Don't run with scissors

[bhodi]

Which actions? Right now, every death that might have been prevented with the use of an alternative non-lethal weapon hurts society. It hurts in terms of "bad press", increased animosity towards police, and you have to consider the psychological effects -- dead men tell no tales, especially of police brutality and/or mistakes, which encourages bad or risky behavior. That's not even considering family, friends, and the victim's future benefit on society. I'm not sure even an extremely cynical person is willing to say that most people who get shot by police are better off that way.

As I said above, because non-lethal methods aren't totally effective, the default is to use lethal force whenever an officer is threatened. I'd much rather give officers a completely safe and effective means of temporary control.

[Paelos]

Which actions? Right now, every death that might have been prevented with the use of an alternative non-lethal weapon hurts society. As I said above, because non-lethal methods aren't totally effective, the default is to use lethal force whenever an officer is threatened.

You do realize you're arguing "future technology" as a reason for society's failings? Who the hell cares? We operate with the tools we have, and that doesn't hurt society at all. HINDSIGHT hurts society in the historical sense. My point was that a cop shot someone who wouldn't respond to normal stimuli. This hurts us how?

EDIT: Ah, you revised, well then...

[voodoolily]

Crazies wielding weapons have no place in society. Who cares if there's one less human? Seriously, why does this always turn into a morality debate?

[Paelos]

Crazies wielding weapons have no place in society. Who cares if there's one less human? Seriously, why does this always turn into a morality debate?

It's not trying to, i'm just trying to force the moralists out of their comfort zones. They want to believe every life is special and doesn't deserve to be ended, when in fact they are the ones trying to decide how long a life should last.

[bhodi]

See my post above; I explained how it hurts -- yes, we operate with the tools we have and because of that we are willing to side on the extreme side of safety of the people in blue by authorizing lethal force any time an officer's life is conceivably threatened (a good example of this would be a child getting shot by drawing a toy gun on a cop). I'm suggesting future technology at the very least would mitigate "mistakes" such as that. Considering the public outrage that caused, a LOT of people cared.

Yeah, I edited for some specific examples off the top of my head. You think I'm a moralist? I just don't want to be on the receiving end of one of those mistakes. My friends wonder why I have a healthy fear of police and our court system, and I wonder how they couldn't. There are mistakes and miscarriages of justice made every step of the way.

Edited for some less personal-attackishness :) (whoops you already quoted, oh well)

[Paelos]

See my post above; I explained how it hurts -- yes, we operate with the tools we have because we are willing to side on the extreme side of safety of the people in blue by authorizing lethal force any time an officer's life is conceivably threatened (a good example of this would be a child getting shot by drawing a toy gun on a cop). I'm suggesting future technology at the very least would mitigate "mistakes" such as that. Considering the public outrage that caused, a LOT of people cared.

Yeah, I edited for some clarity. You think I'm a moralist? That's a laugh.

I don't think you're a moralist, but you know that so forget it. You brought it up as a laugh. What I wonder is what we know as a grouping. You're arguing that we SHOULD be able to stop something in the face of tragedy. It's simple and meaningless. It's the hindsight of any unpopular war, it's the question of an abortion of a great leader, it's a talking point in a freaking speech. My point is we're taking a small situation and making it larger than it is.

My point is simply this. Was an insane person who willingly charged armed men in uniform an adequate reason to assume we need drastic changes in the way society operates?

[bhodi]

It's not a drastic change, and what change it would be makes it closer to the intended mission. The goal of police has always been to keep the peace and enforce the laws of the land. It does not include killing people; lives taken are deemed regrettable but necessary to guarantee the safety of the officer. They are the enforcement arm of the law, and killing in the line of duty and thus making them judge, jury and executioner goes contrary to our entire system of law.

[Paelos]

It's not a drastic change, and what change it would be makes it closer to the intended mission. The goal of police has always been to keep the peace and enforce the laws of the land. It does not include killing people; lives taken are deemed regrettable but necessary to guarantee the safety of the officer. They are the enforcement arm of the law, and killing in the line of duty and thus making them judge, jury and executioner goes contrary to our entire system of law.

