Job Discussion Forums

EFLpursuits · Joined: 14 Jul 2010 Posts: 38

The Chinese police are rarely subtle in how they get things done. However, they are usually effective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXT-9Oed6Dg&feature=related

This is a recent hostage case in China. The hostage taker had robbed someone and was on the run. He was holding a pair of scissors to the woman's neck.

I'm curious on how people outside of China feel about the police actions.

mdovell · Joined: 02 Nov 2009 Posts: 131

I don't know if that many shots were required...a stun gun or tazer might not exist there...

Years ago there was this footage I saw I think it was thailand or laos of a orphanage being taken hostage...

Well these guys had guts of steel that actually grabbed these infants and ran away from the assailants fully knowing they could have gotten shot.

If you want to see some more tactics there's an old 80s movie called the killing of america that shows somewhat the same things back in the day but in the USA.

I'm not a cop but the video you linked to at least the cops did the following
1) plain clothes

2) she got pretty close enough to make sure the hostage wasn't hit

3) fired more than once ensuring the death

4) I'm assuming she was the "only" one but it's hard to tell.

RiverMystic · Joined: 13 Jan 2009 Posts: 1986

This is typical of the Chinese 'justice' system, and a reflection that human rights never extend to anyone they see as going against the system. Why did the police woman shoot him 3 more times after she shot him the first time? The answer is she is trained to kill hostage takers at the first available opportunity. The Chinese authorities and officials particularly don't want to listen to any claims of injustice that hostage takers have. There is no independent judiciary anyway. So, police are completely unaccountable for what they do, as is the Communist Party which they are part of. Finally, there is no meddling media, as most journalists and editors won't touch the story, as they would then have to deal with the Party and the police, and that probably means the end of all "connections" and prospects of a free and fair life thereafter.

The last mitigating factor here is the extreme ambivalence to strangers in Chinese society. People rarely communicate with people outside their immediate circle of acquaintances, and appear to have no empathy for those human beings. Thus blowing away an angry stranger would be no more an issue than, say, feeding live lambs to lions for crowd entertainment at the zoo - which you can also see on the internet.

007 · Posted: Sun Sep 19, 2010 12:55 pm Post subject:

Well, in the USA same stories exist, just look to this example:
http://jonathanturley.org/2010/09/01/seattle-police-shoot-and-kill-whittling-man/

Or this story where New York police killed unarmed man in hail of 50 bullets on his wedding day!!!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/nov/27/usa.julianborger

I do not see any difference between the Chinese and American police when shooting people in similar incidents. I wonder if the human rights record regarding the use of force by the police force of Uncle Sam is better or worse than the Chinese one ?

RiverMystic · Joined: 13 Jan 2009 Posts: 1986

scot47 · Joined: 10 Jan 2003 Posts: 15343

You seem to be saying,"They do it differently in China, so they are wrong."

It is up to the Chinese to do things their way.

Teatime of Soul · Joined: 12 Apr 2007 Posts: 905

American police are not trained to "shoot to kill".

They are trained to "shoot to stop".

Since your average Law Enforcement Officer is taught to aim at center of mass, that is a distinction without a difference.

SWAT/SRT are taught the 'double tap", two to the chest, one to the head. Snipers, or "Precision Long Range Shooters" are trained to shoot at the 'null zone', a narrow band approx. 2" in width just above the ears of a human target.

Again, none of them are shooting to kill, just shooting to stop. And that distinction is purely legalistic, so no officer can be coaxed by an attorney to affirmatively respond to the question, "And so, isn't it true you were trying, and in fact, trained, to kill Mr. Deceased?"

It is highly dangerous to attempt to "wound" a hostage taker. You can't de-escalate after the first attempt and there is no training that could cover the infinite variables in attempting such a shot.

This particular officer was not, to my knowledge, SWAT/SRT trained and, in my opinion, her subsequent shots were almost certainly caused by adrenalin rush. Regrettable, you bet. Avoidable, not always so easy in the heat of the moment.

Put armed people in a standoff with lives at stake, bad thing are going to happen time to time.

If you want to look at mindset, that is best done by comparing outcomes over time. Similarly sized cities should experience similar numbers of hostage/Barricaded Subject incidents. How the command structure, negotiators, and tactical units respond, writ large, reveals the mindset at work.

If city X had 500 incidents over 10 years, with 95% positive outcomes, and city Y had a similar number of incidents with a 40% positive outcome, then you can make a strong case for a "take no prisoners" mindset.

All too often, the mentally ill are given the least opportunity for a positive outcome because they exhibit abnormal speech and behavior as well as appearance.

RiverMystic · Joined: 13 Jan 2009 Posts: 1986

wangdaning · Joined: 22 Jan 2008 Posts: 3154

I will never forget watching tv here in the PRC one day and seeing how exactly the police use force. There was a naked man on his roof throwing shingles at the police. He had just hacked his two elderly neighbors to death. Well, the police got tired of waiting and decided to climb up after him. As they we climbing the man picked up his machete. It was all over, the cop in front promptly blasted him in the chest, from about a foot away, with a shotgun.

This use of force is not limited to China. Down the street from where I lived in the states, the police shot and killed a 17 year old boy in the back as he was running away. Obviously they claimed he was reaching for something. However, not only did he have no weapon, but he wasn't even facing the officers. Same thing happens in the states, it is just not on video.

I see nothing wrong with using excessive force, if it is clear what happened. Like the example of machete man. If you just hacked two people to death and are holding the bloody machete, I will not blame anyone for taking you out.