Anonymous #2 15w

They should be taught to only point your gun at something you intend to kill😭

1

Anonymous OP 15w

Well it’s a little different for a mechanism of social control enforcement. And the saying isn’t really about killing, it’s more so about actively paying attention to where your muzzle is pointing, and also understanding the consequences of pulling the trigger.

1

Anonymous #2 15w

I feel it’s a little barbaric to use the threat of death to control society. And no yeah that’s what I mean. If you see a gun pointed at you, you assume they intend to kill you. Wouldn’t that make you do whatever you could in your power to not die? (move out of the way after they told you to stay still)

1

Anonymous OP 15w

That’s where I think the saying doesn’t really have an application in Law Enforcement (at least) though, because it doesn’t mean they are going to kill you, it means they are prepared to use it on you. And even then, they are only allowed to use it if they do to an extent (or at least that’s the idea), to “end the threat”. Maybe through death, maybe you get shot once in the leg and comply and it’s over and you receive treatment asap.

1

Anonymous OP 15w

Moving out of the way after they told you to stay still in the VAST majority of situations wouldn’t give justification to use lethal force. The only exception I can think of is the Tennessee v Garner case, at least I think that’s the one that justifies lethal force on a fleeing suspect that has committed a felony that you can reasonably identify to be a threat to public safety. But with that all being said I can understand where you are coming from in that there have clearly been a lot of

1

Anonymous #2 15w

Ahh I see what you’re saying. I agree with you but I also think it’s sad that’s the world we live in. We have to use a weapon that can either just damage some fat tissue or could kill you in order to control society. I wish there were non lethal threats that were used to control society :/

1

Anonymous OP 15w

Unjustifiable police shootings, and even beyond shootings, use of force that has resulted in serious injury and even death, like situations with George Floyd.

2

Anonymous OP 15w

I think it’s kind of barbaric at face value, but the threat of death isn’t the control mechanism for keeping people from jaywalking yuh know. It’s just the final level in the continuum of force that we use as a mechanism for social control. But I think when you sit in the nuance of how society works (for all of it’s faults in the modern day) it’s what has allowed us to progress because we don’t have to worry about bandits on the highway and the next town over marching their army because we have

1

Anonymous OP 15w

More bread. Social control sounds scary because it sounds dystopian, but it’s more so about holding people accountable for their actions, at least, in the theory I subscribe to according to the consensus model of justice, that we as a society have some shared notion of morality and ideals of what is right and wrong and that it informs our policies on law. Which isn’t to say there aren’t exceptions.

1

Anonymous OP 15w

Sorry for the word wall lol

1

Anonymous #2 15w

You’re chillin. You seem passionate about this topic, that’s cool. Your point does make sense. Many of us are fortunate enough to live in a decent place where most of the time you can assume there won’t be bandits. And I don’t think social control sounds scary in theory, just in practice. I’m all for holding people accountable. I’m not for letting humans (a species known for making mistakes) use tools that were designed to kill, so they can hold people accountable

1

Anonymous OP 15w

Do you think there are ever situations where using lethal force is justifiable? Like responding to an active shooter or if someone attacks you?

1

Anonymous #2 15w

Especially when we know racists exist and are in the position of being able to enforce social control. I do agree there is a lot of nuance though so honestly I feel like there’s enough room for us both to be “right”💀

3

Anonymous OP 15w

I definitely agree. On the flip side, I hope one day lethal force won’t be a necessary piece of the continuum.

3

Anonymous #2 15w

Yes. In the event there is an undeniable threat to your life. But I think it should also be an equal fight. If someone attacks you with fists, I don’t think it’s fair to shoot them.

1

Anonymous OP 15w

It’s funny because I FEEL like, in law enforcement, it used to be more like that. Where officers were more willing to just go hands on with people that wanted to get hands on with them. But I can’t actually point to anything other than anecdotes from old people who worked in LE. I’m talking like 70’s 80’s and even before them. But as departments and other interest groups started approaching professionalism in LE now there are policies and all this red tape when you do anything so as an officer

1

Anonymous OP 15w

You’re kinda forced to react to things in a specific way. But yea that sounds totally reasonable.

1

Anonymous OP 15w

But there was a HUGE shift around the 70’s that put law enforcement professionalism under the spotlight and changed a lot in the profession for better and for worse.

1

Anonymous #2 15w

Yeah, excessive rules tend to get in the way and do the opposite of their intention and make things worse. I also do imagine most of these officers genuinely did feel threatened. I also wish we had more funding to support good cops and weed out the cops that can’t handle the stress. The same way surgeons that fuck up are weeded out, not because they are bad people, they just don’t have the right skills for the job

1

Anonymous #2 15w

I can definitely appreciate how far we’ve come though since the systems we had in place during the witch trials and wild west era

1