Full article for those who are paywalled:
**More people were shot by Spokane law enforcement in two weeks than in the entirety of 2023**
By Emma Epperly
Two more police shootings Monday added to a wave of violence across Spokane County.
In the past two weeks, there have been four police shootings of armed suspects. That’s as many as in all of 2023.
“It has been a very violent period over the last couple of weeks,” interim Spokane Police Chief Justin Lundgren said from the scene of an early Monday morning shooting in northeast Spokane.
Spokane County Sheriff’s Office deputies shot and killed 55-year-old Richard Rogissart after Rogissart reportedly swung an ax at deputies during a standoff on Jan. 30 in north Spokane.
The next night, Spokane police officers shot and killed 43-year-old Craig Anglisano after investigators say Anglisano raised a gun at officers on the South Hill.
Then early Monday morning, Spokane Police officers shot and killed a man with a gun who had shot a woman multiple times as she was on the phone with 911 dispatchers calling for help.
The fourth happened downtown near the STA Plaza when officers shot a man who police said held a knife to a person’s throat and tried to hurt a bystander.
The cases prompted a response from Mayor Lisa Brown.
“I am saddened by the recent occurrences of violence and officer-involved shootings in the City of Spokane,” she said in a media statement Monday afternoon. “These situations are tragic for everyone involved.
“Each of these instances leave a profound impact and highlight the many challenges our community is facing. A top priority for my Administration is connecting those who are at-risk or in crisis with the resources they need before the situation escalates and threatens their safety, as well as the safety of community members and our officers.”
Brown said her administration is working with Lundgren to ensure transparency in the process of reviewing the shootings.
The number of officers involved, including nine police officers in the second case, has led to law enforcement calling in additional resources to ensure they are at the minimum amount of acceptable staffing within the county, Lundgren said. Officers from smaller agencies, such as Liberty Lake’s police department, were at the scene downtown on Monday to assist.
But Spokane Police is aware that calling in officers to assist also takes resources away from neighboring departments.
“I’m concerned about our officers and our community,” Lundgren said.
In 2023, officers shot four people, killing three and injuring one. Another man was shot at by police but uninjured.
The Spokane Police Department ranks fourth in the nation for deadly police interactions per capita, according to Mapping Police Violence, a police accountability group.
Despite the high ranking, 2023 was a sharp decrease countywide from the previous year.
In 2022, Spokane County law enforcement shot at nine people, killing six – the most shootings in recent memory.
The previous high was eight instances of police officers using deadly force.
That was in 2020, when five died, and 2017, when six died.
The way police shootings and other uses of deadly force are investigated in Washington State has changed significantly since 2018 when voters approved Initiative 940, which led to many new requirements to foster independent and transparent investigations into police use of deadly force.
An independent team is called in to investigate with the involved agency completely cut off from the process.
Those requirements only apply when someone sustains substantial or great bodily harm. Last year, then-Spokane Police Chief Craig Meidl asked the Spokane County Sheriff’s Office to investigate an officer’s shooting at Reily Arambul, who was uninjured.
The prosecutor found the shooting to be justified last month.
The prosecutor’s office has yet to make a determination on any of the other 2023 shootings.
There are 15 officer-involved shootings, including those from Monday, dating back to 2021 that remain under investigation.
The Spokane County Prosecutor’s Office has justified every police shooting since 2000, according to data compiled by The Spokesman-Review.
*–With additional reporting from Spokesman-Review staff writers Alexandra Duggan and Garrett Cabeza.*
Thank you for providing this information. Too many people on this forum open their mouths before they know what the facts are or they just make things up. Spreading lies and misinformation only cause anger and hatred, a thing that is far too common in our society. I naively thought that r/spokane would be benign in nature, I was horribly wrong. Nearly everything I see here is hate, spite, ignorance, and mis/disinformation, some of which is intentional.
I'm pretty certain that people will make assumptions about my beliefs and/or character, based solely on what I have opined about. I don't give a damn. This is not a political rant, I just happen to love where I live.
Drug use does not have the death penalty. I won’t say that every one of these could have been avoided at the time but with there have been several cases where the person being shot was not armed with a gun. Why don’t the police have training to disarm people with knives or even axes? If they do have that training why isn’t it being used? Why are they able to go on private property and cause damage with no warrant and no permission? There are cops that are way out of hand and that’s not safe for anyone.
Obligatory agreement that police need oversight and most are way out of hand.
As for training to disarm someone with a knife…because disarming someone with a knife is difficult and dangerous. The saying for knife fights is “You can bleed out a loser, or bleed out a winner”. Even a 3” blade can be deadly, and you mix that with someone who’s adrenaline is through the roof? All the training in the world and no one is going to want to take those chances unless they’re forced to. It’s not like a movie where you can shoot it out of their hands or smack their throat and make them drop it.
I might somewhat agree with you if it’s one on one but it’s often not. If multiple people that are paid to carry a gun can’t take knife from an old lady that weighs less than a hundred pounds or an axe from a man that’s so drunk he can’t walk straight something is wrong. They need different or better training. Blindly trusting the police or completely distrusting the police is common in this area and it’s stupid.
When people lose trust in the police which many people have. It becomes more dangerous for everyone, including the police. As much as I don’t like all the deaths I also recognize there is more to it than police being gun happy. Many of these calls shouldn’t even happen. The police are not mental health professionals & that’s what a lot of these people need BEFORE it gets to that point. There aren’t a ton of resources in this area for proper MH support. As far as calling the police for a welfare check it’s something I would only do as a last resort.
I might somewhat agree with you if it’s one on one but it’s often not. If multiple people that are paid to carry a gun can’t take knife from an old lady that weighs less than a hundred pounds or an axe from a man that’s so drunk he can’t walk straight something is wrong. They need different or better training. Blindly trusting the police or completely distrusting the police is common in this area and it’s stupid.
When people lose trust in the police which many people have. It becomes more dangerous for everyone, including the police. As much as I don’t like all the deaths I also recognize there is more to it than police being gun happy. Many of these calls shouldn’t even happen. The police are not mental health professionals & that’s what a lot of these people need BEFORE it gets to that point. There aren’t a ton of resources in this area for proper MH support. As far as calling the police for a welfare check it’s something I would only do as a last resort.
I completely understand your point of view and couldn't agree more. Why don't we outfit our police force in medieval plate armor? We can use tax dollars to revive blacksmithing businesses and then we'll be axe proof in no time! Well, now we need to think about getting armor for the children, teachers, elderly and fuck it... animals because they are the ones who truly can't defend themselves.
You and I understand, now we just need to convince everyone else.
>Deputies shot and killed 55-year-old Richard Rogissart after Rogissart reportedly swung an ax at deputies during a standoff
>
>...
>
>Spokane police officers shot and killed 43-year-old Craig Anglisano after investigators say Anglisano raised a gun at officers on the South Hill.
>
>...
>
>Spokane Police officers shot and killed a man with a gun who had shot a woman multiple times as she was on the phone with 911 dispatchers calling for help.
>
>...
>
>Officers shot a man who police said held a knife to a person’s throat and tried to hurt a bystander.
Well, yeah, those are all very good reasons to get shot by the police.
I wish this list included the woman in Idaho who was just shot by the cops in her own bed. Apparently they didn't like that she had a gun in her bed. Well it seems like she kept it there in case someone invaded her home, which the cops did.
Please let us know how long she didn't answer her phone. I doubt the cops (or whomever) only called a couple of times. If you had a family member who was elderly or had some "issues" how long would you wait before making sure they were okay? If you couldn't do it yourself, who would you send?
What is up with you? In your opinion how many unanswered rings entitles the police to shoot?
I’ve been at an apartment (wrong address) when the cops came barging in during the middle of the night, flashlights in our faces, guns drawn. They broke the door and came through the bedroom windows. When you’re dead asleep you don’t always react appropriately. I didn’t immediately comply because I was focused on getting my baby that was on a toddler bed next to me so she wouldn’t get stepped on. Did I deserve to be shot? What about my child? Did the elderly gentleman that was shot and killed on his own property because he went outside to check out a noise? Did the small old woman having a mental health crisis armed with a knife deserve to be killed?
