• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who should write the use of force continuum?

Bodhisattva said:
Point was non cop citizens should be telling the cops how much force cops should be able to use and non cop citizens should also be the ones to rule on shootings and use of forceincidents.
Click to expand...

Do these non cop citizens have experience in use of force either by studying the legal system or experienced it first hand?
 
Maccabee said:
Do these non cop citizens have experience in use of force either by studying the legal system or experienced it first hand?
Click to expand...

Sure. Lets start there.

But not cops. They are biased.
 
jaeger19 said:
it should be someone with intelligence who is completely independent of the police force. A person that can objectively take information from police, from citizens, from martial arts experts and firearms experts. From the makers of non lethal products.. or researchers of these products, and from civil rights lawyers.. and come up with a force continuum that protects both the citizens.. and the police equally.
Click to expand...

Needs to ne repeated... good post.
 
For starters? People who understand the Tueller Drill and the research behind it.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Point was non cop citizens should be telling the cops how much force cops should be able to use and non cop citizens should also be the ones to rule on shootings and use of forceincidents.
Click to expand...

No problem.

Cop is a voluntary job (no one forces people to be cops I mean). If they dont like what the citizens come up with, they can let the citizens hire cops that agree to abide by their decision.

It would be very interesting to see.
 
It should be a dialogue involving different segments of society: cops, defense attorneys, prosecutors, constitutional scholars, community leaders...
 
Skeptic Bob said:
It should be a dialogue involving different segments of society: cops, defense attorneys, prosecutors, constitutional scholars, community leaders...
Click to expand...

You beat me to the punch. Everyone seems to think that it should be one group or another, but the truth is that something like this DEMANDS multiple POVs. LE must have a say, the People must have a say, the Law must have say.
 
Experienced law enforcement professionals. The average citizen is woefully uneducated regarding the realities of taking someone into custody who is resisting arrest. The job of law enforcement is to protect the public...and go home at the end of their shift in one piece.

Lot's of internet educated armchair quarterbacks in this discussion.
 
faithful_servant said:
You beat me to the punch. Everyone seems to think that it should be one group or another, but the truth is that something like this DEMANDS multiple POVs. LE must have a say, the People must have a say, the Law must have say.
Click to expand...

Law enforcement leaders already develop use of force policy within the limits of law. That is the way it should be. You wouldn't want some draft dodging coward deciding military tactics would you? No, you wouldn't. Which is why you don't have non-military citizens groups deciding how an infantry soldier is going to engage an enemy combatant on the battlefield. Civilians, by way of elections, decide who will create the laws regarding when use of force is justified and what the parameters of that force are limited to. Law enforcement leadership determine the tactical application of that force. Because they are the ones with the experience. This is how it is and how it should be. Otherwise you're going to have a bunch of "shoot em in the leg first" or "shoot the gun out of his hand" type bull****.
 
Lerxst said:
Law enforcement leaders already develop use of force policy within the limits of law. That is the way it should be. You wouldn't want some draft dodging coward deciding military tactics would you? No, you wouldn't. Which is why you don't have non-military citizens groups deciding how an infantry soldier is going to engage an enemy combatant on the battlefield. Civilians, by way of elections, decide who will create the laws regarding when use of force is justified and what the parameters of that force are limited to. Law enforcement leadership determine the tactical application of that force. Because they are the ones with the experience. This is how it is and how it should be. Otherwise you're going to have a bunch of "shoot em in the leg first" or "shoot the gun out of his hand" type bull****.
Click to expand...

..and that's why I Would give them 51% of the say in this kind of thing. But we also need legal experts to make sure that the tactic is legal, we need civil voices to make sure that the standards of our communities are being upheld.
 
Lerxst said:
Law enforcement leaders already develop use of force policy within the limits of law. That is the way it should be. You wouldn't want some draft dodging coward deciding military tactics would you? No, you wouldn't. Which is why you don't have non-military citizens groups deciding how an infantry soldier is going to engage an enemy combatant on the battlefield. Civilians, by way of elections, decide who will create the laws regarding when use of force is justified and what the parameters of that force are limited to. Law enforcement leadership determine the tactical application of that force. Because they are the ones with the experience. This is how it is and how it should be. Otherwise you're going to have a bunch of "shoot em in the leg first" or "shoot the gun out of his hand" type bull****.
Click to expand...

