Macho Cop Culture

[ChinaLama]

Ok, you can guess, this is related to Anna Guo's case.

Do you think a macho, "shoot to kill" cop culture leads to excessive violence and excuses for excessive violence?

I think, as a whole, society is pretty lenient toward cops. Part of it is because they ARE in risky situations, and I would assume a good number of cops don't just do it for the pay and benefits, but that they protect the streets because they feel it's their duty to society.

But the extremely masculine cop culture also leads to this training of "shooting to kill," and it seems shooting to kill doesn't have exceptions. However, is this really the best policy? Wouldn't it be better to have a policy where, shooting can be potentially fatal, but isn't MEANT to kill all the time? Does a person who threatens a cop always DESERVE to die?


And does this culture, where cops are expected to shoot to kill, and where they're expected to act aggressive and manly, also lead to people in authority too easily dismissing excessive force as either the result of "panic" or completely justified because "cops are trained to kill?"

[wylin]

what would u rather ur cops be pacifist pansys? hez coming at me oh no lemme be so scared and fallow all these rules and get my ass beat...the best example of this is in robocop 2 when gave him all these useless prime directives.

1...50.

it should be

1. protect and serve
2. i always get my man
3. shoot to kill

cops alot of them are ex military, so we already paid them to be trained to kill i think cops need heavier weapons like HK USP or Mp5 based weapons for standard close combat (besides pistols) and automatic riffles for long range engagements. just basically make them soldiers then criminals will be more afraid.

[ChinaLama]

I don't see such a sharp dichotomy. I think cops can be trained to be serious without necessarily being fatal. Killing someone when obviously defending yourself is not wrong. But killing someone who is NOT a threat to you IS wrong. Being excused for it is even more wrong.

Like I quoted before:

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." (Genesis 9:6)

There's a reason such a value takes such root in our society, because all life is sacred. Even a criminal's or a suspect's.

[lethal]

Cops are taught to shoot to kill because its the easiest shot.

Shooting a person's hand or leg or something is hard. Those are small targets. The middle of the chest is a nice big, easy target. Course, you shoot someone in the vicinity of the heart and lungs, death is probable.

[achtungbaby]

I admit, I haven't been reviewing these types of cases a whole lot. My impression was that in most cases, an officer doesn't have the need to draw his/her weapon. My cousin, who's an officer, has only had to on a few occasions after serving for 10 years -- but he's got a shitload of fight stories, where he's had to beat the crap out of someone for being out of line.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Originally posted by lethalweapon@Nov 8 2002, 01:10 PM
Cops are taught to shoot to kill because its the easiest shot.

Shooting a person's hand or leg or something is hard. Those are small targets. The middle of the chest is a nice big, easy target. Course, you shoot someone in the vicinity of the heart and lungs, death is probable.
yeah, but that's why we have bean-bag guns, rubber bullets, and that kinda "Crowd Control" weapon ... so that even an average shot can incapacitate someone, maybe break a few of their ribs, but without killing them.

[deez nuts]

I have many close NYPD friends. And all of them have told me that some members on the force, not all, are extremely trigger happy.

And the macho cop image. Yeah it's definitely there in some cops. Especially out in the 'burbs in Suffolk and Nassau county in NY. They have this cocky holier than thou attitude, not all but some. Why? Because on average Suffolk county cops are pulling in close to 6 digits on average 70-80k a year. And surprisingly the force is predominantly white. I believe they were pressured recently to add more minorities to the force and they started this massive campaign to recruit them.

So gun+badge+the law behind you+70-80k salary to some of those guys with a megalomaniac syndrome; they're gonna think they are god and have this machismo thing going on.

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Nov 7 2002, 09:12 PM
I admit, I haven't been reviewing these types of cases a whole lot. My impression was that in most cases, an officer doesn't have the need to draw his/her weapon. My cousin, who's an officer, has only had to on a few occasions after serving for 10 years -- but he's got a shitload of fight stories, where he's had to beat the crap out of someone for being out of line.
This is very true. On the average an officer never needs draw his/her weapon in their entire career. Obviously this is going to be dependent on crime in the area and circumstance/luck. This is why some cops tease other cops about being a Barney Fife.