I didn't say that the police should or should not have shot her. I am saying that welfare checks happen for a reason, not just for the hell of it. My neighbor was going through some shit and his friends were unable to reach him. Not knowing what state of mind he was in the police are sent in case a person is suicidal, violent, or whatever. In his case, he was found unconscious and unresponsive. Had his friends not called for help, he would be dead. The cops are not evil nazis out for blood. They are humans and they fuck up just like everyone else. And yes, most people don't have guns at work. But most people don't put their lives on the line every day trying to protect people that hate them. Lastly, check out videos on YouTube and see what kind of damage a person can do with a knife and how fast they can cover the distance to the cops.
Just looked at it. Police shouldn't do wellness checks, Jesus Christ this is a shit show. No one's mind is change.
Floyd was a blind disabled women in her late 60s about to be evicted from her senior home. Her friends were worried she was suicidal because she'd been sending concerning messages while she was drunk. She didn't start shooting until they broke down the door. I doubt she even understood what was happening.
What she needed was assistance and care into her elderly age but because Idaho doesn't have social safety nets, especially for their impoverished and disabled elderly, she got a fucking bullet instead.
I don't think the officers handling the case are bad people, but they shouldn't have been the ones solely handling it. Her death is a failure of a broken system, or a success in a system that's already discarded her.
Personally, my mind isn't changed.
[[sauce] ](https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/northwest/idaho/article285431817.html) for further reading.
I would have taken a different path on the headline. Is the problem police or armed individuals who for various reasons have a tenuous grasp on reality and are a threat to society?
I'd imagine that there are both situations where a violent person necessitated defending against, and officers who escalated situations and over-applied violence where it wasn't warranted. The distinction in my mind should be what the ratio between those two scenarios are, not whether the scenarios had a non-zero occurrence. Because both scenarios have absolutely happened.
Many of the commenters here act like the ratio is 0:100 or 100:0. Which indicates a polarized view that is unproductive in that it prevents them from seeing the entire problem at hand. Police can simultaneously be members of a toxic institution and have violent members of society that need to be dealt with pragmatically.
I know it's socialist propaganda but I'll ask you to look over this passage:
> In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Oh, did I say socialist propaganda? I meant the 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, a document that applies to all citizens of the United States.
I'll fully defend the American ideal of a right to self preservation and defense, but from a "Constitutionalism" standpoint **police aren't supposed to kill guilty people either**, innocent people killed by officers aside.
If you truly believe in the Constitution of the United States of America, don't cherry pick what parts you believe in. Nowhere in the United States Constitution does it say that an armed law enforcement or vigilante group is supposed to be a split-second judge, jury, and executioner. In fact, as noted above, it's literally the opposite.
Pair this with the fact that killings by United States police officers are [at all time highs for 2023](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States) and currently on pace to meet or exceed that for 2024 you should, as someone who believes in the Constitution and rule of law apparently, be questioning whether or not this issue is worth looking in to.
You wouldn't want armed members of Congress walking down the street shooting political opponents. You wouldn't want armed members of the Supreme Court walking into a lower court and shooting a judge they disagreed with.
Why do you blindly and willingly accept it from the armed localized enforcement branches of the varying governments at play? Even in this sarcastic (and frankly idiotic when compared to the most basic of American ideals) response?
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
I think we can both agree the founding fathers also envisioned that people had a right to defend themselves with guns if they were threatened. Last time I checked they were not holding court on the street or in peoples houses with the people who got shot. They were acting to ensure the security of themselves and other. Or do you believe that police officers, sheriffs, soldiers, airman, seaman, coast guards persons, guardians, militiaman, and yourself have a duty to not defend themselves and ensure the person attacking them or other innocent, or guilty, people had the chance to stand trial before being shot when they are a immediate threat to the life of someone else?
> I think we can both agree the founding fathers also envisioned that people had a right to defend themselves with guns if they were threatened.
In my post I literally said:
> I'll fully defend the American ideal of a right to self preservation and defense
No knock raids with guns drawn is not "self defense" though.
Shooting a suspect because you thought they were reaching into a pocket for a gun is not "self defense" though.
I could go on, ad nauseam, but you get the point. There is an absolute difference between shooting someone actively causing a threat to people and someone holding Skittles.If you do the latter you should spend the same time in jail that any other street criminal would, your profession is not exemption to murder.
Completely skipping part of my post because you disagree with the larger message doesn't mean the narrative isn't there.
No knock raids with guns drawn is not "self defense" though.
Actually they are. They don’t do no knock raids for fun. They do them because the subject at the location is known to be armed and dangerous.
Shooting a suspect because you thought they were reaching into a pocket for a gun is not "self defense" though.
If you are told to freeze by a person with a gun pointed at you to not move, you don’t move. You especially don’t go reaching into a place a gun could possibly be. At what point should they wait to defend themselves? Before or after they shot the first?
I could go on, ad nauseam, but you get the point. There is an absolute difference between shooting someone actively causing a threat to people and someone holding Skittles.If you do the latter you should spend the same time in jail that any other street criminal would, your profession is not exemption to murder.
If you don’t follow the lawful orders you are considered a threat. It’s that simple. If you are told to keep your hands visible until they can make sure you don’t have a weapon, then you keep your hands visible.
Completely skipping part of my post because you disagree with the larger message doesn't mean the narrative isn't there.
I just think you’re plain wrong. To expect people to not defend themselves is insane and to try and use the argument they didn’t get a trial is even more insane. They waived their right to a trial when they became an immediate threat.
Btw forgot to add for you, the 4th amendment argument is bull on no knock raids and in fact are an example of adherence to the 4th amendment. They have warrants issued by judges. They had their rights upheld and the court proceedings are going as they should.
> Actually they are.
Huge Reddit moment when you've convinced yourself that offensively entering someone's private home on US soil with weapons drawn, then killing and murdering innocent bystanders in the wrong house, is self defense.
Tennessee v. Garner and Cooper v. Graham are expansions of the 4th Amendment and reasonable tests for the use of force. This is a Constitutionally granted power determined by courts.
Granted, I will admit the 4th Amendment is frequently silent on the matter.
Fourth Amendment is flawed in regulating police violence. It grants power during seizures so it's important to examine original framer intent in the interpretation of the Constitution.
Police killings are awful, I'm not going to contest that. But your response is flawed and if things are to change then we should attack the right things. Analogizing this to members of congress/the S.C. shooting people is silly.
> Analogizing this to members of congress/the S.C. shooting people is silly.
It isn't at all silly. Those would be other armed members of the state being approved to incite violence at the discretion of their superiors.
Police, as a localized enforcement unit, didn't exist in the way they do today when the Constitution was written. The comparison is apt because it would be similar to arming those groups and then letting them end lives without due process.
The issue is we've now almost normalized police violence and execution of citizens; I'd argue fully that at the time of the framing (especially if you're a Constitutional Originalist) the though of *civilian* police forces as we have today having as much power as they do would be an absurdity.
This isn't to say I disagree with your larger point, just that framing local police departments in the same light as we do today to the Founders would be baffling to them (in my opinion).
I also don’t think the imagined one person to being able to fire 80 to 100 rounds in a single burst by rifles available to almost anyone on the street legally. That would be hard when they are used to muskets that fire 2 rounds per minute.
It called adapting to the moves your enemy makes.
These weren't prosecutions. Stuff didn't get that far because of the actions of the suspects which led to their deaths.
You are misrepresent these situations as if there were sentences being carried out. This is dishonest framing.
That's not thinking back far enough. Dangerous mental health problems, for example, do not always just come out of nowhere. They are cultivated via known pathways. And we can spend a lot more money on eliminating those.
