Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"In terms of scissors would taser not have been more appropriate rather than straight to firearms."
And your years of being a policeman are what?
"A man accused of stabbing his former girlfriend to death with scissors, killing her dog and setting her apartment on fire has been charged with murder"
In Europe and other parts of the world the amount of force used must be reasonable and proportionate and the degree of force used must be the minimum required in the circumstances to achieve the lawful objective, otherwise, it is likely that the use of force will be excessive and unlawful.
In this case other options were available, and not only would this be seen as excessive force in many countries it would also not adhere to Article 2 'The Right to Life' of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Even from a US point of view, the video below posted by somebodyfromnc raises some interesting points in relation to the shooting being absolutely necessary and a last resort.
Quote:
Originally Posted by somebodyfromnc
I largely agree with the analysis of Rick from 'Think Like a Cop'.
Sad situation. Too bad for everyone, especially the woman, that she did not just comply with the LEO. I do not see anything in tis video that tells me that officer was not justified. Less than a second later, that woman could have already stabbed him with the scissors.
In this case other options were available, and not only would this be seen as excessive force in many countries it would also not adhere to Article 2 'The Right to Life' of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Even from a US point of view, the video below posted by somebodyfromnc raises some interesting points.
White woman (possible mentally ill) and Black cop.
In terms of scissors would taser not have been more appropriate rather than straight to firearms.
When you're the police officer you can make that call whether you want to allow people to stab you with scissors. Good shot legally and that police officers call to make. Someone people who make a different one in that situation.
Yes. I tend to give the police officer the benefit of the doubt in almost all of these situations. They are the ones risking their lives, and the suspects are the ones putting their lives at risk. Period.
So if anything bad happens to the suspect, I figure it is their own doing, and their own demise.
I am not happy about their death, but I’m not terribly upset about it either.
Case-by-case basis for me, especially having worked with them. Not all cops are created equal. There are amazing cops out here but then some really should have never made it on the force.
As far as the highly-publicized cases, I’m probably down the middle. Half in support of the cop and half in support of the suspects.
The other options were defusing the situation, backing off. waiting for back-up and the use of non lethal force against a relatively small middle aged woman with a pair of scissors.
This woman would not have been killed in Europe or in other parts of the world without first trying to exhaust other options.
This would have been excessive for, and not absolutely necessary as laid out in Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
When you're the police officer you can make that call whether you want to allow people to stab you with scissors. Good shot legally and that police officers call to make. Someone people who make a different one in that situation.
The police have plenty of options in relation to none lethals as well as protective clothing.
As already pointed out, this would not have been legal in many countries outside of the US, as it was clearly not exhasting other options in the crcumstances and was not therefore absolutely necessary.
However this shows the difference between the US Police and their threshold for a justified killing and that of other nations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Conversation
In the US, the only truly national deadly force behavioral mandates are set by the Supreme Court, which in 1989 deemed it constitutionally permissible for police to use deadly force when they “reasonably” perceive imminent and grave harm. State laws regulating deadly force – in the 38 states where they exist – are almost always as permissive as Supreme Court precedent allows, or more so.
By contrast, national standards in most European countries conform to the European Convention on Human Rights, which impels its 47 signatories to permit only deadly force that is “absolutely necessary” to achieve a lawful purpose. Killings excused under America’s “reasonable belief” standards often violate Europe’s “absolute necessity” standards.
For example, the unfounded fear of Darren Wilson – the former Ferguson cop who fatally shot Michael Brown – that Brown was armed would not have likely absolved him in Europe. Nor would officers’ fears of the screwdriver that a mentally ill Dallas man Jason Harrison refused to drop.
In Europe, killing is considered unnecessary if alternatives exist. For example, national guidelines in Spain would have prescribed that Wilson incrementally pursue verbal warnings, warning shots, and shots at nonvital parts of the body before resorting to deadly force. Six shots would likely be deemed disproportionate to the threat that Brown, unarmed and wounded, allegedly posed.
In the US, only eight states require verbal warnings (when possible), while warning and leg shots are typically prohibited. In stark contrast, Finland and Norway require that police obtain permission from a superior officer, whenever possible, before shooting anyone. Not only do centralized standards in Europe make it easier to restrict police behavior, but centralized training centers efficiently teach police officers how to avoid using deadly weapons.
The police have plenty of options in relation to none lethals as well as protective clothing.
As already pointed out, this would not have been legal in many countries outside of the US.
They do. This occurred in the US. In other countries the police are basically crisis counselors and punching bags. If they can't verbally deescalate the situation then they can get stabbed with the scissors at which point using a higher level of force would become warranted, such as grabbing the scissors. That's not how things work here though. Maybe it's how you want them to work, which is fine. Free speech and all that. Until then, however, good shoot. Keep in mind that you're in American and don't try and stab the police with scissors. You're likely to get shot if you do.
Soooo when do the mass protests start for this racist killing???? Why haven't I seen this on the national news??
Were there mass protests when a white cop shot a black person in his own home for watching tv a few weeks ago in Texas?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