Let me explain the shoot to kill logic, or at least why it is thought of in that way. It involves the decision to use deadly force. And why do I know this? Because my father taught me physically, emotionally and legally how to kill. Why? Because he was a diehard fed and really into all that male commando shit.

A gun has one purpose. That purpose is to kill. Weapons and ammunition are often talked about in terms of stopping power. When you make the decision to use a firearm for stopping power, it's usually to stop or eliminate a threat. This is all nice circumlocution to say kill.

Most people, trained or not, cannot successfully hit a target with a firearm in a stressful situation where the target moves and looks human. Some people can't pull the trigger or they freeze, some people flinch when they shoot, some people just aren't that good of a marksman. Whatever the case. This is why you get a lot of friendly fire deaths in war. Shits going on all around you and having training doesn't mean you're good at firing under pressure.

Draw your weapon only with the full intention of using it. Use it only for killing shots. The intent is to neutralize the threat. Though people may find a weapon intimidating, it's not a tool to intimidate, it's a tool to kill.

Warning shots are illegal because what goes up or out must eventually find a target. This endangers the public. I'm not sure of the legality of intentional incapacitating shots, but I think cops may be sued over it. But beyond that, in that situation where you draw on someone, when you've made that decision that you need that amount of force to eliminate a threat - there's no time to consider placing an incapacitating shot.

The bullet needs to go into your target because the round will easily go through walls into someone else, and to be clinical about it the torso is easier and most effective area to hit. A head shot is probably better, but also much more difficult and the chances of missing and finding an unintended target are higher. If I fired, I would never stop at one round, I'd most likely empty my magazine. My goal in using a gun is to completely neutralize that threat facing me.

So to answer Lama's why shoot to kill -- there is no other reason to shoot. Waving a weapon around to intimidate is foolish and will get you killed if you draw it unsure of whether you're willing to use it. There isn't a whole lot of time to consider anything. It's mostly gut reaction and hopefully training will kick in to help make the right decision instantly. That isn't always the case.

This is why I always trace the issue back to the decision the cops made to draw their weapons. That's where the decision to kill was made. Additionally, when tensions are that high, and I'm damn sure none of those cops even remotely wanted to shoot a young girl, if one person fires it may trigger a reaction for another to fire. I find it very hard to believe only one cop fired, rookie or not.

Personally, I think those cops are going to be screwed up mentally for a long time over this. Just because they're cops and have training doesn't mean they don't carry the emotional burden of something like this for the rest of their lives. However, my gut instinct and exposure to department cover ups makes me think something is really wrong with the shooting. Moreover, I think the process that got Anna in that position to begin with needs some serious attention. I think she was treated differently because she was viewed as a 'foreigner.'

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by Hello_Hapa@Nov 8 2002, 04:34 PM

Let me explain the shoot to kill logic, or at least why it is thought of in that way. It involves the decision to use deadly force. And why do I know this? Because my father taught me physically, emotionally and legally how to kill. Why? Because he was a diehard fed and really into all that male commando shit.

A gun has one purpose. That purpose is to kill. Weapons and ammunition are often talked about in terms of stopping power. When you make the decision to use a firearm for stopping power, it's usually to stop or eliminate a threat. This is all nice circumlocution to say kill.

Most people, trained or not, cannot successfully hit a target with a firearm in a stressful situation where the target moves and looks human. Some people can't pull the trigger or they freeze, some people flinch when they shoot, some people just aren't that good of a marksman. Whatever the case. This is why you get a lot of friendly fire deaths in war. Shits going on all around you and having training doesn't mean you're good at firing under pressure.

Draw your weapon only with the full intention of using it. Use it only for killing shots. The intent is to neutralize the threat. Though people may find a weapon intimidating, it's not a tool to intimidate, it's a tool to kill.