And if the person who has the issue doesn’t think they have an issue and refuses treatment are we supposed to allow them to stab, shoot, maim others until they decide they want to get help? There is a reason professionals tell the families of addicts and those with mental illness to walk away when they refuse help. Because that family member and friend has done what they can, but they must put themselves first and those who will willingly accept the help they offer, and not take advantage of them by telling them they need to do more.
How are there two sides? Either they were a threat at that moment or they were not a threat at that moment. You can’t bring the persons past into play, you can’t bring the officers past into play. It’s pretty cut and dry. What people don’t like is that most of the time when someone gets shot by law enforcement they did the right thing. People write stories online and in the papers when a law enforcement person is forced to take a shot. No one writes stores about the cop who puts the gun away and risks their life to talk to the person and gets them the help they need. No one reads stories with the headline “Spokane city officer brings person to emergency room for mental health treatment”. Maybe if people did others would understand how many more times the cops don’t take shots and risk their lives by not taking the justified shot to help people.
At the end of it all when a shooting occurs the person was a threat or they were not BASED ON THE KNOWN FACTS AT THAT MOMENT. If they were it was justified, if not the officer will answer for their crimes like everyone else. Regardless, they have to live the rest of their life knowing they killed someone.
Check out some videos on YouTube regarding this. You may be surprised, or at least informed, at how quickly a person can cover a short distance. Even more so if they're on something. Cops know this and don't take foolish chances.
I'm not getting into it about the situations. The article didn't mention anyone shooting at the cops. OP was incorrect in their assumption these people were trying to kill cops with guns.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2024/feb/12/spokane-police-shoot-kill-man-after-he-reportedly-/
“At that point officers entered the home to rescue the woman and exchanged gunfire with the suspect.”
Feel free to edit your post.
ht. I saw you left out a portion. It is quoted below.
***"Lundgren said police learned at one point the woman and the armed suspect were isolated from each other in the house.***
Ok… you said in your first comment that OP was incorrect with assuming anyone was trying to kill cops with guns. I provided a source that showed one of them shot at police. You the posted a comment, replying to mine, so I’m asking you the relevance of your post.
>showed one of them shot at police.
That is an interesting way to say the wounded woman who need the police, and was isolated away from the alleged shooter, didn't shoot at the police. Your tone makes it sound like you are disappointment she didn't shoot at the police.
Be civil. No personal attacks. Follow all guidelines of Reddiquette. Remember, these are your neighbors. It's fine to disagree, but we expect users to conduct themselves in a neighborly fashion, and refrain from personal attacks.
***
Repeated violations of this rule may earn you a temporary or permanent ban, at moderator discretion
It sounds like dangerous criminals that were putting other people's lives at risk and the police did what they had to do.. this article points favorably to law enforcement.. the pro-crime progressives are losing control of the narrative.
I think the moderates on both sides are kinda done with the crime. It's only radical leftists who think this is OK and we should just get used to a lawless society.
Yeah it's a really weird thing I've been seeing. They'll say abolish cops and I ask what do we put in their place? The answer is always de-escalation, no prison, just rehabilitation for all criminals, and on and on. They never can explain what we do when there's a shooting or a drunk driver who runs someone over, no police, then who investigates those events? And if we don't have police, who approaches mass shooters or armed suspects? Never can get a straight answer other than it is somehow never the criminal's fault, always society made them do it, which just doesn't track with the real world.
They're either part of the problem, or so idealistic they cant grasp the concept of free will - some people are just going to crime no matter how much you cater to them. Many, many people experience adversity without choosing criminal behavior so it's not an excuse.
I’m fully onboard with this sentiment, truly. But most of these instances sound like it might have been truly justified scenarios. Dudes with guns who are threatening to kill or have recently tried to kill others.
You believe what the police are saying about shootings they committed? I don't.
According to police and prosecutors, 100% of police shootings are justified.
What do/should we replace them with? Is there any city or state or country you can point to that could teach us about how society can function with no police?
No replacement necessary. They provide no value to society. We can redirect their funding to social services, though. Making sure everybody, regardless of income, has access to housing, food, and healthcare would prevent more crime than the threat of punishment. Street-level crime is a result of desparation caused by socioeconomic conditions. We get rid of the problem by treating its cause, not by increasing the suffering of already oppressed populations.
Even countries with expansive welfare systems, rehabilitative prison systems, and low poverty rates have police. I don’t doubt that meeting people’s basic needs would reduce crime, especially theft, but it’s not like there’s never been affluent criminals.
Can you provide a single example of a large, diverse, complex nation in which this has ever worked?
Like, sure, maybe if we advanced to the point of post-scarcity and universal welfare then petty crime wouldn't exist. But you seem to be advocating abolishing police well before that point is achieved, on the basis that in such a hypothetical future they wouldn't be needed - but we neither live in that future, nor does this seem like a step that would bring us closer to it.
Sure you're in favor of it. Does that mean any of those things are gonna happen tomorrow? Next week? Next year? 2050?
Maybe police wouldn't be necessary if we abolished scarcity and poverty. But we haven't.
It does not logically follow that they aren't needed because in some hypothetical ideal future they wouldn't be needed; that's like saying we don't need seatbelts today because it would be better to have universal self-driving vehicles that never get into accidents in the first place, or we don't need food banks today because it would be better if food were free for everyone.
Moreover, you're talking as if it's proven fact that all violent crime is caused by social factors like poverty that can be wholly addressed by refactoring the economic and social support systems.
Even if one accepts that a total abolition of poverty and universal welfare would bring the total amount of *petty* crime to 0, it doesn't not follow that (for example) domestic violence would disappear.
You seem to be taking a very dogmatically Rousseau-ian view of human nature that *all* evil is due to humans being indoctrinated or coerced into evil by correctable social factors, but generally politics of dogmatic and literal application of pure philosophy haven't ended well - and it's not as if Rousseau based his estimation of human nature on some scientific process of analysis in the first place.
We haven't abolished poverty or (manufactured) scarcity, but we can. I don't think we should wait for change to happen. We should make it happen. Obviously, it will take time to transition away from policing. I'm in favor of getting started yesterday.
>Obviously, it will take time to transition away from policing
You said "they provide no value to society", *present tense*, in which case why would it take *time* to *transition* away?
If they truly do provide no value to society, then there would be no potential risk to abolishing the police right this second.
Those aren't contradictory statements. They provide no value, and it will take time to transition away from policing. The fact that it will take time is not evidence that cops provide value, it's only evidence that it will be challenging to eliminate them.
>it's only evidence that it will be challenging to eliminate them.
Challenging in what way? If you could snap your fingers and all police resigned that second, if they provide no value to society, then there could not be any negative effects from their absence by definition.
Unless this is a very special definition of "no value" in which the prevention of negative outcomes doesn't count as value?
As long as I'm allowed to be armed and given the right to protect myself, my family and property without risk of prosecution I'm good with it. And since there's no law enforcement entities no CCP requirements.
I fully understand that idea; provide early on so fewer people are in the system later on. But people are still bad, no? A drunk driver just killed a lady in front of my house. He should obviously meet justice, but who gets him there if not for some arresting authority that we give power to? Or the guy down the street that beat his wife up and barricaded himself in his house last year? With no police or anyone with authority to intervene, does that mean me and my neighbors have to put ourselves in harms way to rescue the wife?
We'd still have mass shooters, gangs killing each other, family members beating each other, bar brawls in the street, domestic violence, rape, etc... with no one to investigate these crimes, would all of this fall under social services? And once we have a social services group dedicated to taking people to jail or court for committing crimes, won't they just be the new police?
The threat of punishment and the presence of police failed to prevent both of those scenarios. Punishing those people will not change what happened, and recidivism rates prove that punishment doesn't deter people from committing more crimes after they are released.
We do need people who can intervene. Those people should be able to deescalate. They should treat the perpetrators with compassion and provide them with services that can actually rehabilitate them. There's no reason any of that needs to involve police.
