Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

warb17 OP t1_j8ipxxb wrote

Reply to comment by paulHarkonen in D.C. police officer shoots, wounds man in Southeast Washington by warb17

the whole point of de-escalation is to apply it to someone originally intending to do violence.

also, i haven't said that lethal force is never required, even with a knife. i've said that it's heavily overused. if my sentiments feel extreme to you, maybe you should do some more reading on police and prison abolition. this article was written by someone skeptical of police abolition and might be useful: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/6/12/21283813/george-floyd-blm-abolish-the-police-8cantwait-minneapolis

−1

paulHarkonen t1_j8ir5tp wrote

I've read quite a bit on the subject and your comment was extreme. While you're right that you didn't say "never" you did say "rarely" and then used that stance to justify why it is unjustified when dealing with a suspect that had already used the weapon.

Again, I understand the concerns. Police need to be heavily regulated, on camera 24/7, reduced funding that is redirected toward mental health and social welfare resources. I'm onboard. The whole system needs to be completely restructured from the top to bottom.

Your stance and hyperbole here hampers that goal. Sometimes we do need police armed and prepared to use lethal force. Someone utilizing a potentially lethal weapon is one of those times. Do they need better training? Yes. Do they need more oversight? Yes. Should they be locked up in cases of misuse of force (such as shooting unarmed people)? Yes. Does that mean lethal force is unjustified when dealing with suspects wielding weapons other than firearms? No.

2

warb17 OP t1_j8ivcb7 wrote

a person with a knife is generally a threat that can be contained and so as a general practice i'm going to default to assuming that the police acted irresponsibly if they shot the person.

i genuinely appreciate that you are willing to consider some reforms; we have some common ground there. i don't mean this in an antagonizing way but please keep in mind that my stance is not reform of police - it's abolition - so i'm not surprised if you feel like my stance is somewhat at odds with yours, because it is.

have you seen this pdf? if you haven't, it's a great tool for thinking about reforms that do or do not move towards abolition. you've mentioned some of the things in green, and so like i said, we do have common ground.

but my position is that policing and prisons as we know them are fundamentally problematic institutions and our aim should be to build a society free of them.

0

paulHarkonen t1_j8iwft1 wrote

I think your stance is self destructive and not only does it result in worse outcomes but advocating for it undermines the possibility of improvement. So yes, I am certainly at odds with that stance.

3

warb17 OP t1_j8ix5v1 wrote

well, at least we can advocate for reduced funding for MPD together and get those funds redirected to social services.

−1