bbauska wrote:Item 6 in the Peelian Principles says:

6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

If physical force causes someone in the public to fear, then fear is acceptable by Peel?

bbauska wrote:It looked as if you are saying the use of fear or force should be used when needed. Am I understanding you? I do agree that the police can use fear too much, but to eliminate that as an option is to take away a useful tool when dealing with situation that can arise in the job.

rickyp wrote:is it really acceptable that citzens should fear their police force?

This is not a 2nd Amendment issue any more than it is a black or white issue. It is about a man who may or may not have done something to cause the police officer to fear for his life and the police response.

It is about a man who may or may not have done something to cause the police officer to fear for his life

rickyp wrote:bbauska

This is not a 2nd Amendment issue any more than it is a black or white issue. It is about a man who may or may not have done something to cause the police officer to fear for his life and the police response.

You've admitted that the US police may rely upon fear too much.
Why do you think that is Bbauska?
Personally I think its because they (the police) have legitimate cause to be fear civlians.
You said it yourself above....

It is about a man who may or may not have done something to cause the police officer to fear for his life

but you don't comprehend the root cause. because the root cause for the police fear is the prevalence of guns...
If cops weren't afraid that every person they encounter might have the means to kill them, they wouldn't be fearful of the people they police. And wouldn't require the weapon of fear to ensure "compliance" in every encounter.
And this is directly oppossed to the way some people interpret the 2nd Amendment.

rickyp wrote:If cops weren't afraid that every person they encounter might have the means to kill them, they wouldn't be fearful of the people they police. And wouldn't require the weapon of fear to ensure "compliance" in every encounter.
And this is directly oppossed to the way some people interpret the 2nd Amendment.

danivon wrote:bbauska - below are the 9 'Principles of Policing', commonly attributed to Robert Peel, the British Conservative politician who established the Metropolitan Police, Britain's first full time professional force, which covers Greater London. As an aside, the UK slang terms for police, "Bobbies" and "Peelers" (the latter no longer used and more derogatory) come from his name. He later became Prime Minister.

Even if he did not write them, he did support them and they were part of the "General Instructions" issued to every officer by the Metropolitan Police:

1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2. To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
3. To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
4. To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
5. To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6. To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7. To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
9. To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

This is the very antithesis of the idea that the people should fear the police.

You don't know anything about being a cop or thinking like a cop.

If cops weren't afraid that every person they encounter might have the means to kill them

Any cop who doesn't view anyone they stop as a potential threat is an idiot--and very likely to die if that person intends harm

John Crawford was holding a toy gun as he stood in the toy section of a Walmart. Before the police shot him to death in that same aisle, John managed to say, "It's not real." But it was too late for John.

Sean Bell was going to get married. One night, he was driving away from his bachelor party with his friends, Joseph and Trent. Suddenly, he hit a minivan. Four undercover police officers from the minivan began to shoot at them without warning, firing a total of 50 bullets at the three unarmed men. A wounded Joseph turned to Sean and said, "S, I love you, son." Sean's reply: "I love you, too." Joseph and Trent survived, but their best friend, Sean, didn't make it.

One of the witnesses in the Trayvon Martin trial, Rachel Jeantel, was on the phone with Trayvon moments before the scuffle with George Zimmerman that ended his life. One of the last things she heard the unarmed Trayvon say to the man who was following him with a gun that fateful night: "Why are you following me for?"

Michael Brown died August 2014. Ferguson, Missouri, police officer Darren Wilson shot him at least six times, twice in the head. Michael was not armed. His friend and eyewitness reported that Michael said: "I don't have a gun. Stop shooting." Minutes later, he was on the ground, bleeding. Dr. Michael M. Baden, the man who did Michael's autopsy, told the New York Times, "In my capacity as the forensic examiner for the New York State Police, I would say, ‘You’re not supposed to shoot so many times.'"

Amadou Diallo died right outside his own apartment in the Bronx. He was unarmed. Four police officers shot 41 bullets, hitting Amadou 19 times. Later, they claimed that they had mistaken Amadou for a serial rapist. That same day, some of the last words he said to his mother as he spoke over the phone were, "Mom, I'm going to college."

Eric Garner died July 2014. He was unarmed. Police officers were trying to arrest him for allegedly selling untaxed cigarettes. Eric suffered from asthma, and as a police officer put his arm around Eric's neck during the arrest, he managed to gasp, "I can't breathe!" The New York City medical examiner's office ruled Eric's death a homicide, pointing out that the officer's chokehold might have been a big factor.

Jonathan Ferrell had been in a traffic accident and was knocking on a homeowner's door for help. He was unarmed. A video later used at the trial showed that when police officers approached him, Jonathan held his hands out in a non-threatening manner. The police officers never identified themselves. They fired 12 times, and 10 of those bullets hit him. Even as Jonathan lay on the ground, bleeding and dying from 10 gunshot wounds, the officers handcuffed him. Jonathan's dead body remained handcuffed all the way to the medical examiner's office.