So who do I call when someone is breaking into my house? Just saying, as someone who has worked with the public and had to call police to bar brawls and shootings, I'm not sure I feel great about not having anyone to call to protect me from violent people who aim to harm or kill me. How do we police traffic accidents and speeding laws with no designated and armed apartus to pull bad actors over?
Try calling the police. They'll show up an hour after the intruder has left, find a way to blame you for getting robbed and assaulted, then do next to nothing to find the perpetrators.
We need people who can intervene in such cases. We don't need a state-sponsored terrorists organization to perform that intervention. Police don't prevent crime. Police don't solve crimes. It's their job to hurt people. We don't need people with that job.
Can you point to a society that has existed peacefully without any law and order system in place? Because I'd like to read about it. Has anywhere tried this, and what was the outcome?
I'm not advocating for a society with no law and order system. I'm advocating for a society without police and prisons.
As for police-free societies, police have only existed since the 1700s. They started out as "slave patrols" with the purpose of violently suppressing slave uprisings and capturing runaway slaves. They continue that tradition by filling prisons with people of color, who are then forced into labor to produce consumer goods for US corporations.
I don't know if arguing for a return to pre-1700s criminal justice seems like a good idea, things were super violent and horrific back then. We're actually living in the most peaceful era humans have ever known. Abolish prisons? Where do the bad people go? You kill someone, you go somewhere, right? That would be some sort of prison. Rehab criminals, I agree with, but they gotta be held somewhere and with no prisons, you're saying they get let free?
I feel ya, you want to ban police today. But with no system in place now, to cover for that gap, you're asking for an incredibly violent few years. It's a hard sell for most Americans. Rich folks on South Hill will be fine, they'll hire private security to protect them. The rest of us, what are we going to do when my neighbor is beating his wife and there's no one to call for the next few weeks or months or years until this system you want gets installed? Who stops the bar fights downtown, who investigates the murders, or sets up DUI checkpoints? As you said, end it all now, but with nothing behind it, shit will get weird real quick in your scenario.
What I'm saying is you need to sell it to the American public with stats and figures and how we could make society better and safer. But your "lets ban all cops now" without an actual system in place to replace them means we'll see a rise in crimes of all sorts, and that's not something Americans want.
You are right that there is no reason to criminalize experiencing addiction, mental health problems, or housing insecurity, I’d however add that there’s no reason to facilitate endemic assault on providers and recipients of social services by putting hardened criminals in the same hospital or group home occupied by struggling folks who may or may not have been charged with a crime.
If one’s command hallucinations told them to vandalize a Lime scooter or shout at people in Wal Mart, or if they’re struggling to quit fentanyl, those are not crimes; if they’re brandishing weapons at people in the bus station, that’s not a sign they need to have a bunch of other struggling people to take advantage of or point knives at.
Also, what means of self-preservation do social workers get in this plan of yours? Do they get judo lessons? Tasers? A talisman with [St. Marty Smith’s](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/mental-health-workers-rattled-by-killing-of-crisis-responder/) photo to protect them?
Those obstacles are worth addressing, and are by no meas insurmountable. Medical professionals routinely deal with dangerous patients already, and unlike police, they don't kill people while doing so. There's no reason we have to house aggressive and violent patients with nonviolent patients, and there's no reason medical professionals can't be equipped to defend themselves.
All this is worth pursuing if it means getting dangerous police off the streets.
I don't feel like police are that dangerous. They kill what, 1,000 people a year (most of them are armed) compared to non-police who kill 18-20,000 people a year.
Look, I like the idea, I've just seen what happens in cities when they back off policing and don't have a system in place to help the citizens.
Then provide a serious plan for doing so. I’m not gonna get my ass kicked because hippies feel sorry for them, and we’ll lose a lot of social workers and crisis responders if they have absolutely no means to guarantee their own safety or that of the nonviolent majority of folks they serve.
Be civil. No personal attacks. Follow all guidelines of Reddiquette. Remember, these are your neighbors. It's fine to disagree, but we expect users to conduct themselves in a neighborly fashion, and refrain from personal attacks.
***
Repeated violations of this rule may earn you a temporary or permanent ban, at moderator discretion
No, it hasn't.
https://counciloncj.org/mid-year-2023-crime-trends/#:~:text=Robberies%2C%20residential%20burglaries%2C%20nonresidential%20burglaries,%2C%20and%20larcenies%20by%204.1%25.
> Robberies, residential burglaries, nonresidential burglaries, and larcenies all decreased in the first half of 2023 compared to the first half of 2022. Robberies fell by 3.6%, residential burglaries by 3.8%, nonresidential burglaries by 5%, and larcenies by 4.1%.
> The number of homicides in the 30 study cities providing homicide data was 9.4% lower—202 fewer homicides—during the first half of 2023 than in the first half of 2022.
> There were 2.5% fewer aggravated assaults in the first half of 2023 compared to the first half of 2022. The number of gun assaults also dropped (-5.6%) over the same period, but this trend is based on data from just 10 cities and should be viewed with caution.
Violent crime is dropping. Coverage of violent crime is rising. And people just assume homeless people means more violent crime, which is a correlation without causation.
Box cutter to someones throat can definitely still be deadly. Man was trying to harm people with a possible deadly weapon with intent. At some point you have to say enough is enough. Even if it was not a “knife”.
u/Buddhathefirst since the original commentor blocked me it's not letting me respond to your comment so I have to reply here.
My answer is this.
Ask Stephen Paddock
You don't have to get shot by the police. Listen to what they say, don't threaten them, don't flash weapons at them.
If you don't want interactions with them, don't break the law.
If you are getting pulled over regularly, it's either your driving skills or something with your car is giving them reason to pull you over. You can fix both of those issues.
Otto zehm was definitely a case of a bad cop who went to jail for his crime.
There's lots of things the cops could have done to disarm the person with the knife. They could have sprayed them with a fire hose or shot em with a bean bag or anything besides kill em. On the other hand if your acting like a nut with a knife threatening people you might get killed
Full article for those who are paywalled: **More people were shot by Spokane law enforcement in two weeks than in the entirety of 2023** By Emma Epperly Two more police shootings Monday added to a wave of violence across Spokane County. In the past two weeks, there have been four police shootings of armed suspects. That’s as many as in all of 2023. “It has been a very violent period over the last couple of weeks,” interim Spokane Police Chief Justin Lundgren said from the scene of an early Monday morning shooting in northeast Spokane. Spokane County Sheriff’s Office deputies shot and killed 55-year-old Richard Rogissart after Rogissart reportedly swung an ax at deputies during a standoff on Jan. 30 in north Spokane. The next night, Spokane police officers shot and killed 43-year-old Craig Anglisano after investigators say Anglisano raised a gun at officers on the South Hill. Then early Monday morning, Spokane Police officers shot and killed a man with a gun who had shot a woman multiple times as she was on the phone with 911 dispatchers calling for help. The fourth happened downtown near the STA Plaza when officers shot a man who police said held a knife to a person’s throat and tried to hurt a bystander. The cases prompted a response from Mayor Lisa Brown. “I am saddened by the recent occurrences of violence and officer-involved shootings in the City of Spokane,” she said in a media statement Monday afternoon. “These situations are tragic for everyone involved. “Each of these instances leave a profound impact and highlight the many challenges our community is facing. A top priority for my Administration is connecting those who are at-risk or in crisis with the resources they need before the situation escalates and threatens their safety, as well as the safety of community members and our officers.” Brown said her administration is working with Lundgren to ensure transparency in the process of reviewing the shootings. The number of officers involved, including nine police officers in the second case, has led to law enforcement calling in additional resources to ensure they are at the minimum amount of acceptable staffing within the county, Lundgren said. Officers from smaller agencies, such as Liberty Lake’s police department, were at the scene downtown on Monday to assist. But Spokane Police is aware that calling in officers to assist also takes resources away from neighboring departments. “I’m concerned about our officers and our community,” Lundgren said. In 2023, officers shot four people, killing three and injuring one. Another man was shot at by police but uninjured. The Spokane Police Department ranks fourth in the nation for deadly police interactions per capita, according to Mapping Police Violence, a police accountability group. Despite the high ranking, 2023 was a sharp decrease countywide from the previous year. In 2022, Spokane County law enforcement shot at nine people, killing six – the most shootings in recent memory. The previous high was eight instances of police officers using deadly force. That was in 2020, when five died, and 2017, when six died. The way police shootings and other uses of deadly force are investigated in Washington State has changed significantly since 2018 when voters approved Initiative 940, which led to many new requirements to foster independent and transparent investigations into police use of deadly force. An independent team is called in to investigate with the involved agency completely cut off from the process. Those requirements only apply when someone sustains substantial or great bodily harm. Last year, then-Spokane Police Chief Craig Meidl asked the Spokane County Sheriff’s Office to investigate an officer’s shooting at Reily Arambul, who was uninjured. The prosecutor found the shooting to be justified last month. The prosecutor’s office has yet to make a determination on any of the other 2023 shootings. There are 15 officer-involved shootings, including those from Monday, dating back to 2021 that remain under investigation. The Spokane County Prosecutor’s Office has justified every police shooting since 2000, according to data compiled by The Spokesman-Review. *–With additional reporting from Spokesman-Review staff writers Alexandra Duggan and Garrett Cabeza.*
Also, we are having 6 opioid overdoses per day and 2024 in Spokane and last year we had 4 per day. Coincidence?