Warning shots are illegal because what goes up or out must eventually find a target. This endangers the public. I'm not sure of the legality of intentional incapacitating shots, but I think cops may be sued over it. But beyond that, in that situation where you draw on someone, when you've made that decision that you need that amount of force to eliminate a threat - there's no time to consider placing an incapacitating shot.

The bullet needs to go into your target because the round will easily go through walls into someone else, and to be clinical about it the torso is easier and most effective area to hit. A head shot is probably better, but also much more difficult and the chances of missing and finding an unintended target are higher. If I fired, I would never stop at one round, I'd most likely empty my magazine. My goal in using a gun is to completely neutralize that threat facing me.

So to answer Lama's why shoot to kill -- there is no other reason to shoot. Waving a weapon around to intimidate is foolish and will get you killed if you draw it unsure of whether you're willing to use it. There isn't a whole lot of time to consider anything. It's mostly gut reaction and hopefully training will kick in to help make the right decision instantly. That isn't always the case.

This is why I always trace the issue back to the decision the cops made to draw their weapons. That's where the decision to kill was made. Additionally, when tensions are that high, and I'm damn sure none of those cops even remotely wanted to shoot a young girl, if one person fires it may trigger a reaction for another to fire. I find it very hard to believe only one cop fired, rookie or not.

Personally, I think those cops are going to be screwed up mentally for a long time over this. Just because they're cops and have training doesn't mean they don't carry the emotional burden of something like this for the rest of their lives. However, my gut instinct and exposure to department cover ups makes me think something is really wrong with the shooting. Moreover, I think the process that got Anna in that position to begin with needs some serious attention. I think she was treated differently because she was viewed as a 'foreigner.'
Hmm...well, maybe i'm a bit naive, but I think if they were to shoot a Chinese person, they would probably have also shot a white person. While Chinese are seen as foreigners, we're not usually seen as physically threatening foreigners.

But as for shooting to kill, I am not sure if I agree with the principle. I agree that if you were to shoot, it should be incapacitating enough so as to be potentially fatal. A cop doesn't have the time to aim for an arm or a leg, and the torso is the easiest part to go for. Emptying a clip seems a bit excessive, but I've never been in such a situation so I probably shouldn't comment. I think it's only malicious when a person INTENTIONALLY shoots someone who's obviously incapacitated and doesn't pose a threat. For instance, if a cop had seen Anna DOWN, and proceeded to intentionally fire at her anyway. Even if the cop really did "panic" or for some delusional reason, thinks a person with a knife who's down poses an immediate threat to her life or safety, if she intentionally tries to kill someone who's already down, then she should be tried for murder, or at least something almost as heavy.

[wylin]

um lama its not like they went up to her shot her in the head gangland style dere!

also its not virtual cop u dont get points for justice shots...i think u'd need to put urself in a life and death situation (one u percieve) with an enemy unit/ person approaching u. what do u do? try to get a justice shot near a wall where hostages or civillians are? no u pop them in the largest areat.

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by wylin@Nov 8 2002, 07:25 PM
um lama its not like they went up to her shot her in the head gangland style dere!
i didn't say they did. i'm just saying that would be the hypothetical situation where i'd ask for the cop's blood.

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by ChinaLama@Nov 8 2002, 10:13 AM
Hmm...well, maybe i'm a bit naive, but I think if they were to shoot a Chinese person, they would probably have also shot a white person. While Chinese are seen as foreigners, we're not usually seen as physically threatening foreigners.

Let me rephrase what I said then because I meant something else.

I think due to language and resident status in combination with being Asian were some contributing factors in how this case got this screwed up. I doubt very much the girl looked scary, but if by language barrier and culture she was viewed as non-American it's easier to shoot someone you see as 'other' than someone you share traits with. The things I'm talking about here are key elements in wartime propaganda and the enemy making process.

I think if it was a white girl who spoke perfect English, more effort would have been taken to subdue her rather than shoot her. So, to summarize, it's not that she looked scary because she was Chinese, or the cops were outright racist against Asian, or even the stereotype involving Asians; it's that she was most likely perceived as different and therefore their judgment was different on how to deal with her.

