WMN: t3_2x5tun_t1_coxrwbu

[TITLE]

CMV: If the police shoot someone who resisted arrest, it should be nearly impossible to indict the involved officer(s)

[ZeusThunder369]

To be clear, I am not saying that if you resist arrest that you deserve to be killed. I am saying that due to the below reasons, if you resist arrest and are killed, the police officer(s) involved should not be indicted unless there is substantial evidence proving beyond any doubt that the officer intended to murder the suspect. - The officer has no idea what the intent of the person resisting is, or how far they are willing to go to avoid being arrested. - The person resisting made a choice to resist; They should be aware of the potential consequences of that decision. No one forced them to commit criminal acts, and no one forced them to not comply with the officer's orders (which is breaking the law). - The officer doesn't have the option of just letting the person go. At this point, I really wish they did, but they do not. They are not trained this way and society in general doesn't want the police to just let people go if they resist. - The officer only has seconds to decide what threat the suspect poses. It's perfectly reasonable for them to assume that the person intends to kill them. - How often does someone just give up on their own when resisting? It may have happened before, but it is very rare for the suspect to just stop if the officer get injured, or they decide that it has gone too far. - It simply isn't practical to expect the police to "shoot to wound". - The bottom line is that the officer has the right to do whatever they have to do to ensure that they get to go home to their families at the end of the day. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*

[Casus125]

[STA-CITE]> The person resisting made a choice to resist; They should be aware of the potential consequences of that decision. No one forced them to commit criminal acts, and no one forced them to not comply with the officer's orders (which is breaking the law). [END-CITE]And what if I've broken no law? What I'm being unjustly detained and arrested? [STA-CITE]> The officer only has seconds to decide what threat the suspect poses. It's perfectly reasonable for them to assume that the person intends to kill them. [END-CITE]No, it is not reasonable to assume that the person intends to kill them. That's the fucking problem. ["Can I see your license please?"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XFYTtgZAlE) "Nah, never mind, you tried to kill me. *Bang* *Bang* *Bang* [STA-CITE]> How often does someone just give up on their own when resisting? It may have happened before, but it is very rare for the suspect to just stop if the officer get injured, or they decide that it has gone too far. [END-CITE]Killing a cop draws way too much attention for the majority of criminals. It's much more reasonable to expect them to run the fuck away. [STA-CITE]> The bottom line is that the officer has the right to do whatever they have to do to ensure that they get to go home to their families at the end of the day. [END-CITE]No they fucking don't. That shit mentality right there is what's leading to more and more egregious use of police force. They volunteered to police their community, serve the public, and uphold the law. They don't like the risks, find a new job. This confrontational, "Do whatever it takes to get home" mentality is wrong. It makes every situation more dangerous, and prone to unnecessary escalation. When you think everybody is out to get you, you start responding accordingly. This isn't a fucking warzone, it's a neighborhood. You aren't the infantry, you're a police officer.

[huadpe]

Can you define "resisting arrest" for me here? For example, [this woman](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qhzdxYnwhg) was arrested for resisting arrest because she was providing legal counsel to her client and wouldn't step away when the cops asked her to. If one of the officers had shot her, do you think they would be deserving of criminal punishment? (Warning, link is to a short video)

[BMTH1995]

What's atrocious is that she was only arrested for "resisting arrest." Can we take a second to think how ridiculous that is? Your only crime is resisting arrest, which would entail you being arrested for another crime prior."

[ZeusThunder369]

I wouldn't consider that video to be an example of resisting arrest. The officer commanded the woman to turn around and put her hands behind her back, and she did so. I think the definition of "resisting arrest" can differ per state. But for the purposes of this discussion I see it as using physical force to resist an officer placing you under arrest.

[kabukistar]

[STA-CITE]>involved should not be indicted unless there is substantial evidence proving beyond any doubt that the officer intended to murder the suspect. [END-CITE]In most cases, showing that you intentionally pointed a gun at someone and pulled the trigger, firing a bullet into them and taking their life would count as proof beyond a reasonable doubt that you intend to murder them. Would you say that counts here, or should we hold cops to different standards?

[learhpa]

From my perspective, if you have a rule which says that by default an officer shall not be indicted for shooting someone who resisted arrest, the rule will create a situation in which it is *easy* for a cop to *lie about someone resisting arrest*, kill them, and get away with it. In particular, it would create a situation where anytime a cop has shot someone, all he has to do is *claim* that the guy resisted arrest, and the enquiry will end. We cannot assume that, given this opportunity and power, cops will not take the opportunity and abuse the power; they're human, and just as prone to corruption as any other group of humans are.