Oscar Grant was on a subway train in Oakland when a police officer forced him out of the car and onto the subway platform. Oscar was lying down when a second police officer shot a bullet into his back. "You shot me! You shot me!" Oscar yelled before he died. That officer later testified that he meant to use his Taser on Oscar instead of his handgun. A court later ruled that the two had no legal reason to get Oscar — who was unarmed — off the train.

Kimani Gray was standing on a street in Brooklyn when police officers approached him. The officers claimed that when they approached Kimani, he pulled a gun from his waistband and pointed it at them. But one eyewitness, Tishana King, said Kimani never pointed a gun. She also said the police officers didn't identify themselves when they approached. Police officers shot Kimani at least seven times, even though Kimani hadn't shot a single bullet. One witness said some of Kimani's last words were, "Please don't let me die."

Kendrec McDade died after a man called Oscar Carillo made a phony 911 call, telling police officers that he had just been the victim of an armed robbery. He later admitted that he had lied about the guns. The two officers eventually found Kendrec in an alleyway. They began shooting after Kendrec apparently moved his hands to his waistband. But Kendrec didn't have a gun on him. All he had was a cellphone in his pocket. Court documents show that Kendrec's last words were, "Why did you shoot me?"

Final fact check: All 10 of these men were black.

rickyp wrote:fate

You don't know anything about being a cop or thinking like a cop.

rickyp

If cops weren't afraid that every person they encounter might have the means to kill them

fate

Any cop who doesn't view anyone they stop as a potential threat is an idiot--and very likely to die if that person intends harm

The second two quotes are so similar I wonder what you think justifies your first statement.

If cops weren't afraid that every person they encounter might have the means to kill them, they wouldn't be fearful of the people they police. And wouldn't require the weapon of fear to ensure "compliance" in every encounter.
And this is directly oppossed to the way some people interpret the 2nd Amendment.

regarding the Onion Field. Yes I read it.

Do you know the stories below?

Individual stories can carry a lot of emotion and power. Thats why its often better to look at the larger situation and analyze things in a way an actuary or epidemiologist does. The compelling story about guns, is that they don't make anyone safer.

Which is why there are so few shootings of either criminals, innocent civilians or polcie in England.

And why police nor civilians feel safe in the USA.
Tell me another story about being a cop that you think makes this observation untrue.

You were not making a statement of fact about the officer safety mindset cops need to have

England and the US are not the same

99% of the people stopped comply and not because they are in fear of getting shot.

Make all your movements slowly--the officer is watching you carefully to make sure you're not drawing a weapon or hiding something. Do not reach for anything in the passenger compartment of your vehicle or under your seat.

rickyp wrote:fate

You were not making a statement of fact about the officer safety mindset cops need to have

of course i am .
And its the same statement you made.

You just refuse to recognize that the mindset is exacerbated by the prevalence of guns.

England and the US are not the same

No.
One has lots of guns.
And thats the significant difference that makes policing more difficult and dangerous.

And also the significant difference that makes it more dangerous for civilians when encountering police.
Especially, young black men.

For most young adults, aged 20 to 24, the No. 1 cause of death is car accidents, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control. For black men in that age group, though, the top cause of death is gun violence; they are four times more likely to be shot and killed than they are to die in a car accident.

A young black man is nearly five times more likely to be killed by a gun than a young white man and 13 times more than an Asian American man. These numbers, dramatic as they are, actually understate the problem. If a black person is killed by a gun, it is judged a homicide 82 percent of the time. For the broad population, most gun deaths are ruled accidental or the result of suicide; only 34 percent of gun deaths are attributed to murder.

fate

99% of the people stopped comply and not because they are in fear of getting shot.

Based on experience and the numbers of people shot in police encounters, , its perfectly reasonable to worry about getting shot when encountering police. Here's a guide to how to handle a traffic stop in the US.

It describes an incredibly tense situation.

I'm just saying its the result of the 2nd amendment and your gun culture.

You know what? If that's the ONLY difference you can see between the UK and the US, after I mentioned differences that are geographic, cultural, and legal, then you're less intelligent than I supposed

BTW, Since Danivon did not answer, do you care to RickyP? Is there a reason for a police officer to have to employ fear in some situations?

rickyp wrote:fate

You know what? If that's the ONLY difference you can see between the UK and the US, after I mentioned differences that are geographic, cultural, and legal, then you're less intelligent than I supposed

The difference in the presence of guns is the only difference that really matters.
The rest is you just avoiding the obvious.

bbauska

BTW, Since Danivon did not answer, do you care to RickyP? Is there a reason for a police officer to have to employ fear in some situations?

Yes.
But the public should not generally fear encounters with the police. And its apparent that many, especially young black men, do.
Its also apparent that police fear, and need to fear, confrontations with the public. As Fate has attested, the public may be a killer in waiting... So its only reasonable to fear them ... (I don't think that's healthy for society generally do you?)
There are many ways that a well trained police officer can achieve compliance from a subject without resorting to terrifying the subject. The use of fear is particulalrly contrary to achieving a peaceful resolution with mentally ill people.
I suppose the resort to tactics that are intended to scare complaince into a person is one reason so many encounters between police and mentally ill people end in the violent death of the subject.
BTW, I think Danivon already answered you.