Thought you guys might like to see how they answer this in our high falootin forum
Cliffs (If bored to read);
Personal conclusion; cops that have one risky escalating violent event per 3 months during their careers should use force (shoot to injure/incapacitate initially) as soon as they perceive risk of death for them is at >0.25% from a kind of behavior by others that do not cooperate that opens a door for themselves to die at ~10%. More violent sequence of events that escalates rapidly can alter that by a lot ie if the suspect produces a gun type thing. So i conclude cops act at 50-100 times less risk than the irrational violent suspects if they see say order 50-100 such events per career or maybe say one event per 3 months (when in active action duty before they go to have functions in other less risky positions). The conclusion therefore is that a cop escalates things for risks that are even 50-100 times less significant than they are for the person that engages them. But they need to follow other procedures before we get there if possible. And individuals need to respect the law and treat any interaction with cops as a dangerous/serious event that requires care.
This seems to also suggest that police must carefully select how long certain cops that see frequent violent events must stay in such positions or participate in them actively, because if that frequency is significant it will skyrocket the tendency of the cop to use violence even for smaller risks, maybe beyond the levels that are proper for each situation to be handled more effectively. I mean if you deal with dangerous situations every day its natural to expect that you go to the gun for even 0.1% or less risk per event because you see colleagues die regularly and you want to keep control.
-------------------
I have been thinking about it myself and always wished to put some numbers to it because i think cops in US, as painted by news-media from stories, tend a lot to shoot to kill rather than injure and contain a situation. At least more than i would have expected but maybe its also the stupid media not offering a clear objective balanced broad picture of the entire experience of a cop from their own point of view and how many times for example they prevented violence or handled a situation very well to reduce risk before we get to the usual nasty events that are recorded all over the internet for example that show abuses or nasty shoot to kill patterns.
Ok so a naive first approach;
Probability of cop dying over entire career=1-(1-x)^(Events per career)<Probability of random person that behaves bad (irrationally risky) vs cops to die.
Obviously each event has different distribution and its all very complex in reality but until we know more this could give an idea at least.
Also naturally take from that that i dont care enough for idiots that engage cops in risky situations more than once per life as a pattern. Once per human is enough for me otherwise a violent pattern emerges.
Lets say that random person is set to have 10% chance to die each time they play a stupid game with cops (much larger of course if they introduce right away guns etc) (i am ok with that number because the law must be respected and then if cops are abusers go after them the right safe way and destroy them if necessary). If such dangerous events per active risk career for a cop are like say a decade times once every 3 months where something extraordinary that starts looking violent happens, we have 10*4=40 incidents a cop may perceive as risky for themselves. Lets ask real cops or databases to see in fact how many risky events per career a typical cop has experienced. I am not talking times they are called somewhere, i am talking about real ugly incidents that started to look very tense and potentially personally dangerous for them or others nearby. We are not talking traffic stops or calls to houses etc. We are talking something a little more ugly.
What is the risk of a soldier in war (for US soldiers) by the way eg during a regular mission against militants or terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan right now? It should be a risk of death or injury at about 50000 (=dead and seriously wounded so far) per 1.6 mil total personnel deployed in action=0.3% so maybe 0.03-0.1% per deployment if each has gone there several times? Maybe those that see action and are not in supporting roles are 2-3 times that? So lets say a soldier in action per deployment 0.2% risk of death or significant injury? In WW2 even Vietnam it was much higher of course >30-100 times even depending on missions? At that 0.2% that soldier is allowed to use force of course daily as needed.
So lets see;
1-(1-x)^40~10% or x ~0.26%. (similar to above soldier per deployment , its a war out there lol)
Ok i imagine from this that a cop must take aggressive gun action with next step firing a shot if they perceive the risk of death by not doing that at about 0.25% ie 1 in 400 (if they have one such event every 3 months say)
So crude rule if a cop is looking at 40-50 somewhat violent type at start events in his life he needs to perceive risk of life at 0.25% or more before he introduces a lethal force to the situation and of course only use that force if they see that such introduction isnt reducing the risk. Then the next move must be shooting to injure. Compare that with risk of death by driving 1 per million per day you drive or so.
Obviously the introduction of lethal force shouldnt be increasing the chance the cop and other innocent people die, otherwise it is defeating the purpose (if that risk is so small to begin with). So there has got to be a legitimate reason to go there and other approaches before that, such as better usage of language and behavior by cop calmly advising the people/suspects how to react and how to cooperate, should be adopted.
But the above small number shows why a cop that regularly gets involved in such situations cannot afford to let things get ugly before he introduces force and he is mathematically forced to show power very early to control the situation, otherwise they wont last long at this position and we arrive at the unacceptable realization that their life per career is at far worse risk than the idiot violent people or pure criminals out there per event.
I think cops should shoot to injure if they have such choice and to run, keep distance, from a situation not engage it (unless it is very clear that person is a public threat that needs to be attacked and neutralized), when nobody else is at risk and generally keep distance from the threat and continue to shoot only if the threat cannot be contained and ask for help from other cops. If the person became evidently violent i am ok with them going for a new injury shot and if it gets close or if the other person has any kind of weapon shoot to kill also if the next move can put their own life at risk.
Also to all idiots out there that attack cops i have limited respect/sympathy for them. It is elementary that you respect the law because the nature of their job is risky for them meeting all kinds of people in the worse days of their lives potentially and if you think they are abusive sobs and they violate the spirit of their functions and purpose in society (ie violate civil rights, they are rude and abusive, racists, they are corrupt, criminals themselves etc) find a legal way to go after them, record their behavior and destroy them. Its pointless to be aggressive and threatening towards cops directly in the street in action.
One must cooperate with police 100% and then examine the situation later for further action if they think the police acted wrong. Absolutely go after corrupt police the right way, create movements etc but do it peacefully and introduce violence only if police has become now a corrupt regime's soldier and you are defending civilized society and justice for all people, ie we are at a kind of war already.
If a cop shoots you and you still have control of your body and you cannot hide behind any object to avoid further shots and then talk to them, you need to stop, sit down, declare cooperation, raise slowly your hands up to show you are not hiding any weapon and ask them to not kill you and declare again further you will cooperate. Anything else that involves fast motion can be a worse choice. Yes the cop can be a killer that wants to kill you but there is nothing you can do about that if that is the case if you have no way to know for sure and to be able to stop the cop successfully with very high probability vs the alternative of receiving more shots if you did anything other than stop all actions.
Talk very loud and create as many witnesses as possible and directly ask the cop to not kill you, declaring you are not a threat to him and asking him to tell you what they want you to do to cooperate. It is absolutely necessary to show you want to cooperate. This is not being coward or passive. This is being intelligent enough to want to live and do the things the right way later if you think the cop is wrong or abusing power etc. Do your best to make the cop feel the threat to themselves is reduced to very very low levels again.
Of course if one has a legitimate reason to expect the cop is out there to kill them and they are sure of that, all bets are off, do whatever you have to protect yourself. But how many cops would in most stable countries want to kill someone that is cooperating with them?
masque de Z is offline Add Infraction for masque de Z Report Post IP Edit/Delete Message Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message Quick reply to this message
masque de Z
