Of course, it would be ideal to have a comprehensive database of police shootings so that one could fully assess how many there are, what conditions they occur, if anything that can be learned to potentially avoid unjustified ones. But the fact that there isn't such a database shouldn't stop people from using the next best things. The wikipedia charts of shootings by month seemingly go back to 2009. Even though they are apparently incomplete, they at least give some heft to getting a sense of how many shootings might be justified. Based on the descriptions and looking at a couple months, if we assume for discussion's sake they are representative and the descriptions are in the same ballpark as accurate, I would say that likely over 60 percent of killings are likely justified.
How can you say they are justified when police in other countries can and do incapacitate and take down criminals without shooting them? Problematic? It's horrific.
No, because it's not binary and we don't know the details. Arguably, 100 percent could be unjustified and the cops are lying and covering up all of them. Arguably, they could be 100 percent justified and the details behind the couple that I might say look sketchy actually justified under the law. What I am saying is from a superficial analysis, if the basic facts as conveyed in these articles are remotely true, most of these shootings would appear to be reasonable and therefore justified. If a scenario involves a person being shot at or threatened with a knife, then a cop isgenerally justified in shooting. That is what is described in most of these pages, again and again. Yes, even if only 1 shooting is unjustified, that's too high and there should be steps done to avoid such shootings. I have laid out extensively some of what I think should be done elsewhere. Heck, even if 100 percent of the shootings are justified, ir would be better to explorer ways to avoid having officers shoot people. Most of those aren't going to be done at the individual training level and involve systemic changes to health care, mental health care, homelessness and elsewhere that we are so far unwilling to make. My issue is that it seems like people generally act like most police shootings are unjustified, or equivalent. That's why I earlier asked you for examples of when police shoot not as a last resort. Because it seems to me that any cop would know how serious shooting someone is and that they will have to answer for their decision. In the few pages from Wiki that I looked at again superficially, I don't see many examples where it was clear that the cops had a ton of other options than what they did.
First, you are operating on an assumption that is probably false. The situation is likely not that cops are taking down criminals without shooting them while facing the same sort of situations that American cops shoot people. The situation is far more likely that other nations' cops don't find themselves in situations in which American (or any) cops shoot nearly as often, and therefore they shoot less. We have way more guns and crime in the U.S. than any other first-world country. It follows that the cops here would be more likely to face situations where someone threatens to kill them or someone else, and thus have justification to shoot. But second, even accepting the premise as true that the cops from other nations experience the same sorts of situations as U.S. cops with the same frequency and manage through superior training, tactics, luck or whatever to make arrests without shooting, that would not mean that shooting someone in a given situation is unjustified. The question of whether a shooting is justified depends on a given circumstances, and even if other means hypothetically could be used to achieve the goal, that wouldn't make a shooting unjustified by the legal standard. The legal question is a fairly straightforward one: Did the cop reasonably think that someone posed a threat to kill or seriously hurt someone before the cop shot? If yes, the shooting is justified even if he could have taken other steps first. If no, then it's not justified.
You literally said you "always" thought that the reason why cops don't shoot to hit arms/legs is because they don't want to be sued. My pointing out that is not very logical since they get sued anyway is a direct response to your post. As is pointing out the real reason why cops don't get trained to shoot to hit arms/legs.
It depends in the context. A cop might call any non-cop a civilian to distinguish from members of their own paramilitary organization. A gangster might call either non-gangsters or at least people who don't get directly involved with the gang civilians, if the Sopranos is any guide.
The entire conversation before my post was about being easier to hit center mass and more difficult to shoot an arm or let. My statement was countering that argument. It was not an invitation for every tom, dick, and harry to mansplain the previous 5 pages of the thread. But, if it helps you hone your court skills as a lawyer, then you go boy.
yeah, looks like you have to search individual countries... a quick look suggests about 100 cops have died at the hands of suspects since 1975 here in Canada (CBC) or 133 between 1961 and 2010 (statsCan). but going back to the point of cops killing citizens, it is kind of disturbing that per capita you have nearly 4x the rate of police killing people. It's also been my personal experience that cops will claim to presume anything (or sometimes nothing) in a person's hand "looked like" a weapon. (Also that they can claim x ray vision in court, but that's another story)
Shooting a suspect and calling it "justified" makes for great television. But, in reality, it's horrific and highlights why friendly aliens will never visit this planet. We will be conquered by the bad aliens.
I almost laughed at "paramilitary organization," but then I realized you meant police forces rather than the Proud Bois or some other white supremacist group with cops among their members.
You're telling me that if you saw one person shoot another person, you would not attempt to stop the shooter? Question to both UA and Paladin.
Conceivably, lunging at him and trying to grab his weapon could be considered a threat. If someone did that to a cop, there is a good chance they'll get shot too. at least that's probably what the defense is going to argue.
Rittenhouse isn't a cop. He was the perpetrator EVERYONE was trying to stop. Rittenhouse was the threat.
It's on video: Rosenbaum is chasing after Rittenhouse. A credible witness states that Rosrnbaum tried to grab Rittenhouse's gun. The facts indicate Rosenbaum was the aggressor.
You'll have to remind me which victim was Rosenbaum - the first, the second, or the third victim? First guy - no one knows. Second and third guy - shots were fired, guy with a gun in running away, they were trying to stop him.
The video shows a man with a gun is running away from a group. We all know why. Rittenhouse killed one person Ran away Citizens attempted to impede his escape Victims 2 and 3 were not aggressors.