[GetInTheVanKid]

Your entire post doesn't clearly define what you call "Resisting Arrest", and I think that's the core of the issue. If I walked up to you on the street and grabbed your arm, does that give you the right to point a lethal weapon at me and discharge it? No. That's fucking ridiculous to even consider that as an option. If I walked up to you and pointed a gun at your head, does that give you the right to point a lethal weapon at me and discharge it? Hell yes it does. Resistance is a natural human reaction to a threat, and does not necessitate the use of lethal force. Police officers are entrusted by the public to protect and serve, and that includes the appropriate use of force when necessary. Lethal force such as discharging a firearm should only be used when the officer or the public that he/she is entrusted to protect is threatened with life-threatening force. In my view, independent oversight and investigation should occur any time there's an officer involved shooting and the officer that was entrusted with protecting the public interest should always stand trial when he/she chooses to utilize lethal force that the public has entrusted them with.

[mizz_kittay]

[STA-CITE]>The officer only has seconds to decide what threat the suspect poses. It's perfectly reasonable for them to assume that the person intends to kill them. [END-CITE]No it's not, and police officers of all people have the proper training to know that. Just because a person is resisting being arrested doesn't give any indication whatsoever that the person is trying to kill the police officer. Nobody *wants* to be arrested to so it's understandable for people to resist. That doesn't mean they're murderers or should be presumed as at risk of being a murderer. [STA-CITE]>The bottom line is that the officer has the right to do whatever they have to do to ensure that they get to go home to their families at the end of the day. [END-CITE]Wait a second, why does a police officer who chose to be a police officer get to have his or her own safety as his or her primary concern when he or she *chose* to work in this dangerous field in which officers are *instructed* to sometimes put the safety of the public before their own? If your primary concern is your own safety, being a police officer isn't the right career for you.

[ZeusThunder369]

[STA-CITE]> No it's not, and police officers of all people have the proper training to know that. Just because a person is resisting being arrested doesn't give any indication whatsoever that the person is trying to kill the police officer. Nobody wants to be arrested to so it's understandable for people to resist. That doesn't mean they're murderers or should be presumed as at risk of being a murderer [END-CITE]I get what you are saying, but I think there is a difference between not handling a situation as they were trained to, and thinking that the officer killed a suspect when they didn't feel their life was in danger. I see losing their job as something different than being indicted for manslaughter or murder. [STA-CITE]> Wait a second, why does a police officer who chose to be a police officer get to have his or her own safety as his or her primary concern when he or she chose to work in this dangerous field in which officers are instructed to sometimes put the safety of the public before their own? If your primary concern is your own safety, being a police officer isn't the right career for you. [END-CITE]They are instructed to put the safety of the public above their own, but that is for situations where they see someone being assaulted, attacked, etc.. They are expected to intervene and help that person, instead of just not doing anything. This is different than expecting the officer to let someone stab/punch them a few times before taking lethal action. They are allowed to take lethal action if they BELIEVE that the person is going to attack them.

[TBFProgrammer]

Who determines that the person was resisting arrest and how do we ensure that officers haven't deliberately incited resistance if we bar the option of court proceedings?

[ZeusThunder369]

I believe this would turn up in the investigation (which should always happen)

[KevinWestern]

But wouldn't that give cops a free ticket to kill any suspect resisting arrest? Say a suspect is really getting on the cop's nerves by calling him names, etc, and makes a run for it. Can the cop just shoot the guy (out of passion) and expect full immunity? I think the same guidelines of self defense that apply to you and I should apply to the police. It's for our own good.

[ZeusThunder369]

1) To the free ticket question - Yes, a cop could probably find a clever way to do this and get away with it. However, we trust them not to and the same is true today to a point (more difficult than in the past due to increased chance of a camera nearby) 2) To the self defense point - I disagree with this. The reason why, is that you and I have the option of running away and the police do not. If someone comes at me with what I think might be a knife I can simply run. The police officer doesn't have this option available to them.

[KevinWestern]

So you're saying that "yes, a cop could abuse this power" but that we should just "trust them not to"? I'm not aligned with that reasoning! Cops are humans, and just like the rest of us there are good and bad ones. Under your premise, what sort of checks are in place to make sure the bad ones don't abuse their power?

[EyeRedditDaily]

[STA-CITE]> we trust them not to [END-CITE]Do you have a gecko in your pocket? Because you sure as hell are talking about me when you say "we" trust the cops to not kill people that piss them off. Giving them yet another "valid" excuse for doing so would be ridiculous.