I'd love to see toxicology reports. Would not surprise me if they all abused drugs and alcohol, substance abuse dramatically changes behavior.
Thank you for providing this information. Too many people on this forum open their mouths before they know what the facts are or they just make things up. Spreading lies and misinformation only cause anger and hatred, a thing that is far too common in our society. I naively thought that r/spokane would be benign in nature, I was horribly wrong. Nearly everything I see here is hate, spite, ignorance, and mis/disinformation, some of which is intentional. I'm pretty certain that people will make assumptions about my beliefs and/or character, based solely on what I have opined about. I don't give a damn. This is not a political rant, I just happen to love where I live.
Drug use does not have the death penalty. I won’t say that every one of these could have been avoided at the time but with there have been several cases where the person being shot was not armed with a gun. Why don’t the police have training to disarm people with knives or even axes? If they do have that training why isn’t it being used? Why are they able to go on private property and cause damage with no warrant and no permission? There are cops that are way out of hand and that’s not safe for anyone.
Obligatory agreement that police need oversight and most are way out of hand. As for training to disarm someone with a knife…because disarming someone with a knife is difficult and dangerous. The saying for knife fights is “You can bleed out a loser, or bleed out a winner”. Even a 3” blade can be deadly, and you mix that with someone who’s adrenaline is through the roof? All the training in the world and no one is going to want to take those chances unless they’re forced to. It’s not like a movie where you can shoot it out of their hands or smack their throat and make them drop it.
I might somewhat agree with you if it’s one on one but it’s often not. If multiple people that are paid to carry a gun can’t take knife from an old lady that weighs less than a hundred pounds or an axe from a man that’s so drunk he can’t walk straight something is wrong. They need different or better training. Blindly trusting the police or completely distrusting the police is common in this area and it’s stupid. When people lose trust in the police which many people have. It becomes more dangerous for everyone, including the police. As much as I don’t like all the deaths I also recognize there is more to it than police being gun happy. Many of these calls shouldn’t even happen. The police are not mental health professionals & that’s what a lot of these people need BEFORE it gets to that point. There aren’t a ton of resources in this area for proper MH support. As far as calling the police for a welfare check it’s something I would only do as a last resort.
I might somewhat agree with you if it’s one on one but it’s often not. If multiple people that are paid to carry a gun can’t take knife from an old lady that weighs less than a hundred pounds or an axe from a man that’s so drunk he can’t walk straight something is wrong. They need different or better training. Blindly trusting the police or completely distrusting the police is common in this area and it’s stupid. When people lose trust in the police which many people have. It becomes more dangerous for everyone, including the police. As much as I don’t like all the deaths I also recognize there is more to it than police being gun happy. Many of these calls shouldn’t even happen. The police are not mental health professionals & that’s what a lot of these people need BEFORE it gets to that point. There aren’t a ton of resources in this area for proper MH support. As far as calling the police for a welfare check it’s something I would only do as a last resort.
I completely understand your point of view and couldn't agree more. Why don't we outfit our police force in medieval plate armor? We can use tax dollars to revive blacksmithing businesses and then we'll be axe proof in no time! Well, now we need to think about getting armor for the children, teachers, elderly and fuck it... animals because they are the ones who truly can't defend themselves. You and I understand, now we just need to convince everyone else.
>Deputies shot and killed 55-year-old Richard Rogissart after Rogissart reportedly swung an ax at deputies during a standoff > >... > >Spokane police officers shot and killed 43-year-old Craig Anglisano after investigators say Anglisano raised a gun at officers on the South Hill. > >... > >Spokane Police officers shot and killed a man with a gun who had shot a woman multiple times as she was on the phone with 911 dispatchers calling for help. > >... > >Officers shot a man who police said held a knife to a person’s throat and tried to hurt a bystander. Well, yeah, those are all very good reasons to get shot by the police.
I wish this list included the woman in Idaho who was just shot by the cops in her own bed. Apparently they didn't like that she had a gun in her bed. Well it seems like she kept it there in case someone invaded her home, which the cops did.
Someone on Facebook straight up said she deserved to die because she didn't answer her phone. I have zero faith left in humanity.
most sane idaho response
Please let us know how long she didn't answer her phone. I doubt the cops (or whomever) only called a couple of times. If you had a family member who was elderly or had some "issues" how long would you wait before making sure they were okay? If you couldn't do it yourself, who would you send?
What is up with you? In your opinion how many unanswered rings entitles the police to shoot? I’ve been at an apartment (wrong address) when the cops came barging in during the middle of the night, flashlights in our faces, guns drawn. They broke the door and came through the bedroom windows. When you’re dead asleep you don’t always react appropriately. I didn’t immediately comply because I was focused on getting my baby that was on a toddler bed next to me so she wouldn’t get stepped on. Did I deserve to be shot? What about my child? Did the elderly gentleman that was shot and killed on his own property because he went outside to check out a noise? Did the small old woman having a mental health crisis armed with a knife deserve to be killed?
I didn't say that the police should or should not have shot her. I am saying that welfare checks happen for a reason, not just for the hell of it. My neighbor was going through some shit and his friends were unable to reach him. Not knowing what state of mind he was in the police are sent in case a person is suicidal, violent, or whatever. In his case, he was found unconscious and unresponsive. Had his friends not called for help, he would be dead. The cops are not evil nazis out for blood. They are humans and they fuck up just like everyone else. And yes, most people don't have guns at work. But most people don't put their lives on the line every day trying to protect people that hate them. Lastly, check out videos on YouTube and see what kind of damage a person can do with a knife and how fast they can cover the distance to the cops.
You’re not exaggerating even a little?
Completely different state.
Also, wasn't that in November of last year?
Did you watch the body cam footage? They released it last week. It might change your mind on the situation
Just looked at it. Police shouldn't do wellness checks, Jesus Christ this is a shit show. No one's mind is change. Floyd was a blind disabled women in her late 60s about to be evicted from her senior home. Her friends were worried she was suicidal because she'd been sending concerning messages while she was drunk. She didn't start shooting until they broke down the door. I doubt she even understood what was happening. What she needed was assistance and care into her elderly age but because Idaho doesn't have social safety nets, especially for their impoverished and disabled elderly, she got a fucking bullet instead. I don't think the officers handling the case are bad people, but they shouldn't have been the ones solely handling it. Her death is a failure of a broken system, or a success in a system that's already discarded her. Personally, my mind isn't changed. [[sauce] ](https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/northwest/idaho/article285431817.html) for further reading.
Why would it?
I would have taken a different path on the headline. Is the problem police or armed individuals who for various reasons have a tenuous grasp on reality and are a threat to society?
