What are your rights when interacting with the police?

[TheStatutoryApe]

They also told us that if we kill someone on our property, drag him into the house before the law shows up.

I learned that one too. If you're outside, you're pretty much screwed without witnesses. If the guy is in your home, you can at least claim that violence was the only way to end the situation.

It depends on where you are. Here in California, where someone can break into your house hurting themself in the process then sue you for it and win, it probably wouldn't matter a whole lot.
Another one I've heard along the same lines is that if you shoot someone you should be sure to shoot off all the rounds. Apearantly, aside from making sure the person is dead, it helps to show that it was not a premeditated act.

 

[Danger]

Here in California

I'm afraid (or maybe relieved) that my only knowledge of US law is from the media. Ours is similar in many ways, but also different enough to make comparison difficult.

 

[loseyourname]

I saw a very good western tonight that reminded me of another old adage. If you're going to kill someone, be sure to kill his family and anyone else that might someday want to avenge the act.

 

[gerben]

I think everyone should be shocked and outraged over this abuse of power. But apparently it is not only tolerated, it's entertainment! I consider this sort of thing much more dangerous to the US than any terrorists.

I agree, officers like the ones in the video are bringing up some kind of rage in me, while I am (I guess) a model citizen. It makes me feel like there is a sort of war between police and citizens.

Moreover, I think about 60% less should have to be incarcerated if they would stop that ridiculous law against drug use.

 

[JFo]

In general though, the policeman is supposed to be the calm one in the situation. While the criminal is panicking/firing wildly/etc he's supposed to remain calm, asses the situation, and take whatever action is in the public's best interest. Sometimes that means letting a criminal get away rather than risking innocent lives in a shoot-out.

No kidding. just a couple of nights ago, there was a live police chase on tv that was taking place a couple blocks from my apt in LA. The guy was on a motorcycle, so they decided to just let him get away. I couldn't believe it!

I guess the moral is if your going to perform grand theft auto, steal a fast bike!

 

[Moonbear]

No kidding. just a couple of nights ago, there was a live police chase on tv that was taking place a couple blocks from my apt in LA. The guy was on a motorcycle, so they decided to just let him get away. I couldn't believe it!

I guess the moral is if your going to perform grand theft auto, steal a fast bike!

Isn't L.A. one of the places that started the whole push to end police chases? Of course, they were the place that made them so popular in the first place. I'm not sure if it's really L.A. or CA in general. It just wasn't worth the risk to the innocent bystanders, so when a chase exceeds certain speeds or gets into a crowded area, I think they are now required to call it off. I supposed chases down isolated dirt roads in the middle of nowhere, Dukes of Hazzard style, are still allowed.

As for those Cops type shows, I'm not exactly a regular watcher of them, but the ones I've seen recently (as opposed to years ago when they first came out and rules were different) have been rather boring because I think the cops being followed by the camera crew have been instructed to be on their best behavior, so they are handling pretty minor incidents that are easily controlled and everything is done by the book. In the early years of those shows, I think there was a lot more "showing off" for the cameras, and a lot of arrests that I wondered if they even went to trial or were just released and charges dropped.

 

[shingetsunohimitsu]

In Sweden there have been quite a few cases where the police have just randomly shot a guy and then claimed "he was hysteric" or some other bad excuse. Like recently, a guy who was allegedly "with a knife and totally out of control" was shot in the chest and died because of police violence. The policeman is getting away with this because there is one "reliable" police witness to the happening, whereas the guy's parents, who also saw the thing, say that their son was in control and not waving a knife hysterically around, and on top of that he was 5 metres away from the policemen and couldn't have hurt them had he wanted to.

Doesn't it strike anyone that it's just wrong with policemen bearing arms in the first place? They're supposed to uphold the law, not go around shooting people. And the worst thing is, they never get punished for it either. They blame it on someone else and everyone takes their word for it because they, whoopdeedoo! policemen! Even though in the particular situation I mentioned, it's obvious that they should have shot him in the leg or some other place on his body that doesn't make him die.

Cold murder, that's what it is. Brutal murder. And we accept it.

 

[marlon]

Not to be Captain Obvious, but two (stupid and criminal) typically go hand-in-hand.

If you are talking about 'little' street-criminals, yes but the big fish are very well organized and mostly even very well connected to some kind of public service like the police, politics, administrations and so on

marlon

 

[russ_watters]

Doesn't it strike anyone that it's just wrong with policemen bearing arms in the first place?

No. Policemen need to be armed for their own protection.

Even though in the particular situation I mentioned, it's obvious that they should have shot him in the leg or some other place on his body that doesn't make him die.

