Do cops have a Code Against Killing?

[Brandi]

Well, not *exactly*, but what would their professional ethics re use of force best be represented by?

[Sketchpad]

I would say either a Psych Lim: Policeman's Code of Honor or maybe (for honest cops) Psych Lim: Lawabiding (sp?) ... they'd also have the Soc Lim: Subject to Orders

[Blue]

Not in L.A. they don't

[Starlord]

Social Limitation that depends on how often a lethal situation arises for the members of that precinct. For your average officer I'd say it's 10 points for Occasionally, Major.

[Vondy]

I would say no. Not any more than any other person might have. Some states have higher standards for justifying lethal force for police officers than civillians, but that's not a universal rule.

 

The only realistic implementation of this would be through their "watched: department" disadvantage (internal affairs reviews every shoot).

[BNakagawa]

You can also give them a lump Watched: Internal Affairs/ACLU/media to represent their being held accountable (at least in theory) by various groups that might jump on them if they weren't acting in the best interest of the public. It won't stop them from acting inappropriately, but it can be used to give them grief if they do.

[Chuckg]

My own interpretation of the 10-point CAK is that whenever you have a choice between shoot and don't shoot, you pick don't shoot... but if the situation simply doesn't give you any choices, then you'll reluctantly shoot. You'll feel pretty bad about it afterwards, but you'll still shoot.

 

This maps pretty well over to the use-of-force ideal for the more responsible cops. So they won't all have a 10-point CAK, but many can have it.

 

(I don't consider it to be covered under the Watched because every cop has that Watched, whether they're clean or dirty. Watched means that if you do it, you do it knowing that you're taking your chances on getting caught... if doesn't necessarily mean that you have any qualms against doing it.)

[death tribble]

This was discussed I think in the old Hero Games magazines.

If you don't have Code Against or Killer, then you have the 0 (zero) point Reluctant to Kill. That means you won't kill someone if they are on the deck and unconscious.

However you would attempt to save your life by firing at someone. You MIGHT kill them but you would not be shooting them with the express purpose of killing them.

[DocMan]

So how many points is Reluctant to fill out Paperwork?

 

Doc

[Guest Confusinator]

What's the connection

 

I don't see what the connection would be between being a cop and having a code vs killing?

 

The code reflects a person's internal beliefs, being a cop is a job. Would you ask if a milkman has a code vs killing?

 

I would think, in a very general sense, every sane moral person would have the 10 pt code vs killing. I personally would not want to kill anyone, but if forced to protect myself or my family, would not hesitate. I'm not a cop, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

To give an example, let's compare Dirty Harry with Sheriff Andy (can't remember his last name).

 

Dirty Harry most definately did not have a code vs killing. If anything, he had a limitation, Shoot First, ask questions later (common,strong).

 

Andy on the other hand had a very strong code vs killing. So strong, he saw no need to carry a gun. I can only remember one episode where they ever had him handle a weapon.

[Brandi]

Originally posted by Blue

Not in L.A. they don't

 

Actually, I'd say that if the FBI Files show last night was any indication the ones in New Orleans make the ones in LA AND NYC look like a pack of frickin' Eagle Scouts.

[Zan the Gamer]

Re: What's the connection

 

Originally posted by Confusinator

I don't see what the connection would be between being a cop and having a code vs killing?

 

The code reflects a person's internal beliefs, being a cop is a job. Would you ask if a milkman has a code vs killing?

 

Well, a milkman doesn't carry a gun as part of his job description.

 

Cops are presented with situations where a range of force is neccessary to "serve and protect." This range goes from "No force required" to "Shoot the guy until he stops twitching."

 

I think the issue of Cops & Code Versus Killing has to do with the area they operate in. Cops in Los Angeles, CA have to be very cautious now because of the bad name they had after the Rodney King riots and all the corruption that was discovered. Whereas the sheriif and deputies of Shingle Springs, CA may be more concerned with next week's Ice Cream Social.

 

So, decide what environment your cops operate in, and determine their views on lethal force based on that.

 

BTW, I really like that psych limitation of "Shoot first, ask questions later.":D

 

~ Zan

[MrWolf]

Check out The Law is a Ass sometime...

 

http://www.worldfamouscomics.com/law/

 

He did a whole bunch of articles on comic situations and the law.

