SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
An Anonymous Coward writes:
Camden, New Jersey is a very low income neighborhood. According to this NY Times article, until recently it had typical low income policing--heavy on corruption and violence and low on compassion.
But now they have a new chief and things have changed --
"Handing a $250 ticket to someone who is making $13,000 a year" — around the per capita income in the city — "can be life altering," Chief Thomson said in an interview last year, noting that it can make car insurance unaffordable or result in the loss of a driver's license. "Taxing a poor community is not going to make it stronger."
Handling more vehicle stops with a warning, rather than a ticket, is one element of Chief Thomson's new approach, which, for lack of another name, might be called the Hippocratic ethos of policing: Minimize harm, and try to save lives.
Officers are trained to hold their fire when possible, especially when confronting people wielding knives and showing signs of mental illness, and to engage them in conversation when commands of "drop the knife" don't work. This sometimes requires backing up to a safer distance. Or relying on patience rather than anything on an officer's gun belt.
While not out of the woods yet, it sounds like there is hope for Camden and maybe it won't just continue to be written off as a war zone.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Tuesday April 04 2017, @03:55PM (4 children)
They are. They receive quite a bit of firearms training. You can try to cuddle a crazy knife wielding maniac from far away, via a loud speaker..But if they come close it's time to end it. Someone can close the distance and start stabbing with a knife in a disturbingly short time, and people don't just "switch off" when they are shot.
21 feet and you're stabbed with a knife, even if you start shooting immediately. You seriously expect them to play that game?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday April 04 2017, @06:36PM (3 children)
Yes, in fact I do. While wearing soft armor, of course. They should save the rubber bullets and nets they use on protesters for violently disturbed mentally ill subjects.
If you just want to kill, become an exterminator.
(Score: 2) by Entropy on Wednesday April 05 2017, @04:39AM (2 children)
If a bullet won't stop a knife wielding maniac in 21 feet, why would a rubber bullet? Did you spend any time at all thinking of what it would be like to be in a house(with rooms measuring 8-16 feet) with a knife wielding maniac that can kill you if you're within 21 feet of him?
Also--A net? Are you serious? Did you get that from a video game or something?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday April 05 2017, @12:45PM
Actually, a bullet will stop someone if you hit them in a critical area. The 21 feet figure assumes you have to draw the weapon, take aim and fire. It's more like 10 if you have the gun out and safety off. You did note the part where I mentioned soft armor, didn't you?
And yes, a net. I have seen them demonstrated by police. Other options include keeping them bottled up until they fall asleep or calm down.
Perhaps the cowards should consider another line of work.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday April 05 2017, @12:48PM
1) At that range, a rubber bullet will go right through the skin and shatter bones, with potentially lethal results. So while it's not *quite* as deadly as a real gun, the initial result will be pretty similar. Anywhere that a gunshot would incapacitate someone, a close range rubber bullet would too.
2) The bullet most likely won't be effective at such short range not because they'll take the hit and keep coming, but because you won't be able to fire before they reach you. So you can argue all day about whether or not they should try to save that life, but either they have time to fire or they don't. If they have time, rubber bullets or real ones both probably work; and if not then neither one will do a damn thing. Standard police body armor should help here though -- that 20 foot range is for an attacker frantically charging a large, central target. Which is where the armor is.
So probably what you want is a weapon you can have trained on the suspect ready to fire, that isn't going to end up as a homicide if you accidentally bump the trigger, and which doesn't look so threatening that it's going to cause an attack in the first place. Taser sounds like the best option IMO, although it's still pretty far from ideal. Some cops also carry what seem to basically be blindingly bright flashlights, those *might* help depending on the situation, though only being blinded would still leave the suspect quite dangerous. If you can get something less lethal than a taser that still disables the suspect it could potentially be acceptable to use in a preemptive strike. But I think even tasers are too risky for any situation where the officer isn't in immediate danger.
And one final thought -- perhaps the primary focus of the officer under attack shouldn't be to incapacitate the attacker, but instead to get out of their partner's line of fire. I realize that's gonna be easier said than done, particularly while under attack and particularly indoors. But they've got better armor, more manpower, better weapons, and if something does go wrong they've got some medical training and a direct line to backup and an ambulance. Surely with all of that we can come up with a better solution than "Fuck it, just kill 'em."