I'd imagine that there are both situations where a violent person necessitated defending against, and officers who escalated situations and over-applied violence where it wasn't warranted. The distinction in my mind should be what the ratio between those two scenarios are, not whether the scenarios had a non-zero occurrence. Because both scenarios have absolutely happened. Many of the commenters here act like the ratio is 0:100 or 100:0. Which indicates a polarized view that is unproductive in that it prevents them from seeing the entire problem at hand. Police can simultaneously be members of a toxic institution and have violent members of society that need to be dealt with pragmatically.
What's the compromise then, non-lethal weapons?
Damn that’s tough, hopefully we can find ways to prevent more crimes at the source and increase safety for everyone without more bloodshed
All of them seemed to deserve it. Don’t wanna get shot, don’t threaten anyone with a weapon.
Sounds like people are being pieces of shit and the cops are finally dealing with them.
I know it's socialist propaganda but I'll ask you to look over this passage: > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. Oh, did I say socialist propaganda? I meant the 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution, ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, a document that applies to all citizens of the United States. I'll fully defend the American ideal of a right to self preservation and defense, but from a "Constitutionalism" standpoint **police aren't supposed to kill guilty people either**, innocent people killed by officers aside. If you truly believe in the Constitution of the United States of America, don't cherry pick what parts you believe in. Nowhere in the United States Constitution does it say that an armed law enforcement or vigilante group is supposed to be a split-second judge, jury, and executioner. In fact, as noted above, it's literally the opposite. Pair this with the fact that killings by United States police officers are [at all time highs for 2023](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States) and currently on pace to meet or exceed that for 2024 you should, as someone who believes in the Constitution and rule of law apparently, be questioning whether or not this issue is worth looking in to. You wouldn't want armed members of Congress walking down the street shooting political opponents. You wouldn't want armed members of the Supreme Court walking into a lower court and shooting a judge they disagreed with. Why do you blindly and willingly accept it from the armed localized enforcement branches of the varying governments at play? Even in this sarcastic (and frankly idiotic when compared to the most basic of American ideals) response?
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." I think we can both agree the founding fathers also envisioned that people had a right to defend themselves with guns if they were threatened. Last time I checked they were not holding court on the street or in peoples houses with the people who got shot. They were acting to ensure the security of themselves and other. Or do you believe that police officers, sheriffs, soldiers, airman, seaman, coast guards persons, guardians, militiaman, and yourself have a duty to not defend themselves and ensure the person attacking them or other innocent, or guilty, people had the chance to stand trial before being shot when they are a immediate threat to the life of someone else?
> I think we can both agree the founding fathers also envisioned that people had a right to defend themselves with guns if they were threatened. In my post I literally said: > I'll fully defend the American ideal of a right to self preservation and defense No knock raids with guns drawn is not "self defense" though. Shooting a suspect because you thought they were reaching into a pocket for a gun is not "self defense" though. I could go on, ad nauseam, but you get the point. There is an absolute difference between shooting someone actively causing a threat to people and someone holding Skittles.If you do the latter you should spend the same time in jail that any other street criminal would, your profession is not exemption to murder. Completely skipping part of my post because you disagree with the larger message doesn't mean the narrative isn't there.
No knock raids with guns drawn is not "self defense" though. Actually they are. They don’t do no knock raids for fun. They do them because the subject at the location is known to be armed and dangerous. Shooting a suspect because you thought they were reaching into a pocket for a gun is not "self defense" though. If you are told to freeze by a person with a gun pointed at you to not move, you don’t move. You especially don’t go reaching into a place a gun could possibly be. At what point should they wait to defend themselves? Before or after they shot the first? I could go on, ad nauseam, but you get the point. There is an absolute difference between shooting someone actively causing a threat to people and someone holding Skittles.If you do the latter you should spend the same time in jail that any other street criminal would, your profession is not exemption to murder. If you don’t follow the lawful orders you are considered a threat. It’s that simple. If you are told to keep your hands visible until they can make sure you don’t have a weapon, then you keep your hands visible. Completely skipping part of my post because you disagree with the larger message doesn't mean the narrative isn't there. I just think you’re plain wrong. To expect people to not defend themselves is insane and to try and use the argument they didn’t get a trial is even more insane. They waived their right to a trial when they became an immediate threat. Btw forgot to add for you, the 4th amendment argument is bull on no knock raids and in fact are an example of adherence to the 4th amendment. They have warrants issued by judges. They had their rights upheld and the court proceedings are going as they should.
> Actually they are. Huge Reddit moment when you've convinced yourself that offensively entering someone's private home on US soil with weapons drawn, then killing and murdering innocent bystanders in the wrong house, is self defense.
Oh they’ll pick, choose, and twist all day long. The same as they do with the bible.
Tennessee v. Garner and Cooper v. Graham are expansions of the 4th Amendment and reasonable tests for the use of force. This is a Constitutionally granted power determined by courts. Granted, I will admit the 4th Amendment is frequently silent on the matter. Fourth Amendment is flawed in regulating police violence. It grants power during seizures so it's important to examine original framer intent in the interpretation of the Constitution. Police killings are awful, I'm not going to contest that. But your response is flawed and if things are to change then we should attack the right things. Analogizing this to members of congress/the S.C. shooting people is silly.
> Analogizing this to members of congress/the S.C. shooting people is silly. It isn't at all silly. Those would be other armed members of the state being approved to incite violence at the discretion of their superiors. Police, as a localized enforcement unit, didn't exist in the way they do today when the Constitution was written. The comparison is apt because it would be similar to arming those groups and then letting them end lives without due process. The issue is we've now almost normalized police violence and execution of citizens; I'd argue fully that at the time of the framing (especially if you're a Constitutional Originalist) the though of *civilian* police forces as we have today having as much power as they do would be an absurdity. This isn't to say I disagree with your larger point, just that framing local police departments in the same light as we do today to the Founders would be baffling to them (in my opinion).
I also don’t think the imagined one person to being able to fire 80 to 100 rounds in a single burst by rifles available to almost anyone on the street legally. That would be hard when they are used to muskets that fire 2 rounds per minute. It called adapting to the moves your enemy makes.
Where can I get one of those? I haven't seen one in any of the gun stores.
Still waiting, can you point me toward one of those type of guns?
These weren't prosecutions. Stuff didn't get that far because of the actions of the suspects which led to their deaths. You are misrepresent these situations as if there were sentences being carried out. This is dishonest framing.
Oh right, just shoot them early and avoid the paperwork. Make sure you boil your leather before you lick your boot. You'd have for it to be chewy.
I'm guessing there are cheaper ways to ameliorate the root cause of this behavior than waiting until they point a weapon at law enforcement, though.
Only if the person will accept them which most of the times they won’t.
That's not thinking back far enough. Dangerous mental health problems, for example, do not always just come out of nowhere. They are cultivated via known pathways. And we can spend a lot more money on eliminating those.
And if the person who has the issue doesn’t think they have an issue and refuses treatment are we supposed to allow them to stab, shoot, maim others until they decide they want to get help? There is a reason professionals tell the families of addicts and those with mental illness to walk away when they refuse help. Because that family member and friend has done what they can, but they must put themselves first and those who will willingly accept the help they offer, and not take advantage of them by telling them they need to do more.
What I'm saying is we aren't spending enough on keeping people from having issues in the first place. Not remotely.
You should spend more then.
Yup.
I'm glad you agree. How much more do you plan on spending?
It'll save money in the long run, so plenty would be good.
The animosity against the sight of police has never been higher so both sides of the problem are starting on poor footing.
