Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 23 Sep '10 02:06
    http://www.ocregister.com/news/police-267559-supporters-killed.html

    (Comments)

    ....

    (by) grunt41

    11:54 AM on September 22, 2010

    ...

    Force Science Institute (http://www.forcescience.org/) has had many articles, based on interviews and research, that have shown that officers, in the main, are more hesitant than they should be in using their firearms for fear of possible prosecutions and civil suits, which has lead to many an officer getting killed, maimed, or injured.

    That is more common than the trigger happy, cowboy, itching to get a notch in their weapon that you seem to think are patrolling our streets.
  2. 23 Sep '10 03:05
    forcescience's articles are in bitmapped PDF so i can't clip them, but i can google them:


    http://www.supremejustice.net/Government2/policeshooting.htm

    ....

    Immediate vs. Imminent Threat

    Attorneys and activists often assert that cops shoot first and ask questions later. Dr. Lewinski demonstrated that officers must take preemptive action in order to adequately defend their lives. If they wait until they actually see a suspect's gun pointing at them, it's too late. Exhibiting outtakes from scores of studies he has done on action vs. reaction and the lag time between the two, Dr. Lewinski drew sobered responses even from veteran firearms trainers in the crowd. Time- coded video of a slightly built woman who had never before handled a handgun revealed that she could draw from her waistband and fire faster than the average officer could react from a wide variety of 'ready' positions. Only .07 seconds elapsed from the time her gun was visible until she shot. Reacting officers were not able to beat her when they had to draw (average time 1.5 seconds) or even when their weapons were out in a low- ready position, a close-ready, a belt tuck, a 'Hollywood high guard,' a behind-the- leg 'bootleg' position or 'freed up' in an unsnapped holster. Indeed, trained officers are even slower responding from a bootleg position or with a holster unsnapped than in drawing a holstered weapon. In some positions, the lag time was mere fractions of a second.

    But if you think this is a mouse turd in the real world, you're wrong, Dr. Lewinski stated. From most positions, especially if an officer has to visually confirm a threat, you'll have a round coming at you before you can react. Just one second equals four rounds from a Glock. Still, he recently encountered an opposing expert witness, a lieutenant from a major department, who swore in court that his officers were held to the standard of not shooting until they see a gun pointed at them. In other words, they must face a clear, present and immediate deadly threat or shooting is not justified by department policy. More realistic is what Dr. Lewinski calls the imminent threat standard. This involves an officer's reasonable belief that a potential threat is beginning to unfold that may culminate in his being placed in lethal jeopardy. This would include shooting on the basis of furtive movements. Laws in most states accept the imminent threat standard, Lewinski said. But as evidenced by the lieutenant's testimony, some departments choose (unrealistically) to set their standards higher than state law.

    ...
  3. 23 Sep '10 13:50 / 1 edit
    the never-ending dilemma:

    A. the threat of a big lawsuit is one of the main things that will motivate an otherwise sloppy or reckless person to take responsibility and act in a way that doesn't endanger others.

    B. the threat of a big lawsuit is one of the main things that will make an otherwise responsible person become so obsessed with making a mistake that they're no longer able to do their job effectively.

    one side of the issue keeps raising scenario A -- the other side keeps raising scenario B.

    do you have any proposals for addressing BOTH of these problems simultaneously so that we can resolve this dilemma that will make both sides happy? Or is this debate about lawsuits going to a permanent Sisyphean aspect of the political landscape?
  4. 23 Sep '10 16:37
    i don't think you're getting the picture.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armchair_General

    Armchair General Magazine covers first and foremost military history but defines itself by putting the emphasis on involving the reader and features tactical situations which can be resolved by sending solutions to the magazine's staff. Modern war is also discussed in the form of "dispatches" (news briefs), movie, video game and war game reviews.

    ....

    In June 2005, the Chicago Tribune ranked Armchair General Magazine at number 25 in their list of "Best 50 Magazines".
  5. 23 Sep '10 16:44 / 2 edits
    your OP and the article it involves was an example of promoting the problems posed in my scenario B. I'm not saying that scenario B isn't a valid concern.

    But you also need to address scenario A -- if we eliminate the prospect of civil suits for law enforcement officers, how do we ensure that people who are injured due to recklessness and incompetence by these officers are justly compensated for their injuries?
  6. 23 Sep '10 22:32
    it's like winning the lottery only in reverse. look at Mehersle. even Grant's FRIEND said Mehersle stated he was going to taze Grant. wasn't enough for no1m et al to believe it. multiple instances of cops pulling guns instead of tazers, including one expert witness who happened to do so himself, wasn't enough.
  7. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    24 Sep '10 01:45
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    i don't think you're getting the picture.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armchair_General

    Armchair General Magazine covers first and foremost military history but defines itself by putting the emphasis on involving the reader and features tactical situations which can be resolved by sending solutions to the magazine's staff. Modern war is also discusse ...[text shortened]... ibune ranked Armchair General Magazine at number 25 in their list of "Best 50 Magazines".
    Punks banned me for life
  8. 24 Sep '10 01:46
    what'd you do to get a lifetime ban?
  9. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    24 Sep '10 01:49
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    what'd you do to get a lifetime ban?
    Heated discussion about abortion in which the admins got personally, emotionally invested. I mouthed off and they banned me. Basically, they abused their position as admins and I was highly obnoxious and aggressive with my posts.

    http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85684&page=7
  10. 24 Sep '10 19:13 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Heated discussion about abortion in which the admins got personally, emotionally invested. I mouthed off and they banned me. Basically, they abused their position as admins and I was highly obnoxious and aggressive with my posts.

    http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85684&page=7
    lessons to be learned:

    1. avoid heated arguments with forum administrators about anything, especially something like abortion.
    2. avoid debating anyone whose style of posting is:

    .......................to put all his posts.................
    ......................into this extremely..................
    ...................imposing format where..............
    ..............everything is centered like this........
    ..................making it seem like his...............
    ...........................most excellent..................
    ...............arguments are totally beyond.........
    .............anyone's right to question them........
  11. 24 Sep '10 22:35
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Heated discussion about abortion in which the admins got personally, emotionally invested. I mouthed off and they banned me. Basically, they abused their position as admins and I was highly obnoxious and aggressive with my posts.

    http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85684&page=7
    aren't you lucky the RHP mods are so lax?