QuakerInfo.com Forum

[james]

A good, competent and compassionate cop is a blessing almost beyond comparison. We should have many more of them.

And one good reason for "shooting to kill" (or more accurately, perhaps, "shooting to stop, immediately") that hasn't been mentioned, is protecting the life of the police officer. A person we have asked to protect us from violent people damned well better have the right to protect himself as well.

That said, many cops, particularly in big cities, are not so good. Far too many are drawn to police work for all the wrong reasons: they like the idea of carrying a gun and intimidating people, and they have a dislike/disrespect for the people they work with most frequently (petty criminals). With the best cops, you can see a compassionate touch in the way they deal with drunks, with loud-mouthed punk kids. The crooks aren't their enemies, but their work.

Anyway, bless the good ones. Straighten out the bad ones, or fire them. And recruit them for compassion as much as physical courage and ability.

[Pulpculture]

Regarding the decision to shoot to kill someone you have to understand the decision making process. When the offender is immediately threatening someones life then their life is taken. Let me give you an example where the public may assume shoot to wound would be acceptable (and it isn't!)

A person is weilding a large sword in the street. The person is contained in a garden. There is no immediate threat to anyone the man will be engaged in discussion by the police. At this point the police will not shoot to disable the man. Every means possible will be taken to get the man to give up. If the man then leaves the garden and walks towards officers or the public then at the point he becomes a danger he will be shot.

What I am trying to get across is that police firearms are only used as a last resort. They are only there to take lives.
_________________
.


I said don't forget Burma!

[Anthony]

Hi Shay,

I am still not convinced that the deaths of those shot by police in the UK in the last few years couldn't have been avoided.

[Shay]

I don't think there is an official Quaker stance on this issue. Much like every other issue out there. Nice thing about Quakers- there's no one way for everyone.

Quakers have participated in gun control marches, but the methodology of the Society means they probably did so following their own leadings, not an official stance. I know Friends in the NRA as well.

[james]

Clearly situations occur where police respond too quickly with deadly force, and police departments need policies and training that make unnecessary shootings less common.

But I think the "pepper spray" response is potentially very risky to the police officer when someone is wielding a sword and refusing to put it down. Say you spray him, or hit him with a taser, and he rushes at you blinded and madly swinging. (Tasers don't always take suspects down.) How much time, then, do you have to determine the first approach didn't work and you need to try something stronger? Perhaps only a couple seconds. Perhaps by that point it's too late to get out a gun and you take a slash across the face with the sword. Is that the way it should work?

[Shay]

There's things besides pepper spray, like tear gas or tasers, or other options that aren't as useful when an officer needs to worry about projectiles. In that case, the man was in a garden, so he's at least partially contained.

I'm pointing out that someone laying about with a sword in today's cities is more likely to be mentally challenged in some capacity, whether by ingested chemistry or their own, so some leniency is to be looked for in response.

[james]

I feel rather cranky and contrary here, despite my agreement that not enough is done to avoid unnecessary shootings. But the fact that the person making threats might be mentally ill, while certainly cause for compassion, does not mean the police need to be any less cautious. In fact, mental illness is likely to add dangerous unpredictability to the situation.

There was a terribly sad event a few years ago in Minneapolis, my home town, where an erratic, mentally ill person waving a machete and a crowbar was shot to death by police, after a taser and ten to fifteen minutes of negotiation/threats failed to stop him. As the man was Somalian, much of the community (including many of my fellow Quakers) raised issues of racism. Maybe so--race may well have been an element. It's also quite possible that the man could have been stopped short of a fatal bullet to the chest.

Possible, but far from certain. The police had to make a difficult call in a very volatile, quick-moving situation, and presumably they valued the safety of the man with the machete far lower than their own safety, and that of others on the street. I acknowledge there may have been some bad mistakes here, and safer ways to end the event without any deaths. Not having been there, though, it's hard for me to know. And I tend to agree that the safety of officers and bystanders were properly given the first priority.

Here is one account of the event:

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200203/21_olsond_somalismeet/

[Shay]

[james]

Another account of the event in Minneapolis, as reported by the chief of police:

[Pulpculture]

[CelticNorth]

Most humans, when placed under extreme life and death situations, will often over react, have distorted perceptions or display irrational fear. Innocent people will get shot, and police review boards will nearly always decide the merits of the shooting from the viewpoint of the officer firing the gun. I'm of the oppinion that no amount of training will ever overcome the inevitable shooting of an innocent, but we can demand that all shootings be held accountable to a standard that is mutually understood in the courts and community. The last thing law enforcement officers ever want to do is to use their weapons in a deadly confrontation, but we do have communities and neighborhoods in the United States were gun fire is rampant by street gangs, drug dealers and in certain domestic distrubances. Motor vehicle stops are legendary for violent reactions against police. We empower law enforcement to use deadly force for good reason, as well a citizen in similar circumstances. All we can hope for is to monitor use of deadly force cases with due diligence, and to demand that all efforts be made to preserve human life as the first priority and ensure that police training programs reflect this.

[Anthony]

[Taogypsy]

For me the issue here is death....... guns are death for the user and the one whom they are used against.

How do we look at death? It may take more than one unarmed person to remove a weapon from a killer, and some of the unarmed might be wounded and killed. But it can be done. A message sent. But few of us are prepared to die........... for anything.

We approach war and armed conflict with the same arrogance that the young drink and drive, that we are capable of coming out of this alive. We are in the hands of ....... what, the best country, the best God? So we will be right, we will survive.

If you use guns to fight guns, then we are the same. We don't have guns to NOT use them. But few of use are willing to die, because most of us don't believe that there is anything after death. Otherwise we would be throwing ourselves, bare handed, against the weapon carrying undesirable.

So we justify the carrying of guns with all the reasons that I see posted above, because rather than die............ we prefer to kill. So who is different?

It is best we stop fooling ourselves.

Be well,
Charlie
_________________
If you think you understand a thing,
Your mind has ceased to function,
To make it work again, try to see it from the side of misunderstanding.
-- anon

[Anthony]

[Taogypsy]