Excellent story on Darren Wilson

Cops can shoot a fleeing suspect when "necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

So sayeth the US Supreme Court in Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985).

 

Is this an action movie or community policing?

 

A crap job? Oh, I think the police do a pretty terrific job of it. They want to scare the shit out of people by looking like an army.

 

Yes, I think that's about right. The average, everyday cop doesn't carry the killing device on most beats. That matches the average, everyday person the cops come in contact with. And that's about where it needs to be, IMO.

But, hey, I concede I could be wrong. I willingly admit that.

 

Is there a mute function on this forum?

 

What the fuck does the Supreme Court know about constitutionality? Don't you know about the Dred Scott and Plessy decisions?

#daemonlogic

 

Fourth Amendment.

 

It's an interesting thought, but I don't even know how you would test it.

A test in a low crime area would be essentially meaningless, and cops would revolt if they were made to go into high crime areas without a weapon. (And there would likely be a political price to be paid by anyone who tried to implement it.)

I think many cops would be scared shitless to be out on patrol in high crime areas without a gun. They would not get out of their cars. Instead of more interaction with Officer Friendly, who is now more akin to a social worker, cops would only be responding to crime. (And, at that point backup, including officers who are authorized to carry would be called in.)

Now, you might argue that the kind of cop who would be afraid to patrol a high crime area without a gun is the kind of guy we don't want on the police force, and so this would be a net positive. That's probably true to a degree, but I'm not sure you'd find anyone willing to take that job under these circumstances.

 

If we want police forces to be more akin to social workers, maybe they could actually hire a bunch of social workers to do the "complexities of a distressed human soul" stuff while the cops do the actual enforcement. No cross-training and muddled missions needed.

The workers who operate in a passive capacity don't need to be armed, but the ones who work in an active capacity do - I'm not sure how this could even be argued. Police work, by its very nature, is pretty confrontational.

 

How do you know a police officer didn't need to carry a gun on a given day? Simple ... Look at what he/she encountered that day and you'll know. Of course, you can only do this ex post, but that's kind of a nit-picky criticism, don't you think?

 

Alma, you live in a dream world if you think this is even remotely possible. It's ridiculous.

I wonder if the military would be better off fighting wars without weapons?

 

While @Alma 's assertions aren't popular, and are being mocked by some, I appreciate his thoughtful responses and the debate it's inspired. This place is at its best when discussions go like this and assumptions or consensus opinions can be challenged civilly.

So, in short -- and in keeping with this mostly-civil tone -- don't be a dick, @ArthurS .