In the US, anyway, there are three reasons why you can't do that:

First, deadly force is deadly force. It is force that has the potential to cause death. Shooting someone -even in the leg- has the potential to kill and must always be treated as such.

Second, it is only to be used when it is necessary - ie, when the offier's own life is at risk. In such cases, you need to stop the person immediately, and since a handgun is an imprecise weapon, that means shooting the perpetrator in the chest.

Third (and this may sound ironic), to shoot someone in the leg, even in self-defense, is cruel.

 

[mattmns]

I think the police only need to bear arms when the public bears arms. For example the US. iirc, the police in the UK do not carry guns.

 

[Grogs]

I think the police only need to bear arms when the public bears arms. For example the US. iirc, the police in the UK do not carry guns.

That sounds familiar to me as well. I remember reading an article about how they (the Brits) wear a different sort of vest designed more for stopping knives (which normal 'bulletproof' vests aren't very good at.) In the US at least if the police didn't carry guns, they'd be the only ones without them. The guy with the full suit of kevlar armor who stood in the middle of the street for hours while the LAPD tried to bring him down comes to mind as an example of what happens when the police are outgunned.

 

[Danger]

It would take all day to try sorting out quotes, so I'm just going to address issues randomly.
In Calgary, chases are called off after a certain length (3 blocks, I think) or speed. It varies with the circumstances. The chopper takes over after that, and there is absolutely no escaping that sucker. There are so many divisional stations that a car can reach just about anywhere within a couple of minutes once HAWC1 tells them where to go.
In rural parts of Alberta, the RCMP (we have no provincial force) use spike belts as soon as they can be deployed. The chase is more to keep track of the guy than to stop him.
Police are generally outgunned by the bad guys, unless they're a special team. Four RCMP members were just ambushed and killed on a farm near here a couple of weeks ago. Generally, I think they should be better equipped, not worse.
You have to shoot for not only the large part of the target, but it's also advantageous to go with whatever part you practise on at the range. While my first instinct would be 2-chest+1-head, I was taught to go for the crotch. The area is as large as the chest, with more room for error. Off to either side takes out a hip, low is still a bad leg wound, high is a gut or chest shot, and if you happen to hit where you're aiming, the guy will wish that you'd killed him.

edit: A friend of mine was very briefly a Calgary Police Service member. He found that he couldn't bring himself to shoot a looney who was menacing a group of officers with an axe. His partner did. Tim quit the next day because he didn't want to put anyone in the position of having no reliable back-up.

 

[hypatia]

Most of the cops I know are really good people. Their are also some i know who are not, and I know one who is down right evil.
I don't envy there jobs, or any job which requires you to put your life on the line. One thing to keep in mind, that is when your life is in jeopardy, they will be the first people you call, the first to arrive, and the first to help, and the last to leave.

 

[Danger]

Most of the cops I know are really good people. Their are also some i know who are not, and I know one who is down right evil.
I don't envy there jobs, or any job which requires you to put your life on the line. One thing to keep in mind, that is when your life is in jeopardy, they will be the first people you call, the first to arrive, and the first to help, and the last to leave.

Amen to that (in the non-religious sense, of course). There are good and bad in every profession. As mentioned elsewhere, I'm in some legal difficulty at present. I still play pool with the arresting officer. I did what I consider ethically correct, but illegal. He was obliged to do his duty. Nothing personal.

 

[ShawnD]

I think the police only need to bear arms when the public bears arms. For example the US. iirc, the police in the UK do not carry guns.

So basically I could conquer that entire country if I had a knife?

If I were a cop, I wouldn't dare attack a man with a knife; the risk is just too great. If you're using a club or pepper spray, you are within striking distance. If you have a tazer, you are assuming that it will actually go through his clothes and stop him. A gun is the only safe way to kill a suspect who just won't give up.

 

[Smurf]

A gun is the only safe way to kill a suspect who just won't give up.

I think that shows a major difference in thinking, in the UK they don't try to kill suspects.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Isn't L.A. one of the places that started the whole push to end police chases? Of course, they were the place that made them so popular in the first place. I'm not sure if it's really L.A. or CA in general.

I think that it's southern California in general. Pretty dense population with lots of cars, freeways, and highways. Also lots of dumb carjackers and crackheads.
Just the other day there were two chases in a row in Orange County. The news chopper followed one and then picked up a second one just after the first one ended.

 

[Danger]

Also lots of dumb carjackers and crackheads.

The one strange thing that I've noticed once in a while is that even after a chase is called off, the dumb bugger running away doesn't realize that he isn't being chased and keeps driving like a maniac anyhow. A couple of innocent folks got killed in a T-bone crash with a guy who ran a red more than 5 blocks past where they let him go.