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by lethalweapon@Nov 7 2002, 09:10 PM
Cops are taught to shoot to kill because its the easiest shot.

Shooting a person's hand or leg or something is hard. Those are small targets. The middle of the chest is a nice big, easy target. Course, you shoot someone in the vicinity of the heart and lungs, death is probable.
As far as I know most people die of shock when shot. But of course the amount of physical trauma would matter too.

[mrazntre]

Originally posted by wylin@Nov 8 2002, 07:25 PM
um lama its not like they went up to her shot her in the head gangland style dere!

also its not virtual cop u dont get points for justice shots...i think u'd need to put urself in a life and death situation (one u percieve) with an enemy unit/ person approaching u. what do u do? try to get a justice shot near a wall where hostages or civillians are? no u pop them in the largest areat.
To take on such an extremist point of view means that you will also be subjected to such abuse of force. Regardless of your intent. That's not the way of democracy. That's the type of oppression subjected to the Baltic States, the Balkan States, the Iraqis, the people of Myannmar, the Rwandans, and other peoples of the world. This is the same type of force that was used in Tianamen Square. In the US however, the response is supposd to meet the threat.

It's not a justice shot that was sought, however there are non-lethal means of stopping a "perp." I use the term "perp" loosely in this sense.

You're over exaggerating the situation. In the case of a militia man armed to the nines with AR15's, AK47's, flash grenades, and other high powered weapons, going on a shooting spree, it is reasonable for a cop to shoot to kill since assault with a deadly weapon was already committed by the suspect.

Your concept of thinking lies in the "my way or the highway" school of thought. You have only one solution for various problems, conflicts and situations that arise on the beat. Anything held in your hands can be considered a weapon. Imagine if it were a chopstick. Would that be considered assault with a deadly weapon that required the use of deadly force? What would stop cops from shooting anyone that rookie cops perceived to be dangerous? Your proposition is ridiculous.

Let me reiterate this point again. Cops become cops. It is not a job that befalls them from birth. Cops know what they are getting into. They know that their lives are in danger once they put on the badge. Since they have accepted that responsibility, they must also accept the consequences that befall them when they act inappropriately. They are given a license to kill, but only under the most extreme of circumstances. Panic set in on the rookie, which caused her to shoot.

IF it is true that the cop was in danger, then why did the other cops make their way towards the Anna? They did not line up shoulder to shoulder with guns drawn. BECAUSE the senior officers were making their way towards Anna, would that mean they were afraid of her? That they had assesssed the situation to be a deadly one? What's your line of reasoning for that? The rookie stayed behind, gun drawn. The seniors made their way forward. Why would the seniors make their way toward Anna if they were afraid for their lives? When cops fire, they all fire. This was seen with the shooting of Aisha Miller. If the situation was deemed deadly enough, there would be no second guessing firing their guns. My point is this, as senior officers, they have developed a better feeling and judgement to assess particular situations. They have had more experiences in dealing with the public and ultimately are better equipped to deal with fragile situations, much better than a rookie. Is that not so? I would be hard pressed to debate this shooting if it had been the senior officer that had fired first, and the rookie just followed suit. HOWEVER, this was not the case. Cops are supposed to be trained to handle delicate situations, it is obvious to me that the rookie was not properly trained.

Cops do have a prime directive. That is, "to protect and serve." When the cops came, they "protected" the foster family (although Anna was only intending to hurt herself) by drawing Anna's attention. Once they had her attention, the family was no longer threatened by anyone or anything. How did the actions taken by the rookie protect Anna?

[mrazntre]

Originally posted by wylin@Nov 8 2002, 04:40 AM
what would u rather ur cops be pacifist pansys? hez coming at me oh no lemme be so scared and fallow all these rules and get my ass beat...the best example of this is in robocop 2 when gave him all these useless prime directives.