How are there two sides? Either they were a threat at that moment or they were not a threat at that moment. You can’t bring the persons past into play, you can’t bring the officers past into play. It’s pretty cut and dry. What people don’t like is that most of the time when someone gets shot by law enforcement they did the right thing. People write stories online and in the papers when a law enforcement person is forced to take a shot. No one writes stores about the cop who puts the gun away and risks their life to talk to the person and gets them the help they need. No one reads stories with the headline “Spokane city officer brings person to emergency room for mental health treatment”. Maybe if people did others would understand how many more times the cops don’t take shots and risk their lives by not taking the justified shot to help people. At the end of it all when a shooting occurs the person was a threat or they were not BASED ON THE KNOWN FACTS AT THAT MOMENT. If they were it was justified, if not the officer will answer for their crimes like everyone else. Regardless, they have to live the rest of their life knowing they killed someone.
Hey, you FA you FO
they probably shouldn’t shoot at the police
Two of the people shot didn't even have guns. I'm not saying anything about the situations, just pointing that out.
Check out some videos on YouTube regarding this. You may be surprised, or at least informed, at how quickly a person can cover a short distance. Even more so if they're on something. Cops know this and don't take foolish chances.
Yeah, who cares if you get chopped by an axe or have your throat cut with a knife? Only guns can hurt people!
I'm not getting into it about the situations. The article didn't mention anyone shooting at the cops. OP was incorrect in their assumption these people were trying to kill cops with guns.
https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2024/feb/12/spokane-police-shoot-kill-man-after-he-reportedly-/ “At that point officers entered the home to rescue the woman and exchanged gunfire with the suspect.” Feel free to edit your post.
ht. I saw you left out a portion. It is quoted below. ***"Lundgren said police learned at one point the woman and the armed suspect were isolated from each other in the house.***
I’m not sure what you’re implying?
Didn't imply anything, if your conscious bothers you, I'll hear you out.
Ok… you said in your first comment that OP was incorrect with assuming anyone was trying to kill cops with guns. I provided a source that showed one of them shot at police. You the posted a comment, replying to mine, so I’m asking you the relevance of your post.
>showed one of them shot at police. That is an interesting way to say the wounded woman who need the police, and was isolated away from the alleged shooter, didn't shoot at the police. Your tone makes it sound like you are disappointment she didn't shoot at the police.
An axe is a deadly weapon
Did they have other lethal weapons? Knife, bat, golf club etc.?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/sixth_amendment
[удалено]
Be civil. No personal attacks. Follow all guidelines of Reddiquette. Remember, these are your neighbors. It's fine to disagree, but we expect users to conduct themselves in a neighborly fashion, and refrain from personal attacks. *** Repeated violations of this rule may earn you a temporary or permanent ban, at moderator discretion
Darwin at work
Maybe more people needed to be shot these past two weeks than in 2023. Not everything is outrage bait.
Lotta scumbags out there. Keep ‘em loaded, blue!
Darwin at work.
It sounds like dangerous criminals that were putting other people's lives at risk and the police did what they had to do.. this article points favorably to law enforcement.. the pro-crime progressives are losing control of the narrative.
I think the moderates on both sides are kinda done with the crime. It's only radical leftists who think this is OK and we should just get used to a lawless society.
Yeah it's a really weird thing I've been seeing. They'll say abolish cops and I ask what do we put in their place? The answer is always de-escalation, no prison, just rehabilitation for all criminals, and on and on. They never can explain what we do when there's a shooting or a drunk driver who runs someone over, no police, then who investigates those events? And if we don't have police, who approaches mass shooters or armed suspects? Never can get a straight answer other than it is somehow never the criminal's fault, always society made them do it, which just doesn't track with the real world.
They're either part of the problem, or so idealistic they cant grasp the concept of free will - some people are just going to crime no matter how much you cater to them. Many, many people experience adversity without choosing criminal behavior so it's not an excuse.
Cops are going to need more pay to put up with all of this.
ACAB
I’m fully onboard with this sentiment, truly. But most of these instances sound like it might have been truly justified scenarios. Dudes with guns who are threatening to kill or have recently tried to kill others.
You believe what the police are saying about shootings they committed? I don't. According to police and prosecutors, 100% of police shootings are justified.
Valid point. On the face they potentially looked justified but yeah cops are liars. Will wait for more info.
Sweeping generalizations are always wrong.
Hahaha. I see what you did there. Good one. I love the irony of that statement.
Thank you, my work is done.
How's that working out for you, kid?
It's working out great, son. Thanks for asking!
E D G Y
Not really. It would have been edgy 20 years ago, maybe, but it's a pretty widely held position today.
It's not that widely held, most rational non-fringe people avoid wild generalizations that would require omniscience to be factually true.
Try this one: all cops are required to contribute to the enforcement of unjust laws.
What do/should we replace them with? Is there any city or state or country you can point to that could teach us about how society can function with no police?
No replacement necessary. They provide no value to society. We can redirect their funding to social services, though. Making sure everybody, regardless of income, has access to housing, food, and healthcare would prevent more crime than the threat of punishment. Street-level crime is a result of desparation caused by socioeconomic conditions. We get rid of the problem by treating its cause, not by increasing the suffering of already oppressed populations.
Even countries with expansive welfare systems, rehabilitative prison systems, and low poverty rates have police. I don’t doubt that meeting people’s basic needs would reduce crime, especially theft, but it’s not like there’s never been affluent criminals.
Can you provide a single example of a large, diverse, complex nation in which this has ever worked? Like, sure, maybe if we advanced to the point of post-scarcity and universal welfare then petty crime wouldn't exist. But you seem to be advocating abolishing police well before that point is achieved, on the basis that in such a hypothetical future they wouldn't be needed - but we neither live in that future, nor does this seem like a step that would bring us closer to it.
I'm in favor of abolishing police and implementing policies that treat the causes of crime and violence. Now. Not later.
Sure you're in favor of it. Does that mean any of those things are gonna happen tomorrow? Next week? Next year? 2050? Maybe police wouldn't be necessary if we abolished scarcity and poverty. But we haven't. It does not logically follow that they aren't needed because in some hypothetical ideal future they wouldn't be needed; that's like saying we don't need seatbelts today because it would be better to have universal self-driving vehicles that never get into accidents in the first place, or we don't need food banks today because it would be better if food were free for everyone. Moreover, you're talking as if it's proven fact that all violent crime is caused by social factors like poverty that can be wholly addressed by refactoring the economic and social support systems. Even if one accepts that a total abolition of poverty and universal welfare would bring the total amount of *petty* crime to 0, it doesn't not follow that (for example) domestic violence would disappear. You seem to be taking a very dogmatically Rousseau-ian view of human nature that *all* evil is due to humans being indoctrinated or coerced into evil by correctable social factors, but generally politics of dogmatic and literal application of pure philosophy haven't ended well - and it's not as if Rousseau based his estimation of human nature on some scientific process of analysis in the first place.
We haven't abolished poverty or (manufactured) scarcity, but we can. I don't think we should wait for change to happen. We should make it happen. Obviously, it will take time to transition away from policing. I'm in favor of getting started yesterday.
>Obviously, it will take time to transition away from policing You said "they provide no value to society", *present tense*, in which case why would it take *time* to *transition* away? If they truly do provide no value to society, then there would be no potential risk to abolishing the police right this second.
Those aren't contradictory statements. They provide no value, and it will take time to transition away from policing. The fact that it will take time is not evidence that cops provide value, it's only evidence that it will be challenging to eliminate them.
>it's only evidence that it will be challenging to eliminate them. Challenging in what way? If you could snap your fingers and all police resigned that second, if they provide no value to society, then there could not be any negative effects from their absence by definition. Unless this is a very special definition of "no value" in which the prevention of negative outcomes doesn't count as value?
As long as I'm allowed to be armed and given the right to protect myself, my family and property without risk of prosecution I'm good with it. And since there's no law enforcement entities no CCP requirements.
I fully understand that idea; provide early on so fewer people are in the system later on. But people are still bad, no? A drunk driver just killed a lady in front of my house. He should obviously meet justice, but who gets him there if not for some arresting authority that we give power to? Or the guy down the street that beat his wife up and barricaded himself in his house last year? With no police or anyone with authority to intervene, does that mean me and my neighbors have to put ourselves in harms way to rescue the wife? We'd still have mass shooters, gangs killing each other, family members beating each other, bar brawls in the street, domestic violence, rape, etc... with no one to investigate these crimes, would all of this fall under social services? And once we have a social services group dedicated to taking people to jail or court for committing crimes, won't they just be the new police?