[ZeusThunder369]

I think just about every person trusts the police to not just randomly kill them because they make the officer mad. You don't fear for your life if you get pulled over for speeding right?

[GregBahm]

Because we have rules against it. But you're suggesting we remove those rules.

[chillin223]

I do. You must live in a rich white area.

[EyeRedditDaily]

Clearly you're not American. I don't think a cop will necessarily kill me because I'm speeding. But if I "disrepect his authority", all bets are off.

[ZeusThunder369]

I am American, but I think the reputation of police can vary drastically depending on the region. Where I live I wouldn't fear for my life if I told an officer to F off or something like that. I can understand if this isn't the case in other areas.

[learhpa]

[STA-CITE]> I can understand if this isn't the case in other areas. [END-CITE]Right. So in some parts of the country, it's *already* the case that people *rationally* fear that if they disrespect the authority of a cop who stopped them, their lives might be in jeopardy - and that's *with* rules governing cop behavior which you are proposing to remove.

[NihilisticNarwhal]

So you admit that the reputation of the police varies by area, but the legislation you are suggesting would ignore that. I understand the position you are trying to take, and i understand where it comes from, but i feel like the ease with which this could be abused it much too high. There have been several recent videos that have surfaced that show the police killing people that are not resisting arrest, and these officers have not all faced charges. what you propose would validate escalation of force in a time when this is already being done with impunity. i just don't see the value that could come from this.

[ZeusThunder369]

Do you have an example of one of those videos? I'm honestly asking; Seeing an officer shooting someone who wasn't physically resisting him would change my view entirely.

[xjescobedox]

try going to a website called cob block you will be appalled and awaked to a whole new problem you've been ignoring your whole life

[NihilisticNarwhal]

There's this one of cops tazing an elderly man with his hands up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYKZS-l5T1w#t=25

[NihilisticNarwhal]

Im sure you could find more. this was just a quick Google away, but i don't want to watch a bunch of people getting shot right now.

[ZeusThunder369]

∆ Yeah that's pretty horrible, can't deny it. I wouldn't be surprised if that officer that used the tazer had other situations in the past where he used poor judgment.

[overlord_of_reddit]

I think the crux of the issue rests on the fact that we generally have to rely on the judgement of the officer who is dealing with the situation. In case where someone is committing a criminal act and legitimately resists arrest, I think your points are more or less valid. Police are killed in borderline situations like this, as are civilians, it is an unfortunate reality. As of now, there is no universally reliable way to judge whether or not an officer's actions were justifiable in the context of the situation. I would disagree with the claim that it should be nearly impossible to indict an officer simply because they are an officer, but I can understand what you are saying. Do you think it would be more accurate to say that if someone is detained while (with reasonable certainty) committing a criminal act and presents a threat to an officer's well-being, officers should be subject to more lenient scrutiny in how they handle the situation, excepting in situations where an excessive reaction can be proven?

[ZeusThunder369]

∆ I totally agree. And yes, that would be far more accurate and express my thoughts exactly. I do want to make clear, that I still think there should be a thorough investigation into any shooting.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/overlord_of_reddit. [^overlord_of_reddit's ^Delta ^History](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/overlord_of_reddit) | [^DeltaBot ^Wiki](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot)

[notdomoduro]

While you make some valid points, the biggest issue is determining whether or not the suspect was indeed resisting arrested. When the only evidence that they were resisting is the word of the man shot them and has every incentive to lie, you can see where this becomes a problem.

[ZeusThunder369]

Yeah, I totally agree that it is a problem. I hope more officers carry body cameras to address this. If there is no witnesses or videos though, I think one has to believe what the officer is saying. Unless they have a bad history/record and this has happened before.

[notdomoduro]

[STA-CITE]> I think one has to believe what the officer is saying [END-CITE]I disagree to some degree-- I think that everyone, including police officers, should be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but I don't think that the mere fact that they are a police officer should aid in their being presumed innocent.

[EyeRedditDaily]

[STA-CITE]> No one forced them to commit criminal acts [END-CITE]Are you presuming that everyone that a cop tries to arrest has committed a criminal act? What if the arrest is just because the cop is abusing his power and the arrest isn't valid to begin with?