It's a nice point and it even makes sense, but it seems rehearsed. Keeping the peace is easy when you're holding all the cards, so to speak. Regrettable but necessary is a term used by those who agree but want to seem distant of the simple vulgarities. I'd like to get to the nitty gritty of what you think. I'd like to know when we should spill blood to keep the peace. Make all the nice technological advances you want, but that won't stop the nutballs from coming at you with bells on.

[voodoolily]

I'm suggesting future technology at the very least would mitigate "mistakes" such as that.

Like Gattaga? God I fucking hope so. Weed that shit out of the fucking genome.

[bhodi]

I'd like enough technological advances so that if I'm ever on the receiving end of 'judicious use of force' it involves me waking up the next morning. With any current interaction with police there is always the risk of deadly force, unleashed with only a single officer's snap judgment and fully backed by the law of the land. Mistakes happen. I don't want to ever be a mistake. If a mistake happens, I at least want it to be one I can live through.

When should we spill blood to keep the peace? Never. Not only is that a terrible phrase and a leading question, but it also implies spilling blood actually keeps the peace. A better question would be "When do we put the lives of suspects before the lives of officers?" The answer to that, for me, is never as well. It's an imperfect world, and the simple fact is that officers lives come first. It sucks, but it's the only way the system could possibly work. If we started putting lives of suspects before lives of officers, pretty soon there wouldn't be any officers left and thus no one to keep the peace.

[Calantus]

This is a devil's advocate question, and a completely unhumane one at that. However:

"Explain to me how these police actions will hurt society?"

It often hurts the police themselves mentally/emotionally when they shoot someone, which is why they always get counseling after the fact. Often they retire as well just to get away from the shitstorm. Then there's the bad press, the resources wasted in an inquest, the grief of family members and possible legal action taken against the police. Plus if he is someone whose mental illness is manageable with drugs but for some reason he didn't take them (which could also be because they're not diagnosed yet) then it's basically no different than killing anyone, beyond the fact that it's justifiable. It's very rarely a good thing overall for someone to get killed by a police officer even if that person is crazy and/or a dirt-bag.

[Roac]

It's not a drastic change, and what change it would be makes it closer to the intended mission. The goal of police has always been to keep the peace and enforce the laws of the land. It does not include killing people; lives taken are deemed regrettable but necessary to guarantee the safety of the officer. They are the enforcement arm of the law, and killing in the line of duty and thus making them judge, jury and executioner goes contrary to our entire system of law.

The laws of the land include the right to self defense.  And in the case of this officer, his first thought was very likely the desire to be able to go home to his family that night.  Alive.

Now please continue to explain why he should care about an undeveloped phaser technology.

[Signe]

HE WAS RUNNING WITH SCISSORS!

[Murgos]

The truth is that most police go their entire careers without ever firing (or even drawing) their weapon.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of police officers in the US. (close to a million by some estimates)  Freaking out over the 1% that get involved in a shooting and the 1% of those that are unjustified as a requirement for changing the entire system is a complete waste of everyones time and resources.  You can change the system all you want and you will still get an occasional unjustified death.

[bhodi]

Now please continue to explain why he should care about an undeveloped phaser technology.

About this specfiic technology? He shouldn't, unless like me he likes keeping his eye on and speculating about technology. It was just something that I kept my eye on; About the idea of better funding for non-lethal technologies? If something similar comes down the road, everyone would embrace it with open arms. Removal of a life-shattering mistake possibility? Being able to finally "shut the anti-gun nuts up"? I really can't see any downside for the public unless it's overly expensive. For the individual officer himself, I'm sure that not only would they be overjoyed at a new toy to play with, and as Calantus says, it removes the remorse aspect for the officer and at the same gives them a bit more flexibility with use of force than they have right now.

[vex]

Police should be all about non-lethal methods. The fact that a lot of departments resemble what would've been SWAT twenty years ago is disturbing.

On the other hand, we are forcing these guys to risk their lives against drug dealers with few scruples facing decades in prison under mandatory minimum sentencing. Rather than 'fix' the 'War' on drugs, the police state becomes more lethal to citizens and police.

I have to say I agree with this.  The only thing is, in most cases, the police officers SWAT like tactics are what create the danger.  Two am no-knock raids complete with flash bang grenades and automatic weapons is a bad recipe for disaster. 

