a world where you can trust police, however you're not in the right country. In most western european countries, the police is actually very reasonable. There are bad apples, for sure, but it's the exception, not the rule.
>There are bad apples
People say this about the police frequently, but seemingly just as frequently forget the tail end of the saying!
This confuses me because it is used in defense of the police. With the full expression in mind, the saying perfectly describes the situation we are in (in America) today. We should be very concerned about the "bad apples", due to the strength of police unions, friendships with DA's, the "Thin Blue Line" etc.
People say this about the police frequently, but seemingly just as frequently forget the tail end of the saying!
This confuses me because it is used in defense of the police. With the full expression in mind, the saying perfectly describes the situation we are in (in America) today. We should be very concerned about the "bad apples", due to the strength of police unions, friendships with DA's, the "Thin Blue Line" etc.
You (and the other commenter) are right, of course; I do know that. I was using that as a turn of phrase in a context where it was inappropriate. When I visit friends and family in Europe, I'm very aware of the stark difference.
You can't trust and should never talk to the police in the US. I think it's a "western country".
This seems to only be a problem in the US. It's definitely not a problem in Canada or Europe. It seems like it's becoming more and more clear that America is on a very different and worse path compared to other developed Western countries.
It's not a problem in Australia/NZ either.
Was the officer in the article invited into the backyard? When police jump the fence I'm not sure stopping at the front door helps.
Internal affairs will take an officer's word over that of a bystander in a homicide. Why would they do anything different when a dog dies?
Policing in the US operates under a ridiculous warrior ethos. It should be seriously reformed.
The Nation has noted a Department of Justice estimate of
10,000 dogs per year killed by police.
From the article:
"Last year, Reason dug up records showing that two Detroit police officers had killed 100 dogs between them over the course of their careers."
If you were to consider your pets as just property, that's going to amount to quite a lot of property damage alone.
"Last year, Reason dug up records showing that two Detroit police officers had killed 100 dogs between them over the course of their careers."
If you were to consider your pets as just property, that's going to amount to quite a lot of property damage alone.
Detroit has thousands of dogs roaming the city, in packs.
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2014/10/detroits...
They kill other dogs, attack people, they are a huge nuisance.
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2014/10/detroits...
They kill other dogs, attack people, they are a huge nuisance.
See also: https://puppycidedb.com/
Or if you just want tales of stupidity, Reason has a nice collection http://reason.com/tags/puppycide (if you don't mind the typical Reason editorial positions, and the tone of its coverage). Sample: "Cops Open Gate, Letting Dog Loose, Kill Dog, Cite Owner for Having Dog Loose, Lawsuit Alleges"
Or if you just want tales of stupidity, Reason has a nice collection http://reason.com/tags/puppycide (if you don't mind the typical Reason editorial positions, and the tone of its coverage). Sample: "Cops Open Gate, Letting Dog Loose, Kill Dog, Cite Owner for Having Dog Loose, Lawsuit Alleges"
No explanation of why the police went over the fence into the yard 20 minutes after the security company had already turned off the alarm and it was known the child activated it accidentally.
This makes me really sad because those dogs probably have have no idea what happened. They saw a person new to them, heard a loud noise and suddenly their face is in excruciating pain and they don't understand why.
[deleted]
Another way tech could help would be putting biometric scanners on cops. If they freak out during medium-level exercises ( lets say a mock-dog attack ), maybe they are not beat cops! Officers should be expected to keep calm, in a sense, their job is delivering calm to situations: de-escalating.
How about not giving cops guns in the first place? It works in plenty of other countries. Of course, you still have armed police and SWAT teams available for more serious situations. I think short of this, nothing will solve any of the police shooting problems here in the states.
The best part is, attacking a police dog is treated as the equivalent of attacking a human police officer.
This actually isn't true. It is a federal offense to attack a police dog but it doesn't come with nearly the same level of penalty as attacking a human.
As a side note, in the confusion of an arrest, it's easy for a suspect to not realize how much the situation has escalated, and for a police officer to repeatedly give conflicting orders to a suspect, both of which result in a needless death.
Here's an idea: Police should have a loud speaker and strobe light on their uniform that trigger when they unholster their firearm. The speaker should repeat over and over until they re-holster their weapon:
"SIREN BLARE A POLICE OFFICER HAS DRAWN THEIR WEAPON. REMAIN STILL UNTIL FURTHER ORDERS OR YOU WILL BE SHOT."
The strobe light should trigger constantly to let the deaf know an officer has drawn their weapon.
There's two reasons for this:
1. It should make it clear to a suspect that they are dangerously close to being shot, and should very quickly change their behavior
2. An officer should not be allowed to give orders to a surrendering and motionless suspect as long as they have their weapon unholstered.
If they wish to give commands to the suspect, they should re-holster their firearm and possibly switch to a less lethal device if the situation calls for it.