[aardvarkious]

I don't think people being arrested should have the right to decide "this arrest is bullshit, I'm going to resist it." That would be disastrous. If this was your right, then plenty of people who were being appropriately arrested would start resisting. That would make cops' jobs way more difficult than they should be. It would also make arrests way more dangerous, both to cops and the people being arrested. If the cops decide to arrest you, you should have to submit to the arrest. You don't get to resist just because you think (or say you think) the cop is abusing his power. If the cops decide to arrest you, all you should be allowed to do is say whatever you want. Physically, you should have to comply with all demands. The cops should be allowed to use any force necessary to arrest someone. That being said, there should also be way more accountability for cops. I would like to see it become fairly easy for citizens to have an arrest reviewed by a board made up of civilians and cops with the civilians having a voting majority. The civilians should be appointed and trained by other civilians and rotated out occasionally. I would like that board to have access to tapes from body cameras, squad cars, and any other technological aids necessary. If the citizen appealing to the board consents, all of its proceedings should be open to the public and media. If that board decides an arrest was inappropriate or more force than necessary was used, it should be able to levy real consequences against the cop, up to firing and laying criminal charges. The solution to some cops abusing their authority isn't to take away their authority. Because there are plenty of legitimate situation like where that authority needs to exist. They cannot do their job without it. The solution is to create more accountability and harsh punishments for those who abuse their authority. There are also many places where police are paid poorly and their qualification requirements are low. I think most problems are heavily tied to cops being low quality individuals. If you made it very difficult to become a cop, easy to lose the job, and you paid cops well- if you made it a profession filled with elite people rather than a profession of people who just think they are elite- I think a lot of problems would be solved.

[EyeRedditDaily]

[STA-CITE]> would like to see it become fairly easy for citizens to have an arrest reviewed by a board made up of civilians and cops with the civilians having a voting majority. [END-CITE]This will never happen because no (objective) civilian would ever sign up for this job. As a civilian, you either side with the cop who abuses his power, or he ends up abusing his power on you. The civilians on such a panel would be subject to abusive arrest at a much higher level than the general population.

[aardvarkious]

Civilian oversight boards already exist in many places. Do you have any evidence of this happening? And guess what: in my proposed system, the civilians on the board that would evaluate the abusive arrest are the ones being targeted. They have no incentive to side with the cops and every incentive to go against them. If the board has real power and the abusive cops start targeting board members, that is a great way to start getting those abusive cops fired and/or arrested quickly.

[EyeRedditDaily]

Their buddies are still on the force behind the blue shield. If they get fired and can't get to you, they've always got a buddy who can.

[aardvarkious]

And then that buddy gets reviewed and punished. Then the buddy who protects him. Then the buddy who protects him. Like I said: a great way to get all of the abusive cops out quickly if it goes the way you think. You are essentially saying "the police force is broken and we can never fix it." Which is bullshit. Plenty of places have professional, appropriate, accountable police forces.

[EyeRedditDaily]

[STA-CITE]> And then that buddy gets reviewed and punished. Then the buddy who protects him. Then the buddy who protects him. [END-CITE]Eventually, the police force is gone then. [STA-CITE]> Plenty of places have professional, appropriate, accountable police forces. [END-CITE]Not in the US

[aardvarkious]

[STA-CITE]>Eventually, the police force is gone then. [END-CITE]I think you are being ridiculous in your assumptions. But even if you are correct: so what? If every single cop will go over the line in harassing civilians, every single one being gone is a good thing. The force obviously needs to be built from scratch again. [STA-CITE]>Not in the US [END-CITE]I doubt that every single police force in the US is unprofessional, corrupt, incompetent, and/or unaccountable. Even if that is the case: there isn't anything inherently unique about the US's policing conditions. It is possible to make good police forces.

[EyeRedditDaily]

[STA-CITE]> I doubt that every single police force in the US is unprofessional, corrupt, incompetent, and/or unaccountable. Even if that is the case: there isn't anything inherently unique about the US's policing conditions. It is possible to make good police forces. [END-CITE]They are because it is the way that they are trained. They are trained to "take control of the situation", rather than trained to be reasonable, rational and logical. There are probably a few exceptions of *individuals* who decide that they don't want to be assholes and can do their job well without being assholes. But they are not following their training.

[EyeRedditDaily]

[STA-CITE]> I don't think people being arrested should have the right to decide "this arrest is bullshit, I'm going to resist it." [END-CITE]I was thinking more along the lines of "this guy is banging my wife so I'm going to abuse my power and arrest him for some bullshit reason because I can". And then, if the OPs view was the law of the land, the cop could just shoot his wife's lover because he "resisted arrest" for a bullshit arrest.

[aardvarkious]

If the cop is on duty, he absolutely should be able to arrest whoever he wants. If it is found out that he arrested someone due to a persona vendetta, he should lose his job. If he killed that person using unreasonable force, he should be prosecuted for first degree murder. The solution is increased accountability, not taking away the authority.