V

[cmlancas]

It's really a shame that laser-taser never worked out. The idea was neat: have a dual laser ionize the air and send the pulse down it... if you can make the beam wide enough it would be perfect -- no aiming needed. All you would need is for it to touch any exposed skin. With the ability to sweep, instead of a one-shot taser barb, it's as close as we'd get to a real non-lethal weapon.The microwave gun unfortunately isn't as good of an option, as it uses pain as a motivator, which can be overcome. Unfortunately, they couldn't get a strong enough laser to ionize the air without additional problems, such as the laser having to be strong enough to cause eye damage.

I think we really need SOMETHING that is entirely non-permanent, short duration, a dozen yard range, with complete incapacitation. Unfortunately, right now, non-lethal does not mean non-damaging. There are tons of injuries and effectiveness is not guaranteed, so they end up having default to lethal force for their own protection.

I think I saw this thing on Futureweapons one time about a laser-type-weapon that heats your skin so much that you become so uncomfortable you have to stop what you are doing. I think it was some sort of riot weapon.

[bhodi]

I posted about that, the problem is that it uses pain as a motivator, which can easily be overcome by someone on drugs or just plain angry enough, which are two situations that cops are likely to face.

[Der Helm]

pain as a motivator

[cmlancas]

pain as a motivator

I want to try this game this time.

[schild]

pain as a motivator

I want to try this game this time.

You know, Angelfire had the best 1.0 logo, imo.

[Oban]

Please stay on topic.

[cmlancas]

You know, Angelfire had the best 1.0 logo, imo.

When I was a youngster and just learning HTML, my first homepage was on angelfire.

[Lantyssa]

Mine was on a prototype DEC 5100 Vax.  Gods I hated that machine.  I hated it soooo much.  At least hackers had no clue how to do anything even if they did manage to get in.

[Righ]

Please stay on topic.

Exactly. Bunch of humorless twats fucking up a perfectly good serious thread with their politically correct twaddle.

If you run with scissors its dangerous. Gun beats scissors.

[Oban]

You know what would be cool? 

A gun that shoots scissors.

[Yegolev]

Right now, every death that might have been prevented with the use of an alternative non-lethal weapon hurts society.

I disagree.

[bhodi]

Ok, ALMOST every death.

[Yegolev]

Yep.  I am pretty sure there are large swaths of the population that are in fact a huge detriment to society.  I'm even related to some of them.

See, the thing that keeps me from trying to apply general rules to self-defense situations is that you have to trust the judgement of the guy who is about to die.  I'd rather a man be able to make a decision for himself rather than be glued to a rulebook, especially if that man was me.  Then again, I'd shoot someone for just entering my house without an invitation so I might not be in the middle of the bell curve here.

[cmlancas]

You live in backwoods Florida too Yeg? That's more or less the law in certain parts of Central Florida. Hell, it's even POSTED in some residences.

[Yegolev]

Not quite Florida.  I live in Georgia, within the Atlantan radius of influence, plus I work nearly downtown.  Georgia recently instituted the "You can shoot them in the yard" law, replacing the previous one requiring them to be inside your house, so I'm actually being pretty generous by letting them invade my home before I plug them.

[Signe]

I like Atlanta.  It's beautiful.  I had some friends who lived near Atlanta in a house right on a cliff.  One side of the house was just a huge window that overlooked a cliff.  I couldn't get close enough to see the view, but I bet it was wonderful!

[Sky]

Mine was on a prototype DEC 5100 Vax. 

Does my mid-80s BBS ran from my C64 count?

[Lantyssa]

Fine with me.  It's not HTML, but I'd say it gives you network-geek cred.

[Mortriden]

Not quite Florida.  I live in Georgia, within the Atlantan radius of influence, plus I work nearly downtown.  Georgia recently instituted the "You can shoot them in the yard" law, replacing the previous one requiring them to be inside your house, so I'm actually being pretty generous by letting them invade my home before I plug them.

Oregon has the "shoot the burglar law" as well.  I think they have to be "inside the line of your home" or somesuch odd term.  Safe in the yard, not on the walk.