1...50.

it should be

1. protect and serve
2. i always get my man
3. shoot to kill

cops alot of them are ex military, so we already paid them to be trained to kill i think cops need heavier weapons like HK USP or Mp5 based weapons for standard close combat (besides pistols) and automatic riffles for long range engagements. just basically make them soldiers then criminals will be more afraid.
Regardless of a cop's background, he should be a cop. A cop just can't go around killing for fun. Ex-military guys are still held to the same standard as a wet behind the ears police cadet that came fresh from high school. As military soldiers, they are trained to kill. As cops, they are trained to deliberate, protect, and serve. There is a difference. There can not be a blurring of the two. Just because a cop was ex-military, does not give him the right to shoot everyone on sight.

Did you forget about the American Revolution?
That's the reason why cops aren't military.

Making criminals more scared will also have an adverse affect on the "good" community. It's not as black and white as you see it. One day, if it goes your way, you might get a bullet in the head for J-walking, or running a red light.

[Fireblade]

Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Nov 8 2002, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by lethalweapon@Nov 8 2002, 01:10 PM
Cops are taught to shoot to kill because its the easiest shot.

Shooting a person's hand or leg or something is hard.  Those are small targets.  The middle of the chest is a nice big, easy target.  Course, you shoot someone in the vicinity of the heart and lungs, death is probable.
yeah, but that's why we have bean-bag guns, rubber bullets, and that kinda "Crowd Control" weapon ... so that even an average shot can incapacitate someone, maybe break a few of their ribs, but without killing them.
I really believe in situations like this, cops should use other alternative deterents like the ones AliBaba mentioned. Or those tasers which are shaped like guns. (Dunno, saw it on 20/20 or something) Better training is DEFINITELY in order, and I just hope all sides learn from this.

Cover ups are bad, and if this is indeed a cover up, there is something very very wrong with the Ventura police force.

[mrazntre]

Originally posted by Fireblade@Nov 9 2002, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Nov 8 2002, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by lethalweapon@Nov 8 2002, 01:10 PM
Cops are taught to shoot to kill because its the easiest shot.

Shooting a person's hand or leg or something is hard. Those are small targets. The middle of the chest is a nice big, easy target. Course, you shoot someone in the vicinity of the heart and lungs, death is probable.
yeah, but that's why we have bean-bag guns, rubber bullets, and that kinda "Crowd Control" weapon ... so that even an average shot can incapacitate someone, maybe break a few of their ribs, but without killing them.
I really believe in situations like this, cops should use other alternative deterents like the ones AliBaba mentioned. Or those tasers which are shaped like guns. (Dunno, saw it on 20/20 or something) Better training is DEFINITELY in order, and I just hope all sides learn from this.

Cover ups are bad, and if this is indeed a cover up, there is something very very wrong with the Ventura police force.
I agree

[deez nuts]

Originally posted by mrazntre@Nov 10 2002, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by Fireblade@Nov 9 2002, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Nov 8 2002, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by lethalweapon@Nov 8 2002, 01:10 PM
Cops are taught to shoot to kill because its the easiest shot.

Shooting a person's hand or leg or something is hard. Those are small targets. The middle of the chest is a nice big, easy target. Course, you shoot someone in the vicinity of the heart and lungs, death is probable.
yeah, but that's why we have bean-bag guns, rubber bullets, and that kinda "Crowd Control" weapon ... so that even an average shot can incapacitate someone, maybe break a few of their ribs, but without killing them.
I really believe in situations like this, cops should use other alternative deterents like the ones AliBaba mentioned. Or those tasers which are shaped like guns. (Dunno, saw it on 20/20 or something) Better training is DEFINITELY in order, and I just hope all sides learn from this.

Cover ups are bad, and if this is indeed a cover up, there is something very very wrong with the Ventura police force.
I agree
I agree too

[wylin]

Originally posted by Fireblade@Nov 9 2002, 03:49 AM
Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Nov 8 2002, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by lethalweapon@Nov 8 2002, 01:10 PM
Cops are taught to shoot to kill because its the easiest shot.

Shooting a person's hand or leg or something is hard. Those are small targets. The middle of the chest is a nice big, easy target. Course, you shoot someone in the vicinity of the heart and lungs, death is probable.
yeah, but that's why we have bean-bag guns, rubber bullets, and that kinda "Crowd Control" weapon ... so that even an average shot can incapacitate someone, maybe break a few of their ribs, but without killing them.
I really believe in situations like this, cops should use other alternative deterents like the ones AliBaba mentioned. Or those tasers which are shaped like guns. (Dunno, saw it on 20/20 or something) Better training is DEFINITELY in order, and I just hope all sides learn from this.

Cover ups are bad, and if this is indeed a cover up, there is something very very wrong with the Ventura police force.
i think coverage here is a lil onesided and anti police biased... why doesnt one of us interview the officers involved instead of bashing on them all day... a thought!

[mrazntre]

Originally posted by wylin@Nov 15 2002, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by Fireblade@Nov 9 2002, 03:49 AM
Originally posted by AliBabaIncorporated@Nov 8 2002, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by lethalweapon@Nov 8 2002, 01:10 PM
Cops are taught to shoot to kill because its the easiest shot.

Shooting a person's hand or leg or something is hard. Those are small targets. The middle of the chest is a nice big, easy target. Course, you shoot someone in the vicinity of the heart and lungs, death is probable.
yeah, but that's why we have bean-bag guns, rubber bullets, and that kinda "Crowd Control" weapon ... so that even an average shot can incapacitate someone, maybe break a few of their ribs, but without killing them.
I really believe in situations like this, cops should use other alternative deterents like the ones AliBaba mentioned. Or those tasers which are shaped like guns. (Dunno, saw it on 20/20 or something) Better training is DEFINITELY in order, and I just hope all sides learn from this.

Cover ups are bad, and if this is indeed a cover up, there is something very very wrong with the Ventura police force.
i think coverage here is a lil onesided and anti police biased... why doesnt one of us interview the officers involved instead of bashing on them all day... a thought!
i'm quite positive the cop side is one-sided also.


does "code of silence" ring a bell?

[Commando_turned_MD]

Originally posted by wylin@Nov 7 2002, 08:40 PM
what would u rather ur cops be pacifist pansys? hez coming at me oh no lemme be so scared and fallow all these rules and get my ass beat...the best example of this is in robocop 2 when gave him all these useless prime directives.

1...50.

it should be

1. protect and serve
2. i always get my man
3. shoot to kill

cops alot of them are ex military, so we already paid them to be trained to kill i think cops need heavier weapons like HK USP or Mp5 based weapons for standard close combat (besides pistols) and automatic riffles for long range engagements. just basically make them soldiers then criminals will be more afraid.
Gosh, for some reason I always have to agree w/ Wylin.

In a nutshell, if a cop has to shoot a perp, it best to shoot to kill...Like Lethal stated, COPS are train to shoot Center-of-Mass......But if you're an Expert shot, like myself, you can shoot the target in the arm---- targeting the medial,ulnar, and radial nerve(depending on the angle of penetration) of brachial plexus--- and make the perp drop his/her weapon......If you hit the brachial artery----still gonna live :D ...I've done it before, with a standard Mk23 SOCOM pistol w/ 230 grain hollow point..........Because it was not feasible to kill this target.........As much as I wanted too :D

Swat would probably do the same thing......But your average "beat" cop doesnt not possess these extra-ordinary ability, so to be on the safe side, aim for COM.

But drawing one's weapon should be the LAST option....Maverick cops should their badges taken away.........I hate seeing these para-military cops on TV, especially during the sniper shooting......GIVE me an F*ing Break......There IS NO reason for a regular beat cop to wear a face mask........Bull-shit........If you're not swat or SRT or an undercover detective, their no reason to don the face mask..........Trying to look cool ...Instill fear......

As for weapons, LAPD now issue semi-auto AR-15 as a support weapon.....After the Bank of America incident.

[Commando_turned_MD]

If that's too difficult just aim for the cords of the brachial pleus.......point of reference should be below the clavicle and by the pits area,,,, :D