[ZeusThunder369]

∆ I think that would be a different situation. If it turns out that the person is completely innocent, then it would be much harder to give the officer the benefit of the doubt. I can't find any situation where that has happened though, even outside of recent events. Every time there is a fatal shooting the victim is always a criminal (even a petty one), and was resisting arrest.

[learhpa]

I don't see under what possible reasoning you can claim that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Tamir_Rice">Tamir Rice</a> was a criminal, even a petty one.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/EyeRedditDaily. [^EyeRedditDaily's ^Delta ^History](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/eyeredditdaily) | [^DeltaBot ^Wiki](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot)

[EyeRedditDaily]

So your view has been changed / modified?

[ZeusThunder369]

Yes, modified. I hadn't thought enough about a totally innocent person.

[learhpa]

[Here](http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/in-fairfax-va-a-different-no-less-scary-police-shooting-1.2960995)'s a case of a guy who wasn't a criminal and wasn't resisting arrest. He just got shot. Because he asked for permission to scratch his nose, obtained the permission, and scratched his nose, which freaked out a *different police officer than the one who had granted the permission*.

[ZeusThunder369]

∆ Wow. Seriously, this has changed my view a lot. Just to try to get anything positive out of that story; It speaks to race not being as big a factor as everyone thinks.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/learhpa. [^learhpa's ^delta ^history](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/learhpa) ^| [^Delta ^System ^explained](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot)

[cacheflow]

[STA-CITE]> Every time there is a fatal shooting the victim is always a criminal (even a petty one), and was resisting arrest [END-CITE]Technically speaking, since the victim was never prosecuted and convicted of a crime (because they were dead), we can't say that they were a criminal in a legal sense. They were innocent until proven guilty. If you believe an officer should treat an innocent suspect differently, then legally, you are advocating for treating all suspects in the same way, because, in fact, they are innocent until they are convicted by a judge or jury.

[ZeusThunder369]

∆ That's a really good point, but I'm not totally clear on the definition of what a "criminal" is. I think technically speaking it is just anyone who has ever been convicted of a crime. But it seems silly to think that some old lady who committed a crime 50 years ago is technically a criminal. I wonder if there is a statute of limitations on such things.

[DeltaBot]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/cacheflow. [^cacheflow's ^Delta ^History](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/user/cacheflow) | [^DeltaBot ^Wiki](/r/ChangeMyView/wiki/DeltaBot)

[NihilisticNarwhal]

"The officer has no idea what the intent of the person resisting is, or how far they are willing to go to avoid being arrested." Why not? A suspect running away is less likely to pose a threat than a suspect running towards the officer. Presumably the officers are trained to react appropriately in different situations. "The person resisting made a choice to resist; They should be aware of the potential consequences of that decision. No one forced them to commit criminal acts, and no one forced them to not comply with the officer's orders (which is breaking the law)." There's a bit of grey area here. I'm sure you can believe that there are cases in which police officers harass people who have committed no crime. this would validate this sort of harassment as the officer could claim they were resisting arrest, and no one could challenge them. "The officer doesn't have the option of just letting the person go." You're right, they don't and they shouldn't, but that doesn't mean lethal force is warranted in every case. "The officer only has seconds to decide what threat the suspect poses. It's perfectly reasonable for them to assume that the person intends to kill them." In every case? really? you don't think there should be any investigation after the fact? "How often does someone just give up on their own when resisting? It may have happened before, but it is very rare for the suspect to just stop if the officer get injured, or they decide that it has gone too far." Just what do you mean by "resisting arrest"? The dictionary defines it as: "the crime of using physical force (no matter how slight in the eyes of most law enforcement officers) to prevent arrest, handcuffing and/or taking the accused to jail. It is also called "resisting an officer" (but that can include interfering with a peace officer's attempt to keep the peace) and is sometimes referred to merely as "resisting."' resisting arrest can be squirming away from handcuffs, running away, etc. there doesn't have to be any danger to the officer for it to be considered resisting. It simply isn't practical to expect the police to "shoot to wound". no, but again, shooting someone isn't the only way for officers to handle a situation. "The bottom line is that the officer has the right to do whatever they have to do to ensure that they get to go home to their families at the end of the day." this is simply not true. suppose an officer decides that "what they have to do" is shoot everyone they see? this is of course absurd, but suppose a less absurd situation arises, you would want them to not be questioned or investigated? they get free reign over the lives of others? That is a sure fire way for the police to abuse their power.

[ZeusThunder369]

Really good comments. However, I do think the incident should be investigated. If the investigation doesn't uncover something that proves the officer clearly and beyond any doubt shot someone that posed no threat to them, then I don't think an indictment should follow the investigation.