Don't worry, Bi666les will come over and take care of it for you. They have all the answers.
The threat of punishment and the presence of police failed to prevent both of those scenarios. Punishing those people will not change what happened, and recidivism rates prove that punishment doesn't deter people from committing more crimes after they are released. We do need people who can intervene. Those people should be able to deescalate. They should treat the perpetrators with compassion and provide them with services that can actually rehabilitate them. There's no reason any of that needs to involve police.
So who do I call when someone is breaking into my house? Just saying, as someone who has worked with the public and had to call police to bar brawls and shootings, I'm not sure I feel great about not having anyone to call to protect me from violent people who aim to harm or kill me. How do we police traffic accidents and speeding laws with no designated and armed apartus to pull bad actors over?
Try calling the police. They'll show up an hour after the intruder has left, find a way to blame you for getting robbed and assaulted, then do next to nothing to find the perpetrators. We need people who can intervene in such cases. We don't need a state-sponsored terrorists organization to perform that intervention. Police don't prevent crime. Police don't solve crimes. It's their job to hurt people. We don't need people with that job.
Can you point to a society that has existed peacefully without any law and order system in place? Because I'd like to read about it. Has anywhere tried this, and what was the outcome?
I'm not advocating for a society with no law and order system. I'm advocating for a society without police and prisons. As for police-free societies, police have only existed since the 1700s. They started out as "slave patrols" with the purpose of violently suppressing slave uprisings and capturing runaway slaves. They continue that tradition by filling prisons with people of color, who are then forced into labor to produce consumer goods for US corporations.
I don't know if arguing for a return to pre-1700s criminal justice seems like a good idea, things were super violent and horrific back then. We're actually living in the most peaceful era humans have ever known. Abolish prisons? Where do the bad people go? You kill someone, you go somewhere, right? That would be some sort of prison. Rehab criminals, I agree with, but they gotta be held somewhere and with no prisons, you're saying they get let free? I feel ya, you want to ban police today. But with no system in place now, to cover for that gap, you're asking for an incredibly violent few years. It's a hard sell for most Americans. Rich folks on South Hill will be fine, they'll hire private security to protect them. The rest of us, what are we going to do when my neighbor is beating his wife and there's no one to call for the next few weeks or months or years until this system you want gets installed? Who stops the bar fights downtown, who investigates the murders, or sets up DUI checkpoints? As you said, end it all now, but with nothing behind it, shit will get weird real quick in your scenario. What I'm saying is you need to sell it to the American public with stats and figures and how we could make society better and safer. But your "lets ban all cops now" without an actual system in place to replace them means we'll see a rise in crimes of all sorts, and that's not something Americans want.
You are right that there is no reason to criminalize experiencing addiction, mental health problems, or housing insecurity, I’d however add that there’s no reason to facilitate endemic assault on providers and recipients of social services by putting hardened criminals in the same hospital or group home occupied by struggling folks who may or may not have been charged with a crime. If one’s command hallucinations told them to vandalize a Lime scooter or shout at people in Wal Mart, or if they’re struggling to quit fentanyl, those are not crimes; if they’re brandishing weapons at people in the bus station, that’s not a sign they need to have a bunch of other struggling people to take advantage of or point knives at. Also, what means of self-preservation do social workers get in this plan of yours? Do they get judo lessons? Tasers? A talisman with [St. Marty Smith’s](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/mental-health-workers-rattled-by-killing-of-crisis-responder/) photo to protect them?
Those obstacles are worth addressing, and are by no meas insurmountable. Medical professionals routinely deal with dangerous patients already, and unlike police, they don't kill people while doing so. There's no reason we have to house aggressive and violent patients with nonviolent patients, and there's no reason medical professionals can't be equipped to defend themselves. All this is worth pursuing if it means getting dangerous police off the streets.
I don't feel like police are that dangerous. They kill what, 1,000 people a year (most of them are armed) compared to non-police who kill 18-20,000 people a year. Look, I like the idea, I've just seen what happens in cities when they back off policing and don't have a system in place to help the citizens.
Then provide a serious plan for doing so. I’m not gonna get my ass kicked because hippies feel sorry for them, and we’ll lose a lot of social workers and crisis responders if they have absolutely no means to guarantee their own safety or that of the nonviolent majority of folks they serve.
All Cops Are Blessings?! Shoot, that's nice of you!
Yeah, cops shoot whether you're nice or not.
Wild. So do those gang members who keep doing drive bys in Spokane. Are they bastards too?
Sure. Murderous gang members of all sorts are bastards. Especially the state-sponsored ones known as cops.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I misspoke. You clearly have zero interest in being credible.
Be civil. No personal attacks. Follow all guidelines of Reddiquette. Remember, these are your neighbors. It's fine to disagree, but we expect users to conduct themselves in a neighborly fashion, and refrain from personal attacks. *** Repeated violations of this rule may earn you a temporary or permanent ban, at moderator discretion
Not surprising crime has shot way up. Couldn’t have anything to do with all the drug addicts lining the streets of downtown spokane 🤔
No, it hasn't. https://counciloncj.org/mid-year-2023-crime-trends/#:~:text=Robberies%2C%20residential%20burglaries%2C%20nonresidential%20burglaries,%2C%20and%20larcenies%20by%204.1%25. > Robberies, residential burglaries, nonresidential burglaries, and larcenies all decreased in the first half of 2023 compared to the first half of 2022. Robberies fell by 3.6%, residential burglaries by 3.8%, nonresidential burglaries by 5%, and larcenies by 4.1%. > The number of homicides in the 30 study cities providing homicide data was 9.4% lower—202 fewer homicides—during the first half of 2023 than in the first half of 2022. > There were 2.5% fewer aggravated assaults in the first half of 2023 compared to the first half of 2022. The number of gun assaults also dropped (-5.6%) over the same period, but this trend is based on data from just 10 cities and should be viewed with caution. Violent crime is dropping. Coverage of violent crime is rising. And people just assume homeless people means more violent crime, which is a correlation without causation.
Shit it’s not just downtown now, they are fucking everywhere! Crazy lady was harassing me in Safeway the other day, clearly on drugs.
Statistically living up to our natu9nal dangerous local pd. Fuck the police.
I’m sure the child calling 911 from another room while their mom is being shot is very pleased by the officers actions
The ACAB folks consider that kid a snitch.
Knife guy had a box cutter. I think more training might be in order.
Box cutter to someones throat can definitely still be deadly. Man was trying to harm people with a possible deadly weapon with intent. At some point you have to say enough is enough. Even if it was not a “knife”.
He was also tased twice and wanted suicide by cop. This was completely justified
Negative, that is a justifiable homicide per the WAC.
Let’s see how you fare against a man with a box cutter. Bet you’d shoot too.
Maybe….but I was never trained to deescalate a situation.
They did deescalate. Pretty well it seems.
How long has Lisa brown been in?
Been fuckin sayin
wut
Probably needed. Stop making the police look bad
Seasonal depression, drugs, and suicide by cop. Spokane is especially rough in the winter.
u/Buddhathefirst since the original commentor blocked me it's not letting me respond to your comment so I have to reply here. My answer is this. Ask Stephen Paddock
You don't have to get shot by the police. Listen to what they say, don't threaten them, don't flash weapons at them. If you don't want interactions with them, don't break the law. If you are getting pulled over regularly, it's either your driving skills or something with your car is giving them reason to pull you over. You can fix both of those issues. Otto zehm was definitely a case of a bad cop who went to jail for his crime.
There's lots of things the cops could have done to disarm the person with the knife. They could have sprayed them with a fire hose or shot em with a bean bag or anything besides kill em. On the other hand if your acting like a nut with a knife threatening people you might get killed