Don't mess with the US state department!

[Don Corleone]

Well, like I said, cops are more likely to get shot on a routine traffic stop then on a drug bust. It's the single most dangerous thing they do, because they never know who they're pulling over, and they're all alone. The criminals know this and figure, one shot, and I'm free again....

As far as extracting her from the vehicle, what if she had a knife and plunged it into him when he reached in to take her out? Is it your contention that the police officer must place themselves at risk of harm in order to spare a resisting arestee some discomfort?

Look, I'm no fan of a police state, and I'm a big believer in civil liberties. But you guys need to find a better cross to nail our cops to than this case. I find your poster child to be rather unsympathetic, in my eyes.

[English assassin]

As far as extracting her from the vehicle, what if she had a knife and plunged it into him when he reached in to take her out? Is it your contention that the police officer must place themselves at risk of harm in order to spare a resisting arestee some discomfort?

Its certainly my contention that a cop should not be allowed to use a taser on someone because they might have a knife. After all, even in the UK, anyone MIGHT have a knife, so you would be allowing cops to taser anyone if they felt a bit nervous that day.

Pre-emptive force should NEVER be allowed.

But then as you know our police are unarmed (well, they carry batons and CS spray) so I am coming from a whole different place.

[Beirut]

Mind you, in Montreal, not too far away from me, you would have to be crazy not to get out of the car when the cops tell you too because the cops there are crazy. They'd go right at you with their steel flashlights if you said no more than once. And if you are black... you better have a will written out before you backtalk a cop. There isn't a Mississippi backwoods KKK cop who would shoot a black person faster than a Montreal cop.

Crazy bunch of SOBs.

[Don Corleone]

So in your mind, the onus of risk should be on the law enforcement personnel? They should be the ones to put themselves in harm's way, and only be able to retaliate after an attack has been made? They shouldn't be able to pre-emptively stop an attack?

Low pay, lousy hours, disrepsect, AND they have less rights than the criminals they're trying to arrest. How do you get anyone to sign up for this job?

[English assassin]

Well you are putting it a bit high Don but basically yes. Unless a person is clearly a threat to the policeman or another person then certainly no weapon should be used. Force should be restricted to the absolute minimum necessary, eg if the person will not get into the police car it is ok to take hold of them and push them into the car. It is not OK to beat them until they agree to obey your instructions.

Where does this "they might have a knife" argument end? What if I am 6'3" and 200lbs, can they taser me then? What if I am 5'10" but have a window sticker from my local karate club?

My great uncle was a policeman of the old school (that's to say, of the old "if you can beat me you can go, and if I beat you you are coming to the station" school. Malcolm didn't lose too many fights, even though Chatham was a dockyard town). He was a lovely bloke and Kent Police gave him a huge send off at his funeral, but even so I really don't think we want the likes of Malcolm in the police any more.

(But if you get to heaven and a big bloke with a broken nose called Malcolm asks you to move along, my advice is to move...)

[bmolsson]

So in your mind, the onus of risk should be on the law enforcement personnel? They should be the ones to put themselves in harm's way, and only be able to retaliate after an attack has been made? They shouldn't be able to pre-emptively stop an attack?

Low pay, lousy hours, disrepsect, AND they have less rights than the criminals they're trying to arrest. How do you get anyone to sign up for this job?

Pre-emptively, maybe, retaliation, never....

Police officers don't have less rights and they should be the only one allowed to have a weapon......

[Beirut]

So in your mind, the onus of risk should be on the law enforcement personnel?

It's the nature of their job. A cop who won't take risks is like a doctor who can't stand the sight of blood.

They should be the ones to put themselves in harm's way, and only be able to retaliate after an attack has been made?

Yes. And no. They have to put themselves in harm's way. Otherwise they would not be able to do their job. That said, it is of course more than reasonable that they be allowed to use their judgement regarding the situation and act when required. That judgement must be honed by training and experience, not by temper and impatience.

They shouldn't be able to pre-emptively stop an attack?

Of course they can stop an attack. That is also part of their job. But again, they need to use their judgement and be able to differentiate between a potentially hostile situation and the someone just blowing them ****. I don't think it's a good I idea to give a cop too much ****, but it is even worse when the cop can't handle it.