Actually.. you seem to fail to realize that our founders specifically put civilians in charge of the military. They feared the military having too much power and having the sole discretion of deciding what is appropriate combat tactics.
 
faithful_servant said:
..and that's why I Would give them 51% of the say in this kind of thing. But we also need legal experts to make sure that the tactic is legal, we need civil voices to make sure that the standards of our communities are being upheld.
Click to expand...

More like they should have 30 or 40 % of the say. They need to be in the minority.. because law enforcement is the one being given the power.. and that power corrupts.
 
jaeger19 said:
More like they should have 30 or 40 % of the say. They need to be in the minority.. because law enforcement is the one being given the power.. and that power corrupts.
Click to expand...

They are also the people who are the best authority on this kind of thing. These are brave men and women who are putting their lives on the line and they had BETTER have the biggest say in this kind of thing, otherwise, they will find other jobs and this critical part of our society will end up even more under-manned.
 
jaeger19 said:
Actually.. you seem to fail to realize that our founders specifically put civilians in charge of the military. They feared the military having too much power and having the sole discretion of deciding what is appropriate combat tactics.
Click to expand...

Actually you do not understand the relationship between the military and it's civilian leadership. If you think the founding fathers intended for civilians to determine military tactics you don't understand the application of the term "tactics." Please cite precedent that supports your assertion.
 
faithful_servant said:
They are also the people who are the best authority on this kind of thing. These are brave men and women who are putting their lives on the line and they had BETTER have the biggest say in this kind of thing, otherwise, they will find other jobs and this critical part of our society will end up even more under-manned.
Click to expand...

Sure, they should have a big say... . but not the only say, as it is now.
 
Lerxst said:
Law enforcement leaders already develop use of force policy within the limits of law. That is the way it should be. You wouldn't want some draft dodging coward deciding military tactics would you? No, you wouldn't. Which is why you don't have non-military citizens groups deciding how an infantry soldier is going to engage an enemy combatant on the battlefield. Civilians, by way of elections, decide who will create the laws regarding when use of force is justified and what the parameters of that force are limited to. Law enforcement leadership determine the tactical application of that force. Because they are the ones with the experience. This is how it is and how it should be. Otherwise you're going to have a bunch of "shoot em in the leg first" or "shoot the gun out of his hand" type bull****.
Click to expand...

First... draft dodging does not necessitate cowardice.

Second... volunteering to be a cop is vastly different than being kidnapped against ones will into being a soldier.

Third.... going to war is far more violent than being a cop.

An approach that includes experts in various fields discussing use of force for cops that we then hear cops complaining about is the very reason that there needs to be a transparent discussion and more groups involved in the process.
 
faithful_servant said:
..and that's why I Would give them 51% of the say in this kind of thing. But we also need legal experts to make sure that the tactic is legal, we need civil voices to make sure that the standards of our communities are being upheld.
Click to expand...

Bodhisattva said:
Sure, they should have a big say... . but not the only say, as it is now.
Click to expand...

I think that I already said that...
 
faithful_servant said:
They are also the people who are the best authority on this kind of thing. These are brave men and women who are putting their lives on the line and they had BETTER have the biggest say in this kind of thing, otherwise, they will find other jobs and this critical part of our society will end up even more under-manned.
Click to expand...

if they feel that they cannot be overseen by the people that hire them and the people they work for.. i.e. the public.. I am absolutely fine with them finding other jobs. In fact.. I would encourage them to do so.. because they are not needed nor wanted by society if they think they are above the needs of the people they work for.
 
Lerxst said:
Actually you do not understand the relationship between the military and it's civilian leadership. If you think the founding fathers intended for civilians to determine military tactics you don't understand the application of the term "tactics." Please cite precedent that supports your assertion.
Click to expand...

I do understand the relationship between the military and its civilian leadership. And yes.. the founding fathers intended for civilians to determine military tactics. I absolutely understand the application of the term tactics.
 
jaeger19 said:
I do understand the relationship between the military and its civilian leadership. And yes.. the founding fathers intended for civilians to determine military tactics. I absolutely understand the application of the term tactics.
Click to expand...

Okay, being ignorant is acceptable most of the time. I've asked you to cite some source that confirms your assertion if you have any interest in being taken seriously. If not, well...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom