I think this image sums up everything!
Last edited:
Police - Use of Force.
- Thread starter Daigestive
- Start date
- Status
Daigestive
Professional Stripper
- Thread starter
- #22
I think this image sums up everything!
OLD PSD: You cant shoot the fleeing car unless he engages cops again after fleeing so you know he's not actually fleeing.
NEW PSD: He's a "possible" threat so go aghead and just K.O.S him
Daigestive
Professional Stripper
- Thread starter
- #24
The whole point of this is that it says "Clear and present threat to life". To me @Dom_ and @Samuel that would mean they'd need to be actively trying to kill another person to be shot at or have shown no intention to flee in a vehicle by constantly fleeing,shooting, fleeing, shooting ect. If anything otherwise they need to change how the policy is written.
Currently Use of Force is being enforced as it always has been, which includes everything @Samuel has mentioned in one of the posts above. Broadly speaking people who are actively trying to flee should not be shot at, specially not if they are in a vehicle and definitely not if they have a getaway driver, Unless of course the vehicle itself poses a direct threat to your life or the life of others.
This current debate is not going to change how a policy is enforced, and openly admitting you don't care much for the use of force policy is not going to get you of any easier when someone does end up making a complaint on you.
Simply put: Currently enforced policies > your opinion.
Thought I'd also quickly address this:
I also find it quiet interesting how someone that isn't currently part of PSD or the complaint committee somehow knows that the complaint committee has suddenly changed their views on how us of force should be enforced.
This current debate is not going to change how a policy is enforced, and openly admitting you don't care much for the use of force policy is not going to get you of any easier when someone does end up making a complaint on you.
Simply put: Currently enforced policies > your opinion.
Thought I'd also quickly address this:
you couldn't be more wrong, absolutely nothing has changed in regards to how Use of Force complaints are dealt with. There is however a major difference between a complaint not being sustained and a complaint being exonerated. A complaint not being sustained does not mean that the actions are condoned it simply means that there is a lack of evidence or context for the complaint to be sustained.
I also find it quiet interesting how someone that isn't currently part of PSD or the complaint committee somehow knows that the complaint committee has suddenly changed their views on how us of force should be enforced.
The current use of force policy is simply not realistic and I can assure you that no Police Department in America would handle a situation like this.
I understand that you should never use a firearm unless there is a danger to life, but the second point is completely redundant as someone who just murdered one single officer has the intention of murder in their mind, therefore, they are always posing a direct threat to any future officer they would be encountering. They themselves, are a direct threat to the safety of other officers and the general public, and therefore, if they chose to flee, it would be viable to shoot at them.
It is ridiculous how we have these UK type policies and pretend that we should police like Australians when in reality this is a very advanced version of the American Wild West..... We need more strict and obtrusive policies for chasing down felons as this is simply ridiculous.
Here in the state of Michigan where I live, any peace officer who is in the pursuit of a felon who is or has just caused direct danger of life to others may shoot and kill the suspect in a pursuit. Those are the types of policies we need, although that one is a law which dates back to the 1700's.
The bottom line is: (TLDR) If someone flees from the police after committing murder, then they are considered a danger to any other officer who is to encounter them and the general public as well and therefore it would be justified to shoot at them in a fleeing vehicle. This is what should be enforced and the policies should be changed to reflect this.
I understand that you should never use a firearm unless there is a danger to life, but the second point is completely redundant as someone who just murdered one single officer has the intention of murder in their mind, therefore, they are always posing a direct threat to any future officer they would be encountering. They themselves, are a direct threat to the safety of other officers and the general public, and therefore, if they chose to flee, it would be viable to shoot at them.
It is ridiculous how we have these UK type policies and pretend that we should police like Australians when in reality this is a very advanced version of the American Wild West..... We need more strict and obtrusive policies for chasing down felons as this is simply ridiculous.
Here in the state of Michigan where I live, any peace officer who is in the pursuit of a felon who is or has just caused direct danger of life to others may shoot and kill the suspect in a pursuit. Those are the types of policies we need, although that one is a law which dates back to the 1700's.
The bottom line is: (TLDR) If someone flees from the police after committing murder, then they are considered a danger to any other officer who is to encounter them and the general public as well and therefore it would be justified to shoot at them in a fleeing vehicle. This is what should be enforced and the policies should be changed to reflect this.
- Staff
- #28
If you can prove that you had reason to believe that your suspect had intent to commit further harm to other officers then you can justify lethal force. The guy who jumped in his car and drove off after popping the mayor and 1 cop at bazaar with a 1911 probably won't try to take on an entire squad of TFU if you pull him over, so lighting him up is excessive. But if mr angry with his Bugatti and Assault Rifle is driving about outside the slums raid, jumping out and popping 1 probationary before jumping in his car and driving round to the other side of slums then his intentions are pretty clear, light the fucker up.
Trying to quantify and generalise every situation by counting the number of officers they've killed or the amount of times they've stopped their car to shoot is stupid. Treat every situation differently and use your brain.
Trying to quantify and generalise every situation by counting the number of officers they've killed or the amount of times they've stopped their car to shoot is stupid. Treat every situation differently and use your brain.
Daigestive
Professional Stripper
- Thread starter
- #30
Since making this post my opinion has changed from previously as Captain of PSD.
If someone is a continuous threat, therefore has shot officers multiple times and then enter a vehicle they can be shot.
However, I still disagree that not everyone should be shot if they are attempting to flee after comiting a crime such as murder or physical assault with a deadly weapon and have obvious intent to flee as they are not known to have murdered multiple people.
Previously, I would have only looked at this as "Direct and Immediate" meaning to be shot you'd have to be actively trying to kill someone. However, I do think this needs to be rewritten by Policing and Policy as it's a complete grey area
i only get triggered when i get an IA for shooting some skiddie breaking 3.4
Ayjay
Guest
If you've just murdered a bunch of officers and you're jumping in a car with a gun on your back, expect me to shoot your car in order to prevent any further threat to peoples lives. The PD should be putting the safety of the public at the forefront of their duties.
Officers should be able to justify every shot that leaves their firearm, but as long as they do that, there's not much to debate. Why on earth should we allow people who have recently murdered civs to start a police chase, and wait until they stop so they can nail our cars and officers with AK rounds.
I understand that policies regarding the use of force, and other policies are badly written and leave a lot of 'grey areas' - Please expect there to be changes over the next couple of weeks, and of course thank you for your discussion, topics such as this help us understand how issues like this should be dealt.
Officers should be able to justify every shot that leaves their firearm, but as long as they do that, there's not much to debate. Why on earth should we allow people who have recently murdered civs to start a police chase, and wait until they stop so they can nail our cars and officers with AK rounds.
I understand that policies regarding the use of force, and other policies are badly written and leave a lot of 'grey areas' - Please expect there to be changes over the next couple of weeks, and of course thank you for your discussion, topics such as this help us understand how issues like this should be dealt.
Daigestive
Professional Stripper
- Thread starter
- #33
Cheers.
Don't think we need much more of a discussion as you've summed it up pretty well. Close the thread please.
- Status