[FenrisUlf]

Originally posted by Brandi

Actually, I'd say that if the FBI Files show last night was any indication the ones in New Orleans make the ones in LA AND NYC look like a pack of frickin' Eagle Scouts.

 

You're surprised? Cops in the 'Big easy' have ALWAYS had a rep for being nasty -- comes from being among the worst-paid officers in the entire US.

 

To me, the worst real-world cops in the USA were Philly under Rizzo. 100% in the Mafia's pocket and so insanely corrupt they actually did duty for varied mobsters as enforcers.

 

In the media, now... I've got to say that I'm starting to hate the cops presented on L&O:SVU. I *know* the people they're pursuing are the scum of humanity, but the detectives come across as so arrogant and unconcerned with the law as compared to the righteousness of their cause, I'm hoping they wind up shot. I sure hope cops and DAs in the real world don't play the legal words games they're shown as doing.

[Brandi]

Originally posted by FenrisUlf

You're surprised? Cops in the 'Big easy' have ALWAYS had a rep for being nasty -- comes from being among the worst-paid officers in the entire US.

 

No, not surprised, just my comment on Blue's post-- LA's got some obnoxious ones, God knows, but that lot in New Orleans was impressively bad.

[Supreme]

It would best be represented by a social limitation. They don't, as a group, suffer from internal psychological complexes which influence their behavior (individual complexes, maybe, but as a group they don't). Instead, cops are subject to a different set of laws regarding use of force. They are allowed to use force in certain situations (which is a perk), but are also required by their sworn duty to use force in certain situations, as well as being required to use force in very specific ways.

[Gold Rush Games]

FWIW, I worked in law enforcement for 15 years, and have undergone and been held to "lethal force" policies from several agencies, including the DOD/USAF and a local sheriff's department.

 

When it comes to the use of force, an officer's ultimate decision to use it stems from one of two primary sources: self preservation or the preservation of another's life. That decision will be guided by departmental policy (which is clearly spelled out in wirintg, I assure you) and state law or, in the case of military police, Department of Defense and branch (e.g., USAF) regulations.

 

Training also comes into play. An officer is never trained to "wound." Officers are trained to "shoot to stop," meaning "stop the threat." If that means it takes one shot and the perpetrator ceases being a threat because they drop their weapon and surrender, great. If it means shooting the perpetrator ten times in the chest and once in the head because they just won't stop coming toward you with a deadly weapon, then so be it.

 

Lethal force is always a last resort. One of the many things an investigating agency (Internal Affiar, the FBI, the courts, whomever) will look at when reviewing a shooting incident is "Was there another course of action that the officer could have reasonably taken?" Allowing oneself to be shot by a bad guy is not reasonable, btw.

 

When shooting at a suspect, officers are generally trained to shoot "center mass," meaning the center of the torso. The reason is because this is generally the largest target. Shooting a leg to wound someone is ludicrous in the real world.

 

It's cinematic and cool and all, but if my life or the life of someone else depended on me hitting a suspect in the leg, in a high stress situation, then things would probably not turn out well. I know that I could put 14 of 15 rounds into their chest, however. (What about number 15? I'd save that one for the head shot; if 14 rounds can't put someone down, it's time to take out the brain. Period.)

 

Anyway, I digress. Whether or not a trained peace officer shoots someone has very little to do with the officer's personal beliefs beyond "I believe if this guy tries to kill me, I'm going to kill him."

 

Trust me. As a rule, officer candidates (and veterans) who are psychologically predisposed to not shoot when they need to shoot are weeded out. And a good thing, too. If my butt is on the line and I find out that my partner "Just couldn't do it," and I get hurt as a result... there's going to be some serious heat coming down.

 

So, in summary, cops don't have a Code Against Killing. There's no way that a cop can be completely effective if they aren't ready, willing and able to take a life should the job call for it.

[BNakagawa]

That having been said, there is a common dramatic device where a cop uses lethal force in a questionable manner early in their career, after which they become gun shy and relegated to desk work or other less critical duty. They then get embroiled in something dramatic which forces them to deal with their inner demons and get things worked out enough to do the right thing (blow the bad guy away) in the final act.

[Gold Rush Games]

True enough. I was addressing more the "real world cop" than the "cinematic cop" in my post.

 

Cinematic cops do a lot of things differently than cops are (legally) allowed to in the real world.