Police keep killing black people

[southsider2k5]

And I support looking at policies and ways we can reduce deaths of police officers, including charging people with crimes that injure or kill police.

 

I, uh, also think the flip side should occur.

 

I have no problem with that at all. As I have said before, the laws are the biggest impediment to that. The flip side of that is a situation like in Chicago and Baltimore where the police feel like they are under attack enough they basically quit policing and leave entire neighborhoods to destroy themselves.

 

Not quite sure where the sweet spot in all of that actually is.

[bmags]

This is the other side of the coin.

 

Another interesting part of this, is you can't accurately get me numbers on the deaths on the hands of police officers.

[bmags]

I have no problem with that at all. As I have said before, the laws are the biggest impediment to that. The flip side of that is a situation like in Chicago and Baltimore where the police feel like they are under attack enough they basically quit policing and leave entire neighborhoods to destroy themselves.

 

Not quite sure where the sweet spot in all of that actually is.

 

If they don't want to do their jobs they should be fired and replaced.

[Chicago White Sox]

This is nonsense. They're not just civilians. They're asked to do things civilians would never do. Hence, they get some leeway in their decision making.

The key word here is “some”. I agree that cops deserve some leeway when dealing with potentially life or death situations, but that does not apply to this particular case. This kid had done NOTHING to suggest he was a threat. He was trying his best to follow the officer’s insane requests. He was already on the ground with his hands in front of him. The officer in question had body armor, an assault rifle, and multiple units of backup. There is zero excuse whatsoever for not just approaching this guy and frisking him. None whatsoever. This officer was simply another John Rambo wanna-be and it shows in how he handled the situation and by the complete lack of emotion/reaction after gunning this poor guy down.

[Balta1701]

Just so someone points it out, police officer is the 15th deadliest occupation in the United States. Being a Taxi driver is more dangerous.

 

And FWIW, I think removing any chance that the officer has to worry about a person having a gun is a great way to reduce the number of officers killed on duty. Let's get those kill machines off the streets too and that will save a ton more police lives.

 

Final note: The person that cop murdered was a close friend of a colleague/co-author of mine. She's rather upset.

[Chicago White Sox]

Just so someone points it out, police officer is the 15th deadliest occupation in the United States. Being a Taxi driver is more dangerous.

 

And FWIW, I think removing any chance that the officer has to worry about a person having a gun is a great way to reduce the number of officers killed on duty. Let's get those kill machines off the streets too and that will save a ton more police lives.

 

Final note: The person that cop murdered was a close friend of a colleague/co-author of mine. She's rather upset.

God I hate this post.

[BigSqwert]

God I hate this post.

 

^This one is worse.

[Balta1701]

^This one is worse.

I see nothing wrong with hating that post. The statement "Being a cop is not as dangerous as we make it sound" is an ugly statement. It makes it sound like you are discrediting the deaths of cops. I know how that sounds to me. If we're going to talk about a cop panicking and shooting someone inappropriately, we should say that as part of it too. Facing reality that isn't pleasant to say is the only way to get to the real problems.

[Chicago White Sox]

^This one is worse.

I got to be honest, I’m sick of people like you and Balta who literally try to s*** on the dangers of being a police officer. The vast majority of police offers are good people that put themselves in harm’s way to keep their communities safe. I find unappreciative social justice warriors like yourself, who constantly try to group all cops as being bad, to be absolutely appalling. Whoever called you a “holier than thou liberal” was dead f***ing right. Rip the bad cops all you like, but show some god damn respect for the good ones.

Edited December 9, 2017 by Chicago White Sox

[Chicago White Sox]

I see nothing wrong with hating that post. The statement "Being a cop is not as dangerous as we make it sound" is an ugly statement. It makes it sound like you are discrediting the deaths of cops. I know how that sounds to me. If we're going to talk about a cop panicking and shooting someone inappropriately, we should say that as part of it too. Facing reality that isn't pleasant to say is the only way to get to the real problems.

Your confusing danger with deadly and ignoring the important fact that police officers are trained for dangerous types of situations which ultimately helps prevent fatalities. To even suggest being a police officer isn’t that dangerous is completely absurd & offensive, but I’m not surprised that you simply used the first article you found on google that had some stats and didn’t even think “does this make sense in terms of my argument”.

 

There are no doubt bad cops and the systems in place do a horrible job of punishing those that deserve punishment, but there is absolutely no reason to discredit the dangers these guys face. Some guys should not be cops because they simply won’t respond correctly in intense situations and we have a find a better way to screen those guys out. Until then, focus on the issue at hand which is holding bad cops accountable for their illegal or unjust actions.

[Balta1701]

Your confusing danger with deadly and ignoring the important fact that police officers are trained for dangerous types of situations which ultimately helps prevent fatalities. To even suggest being a police officer isn’t that dangerous is completely absurd & offensive, but I’m not surprised that you simply used the first article you found on google that had some stats and didn’t even think “does this make sense in terms of my argument”.

 

There are no doubt bad cops and the systems in place do a horrible job of punishing those that deserve punishment, but there is absolutely no reason to discredit the dangers these guys face. Some guys should not be cops because they simply won’t respond correctly in intense situations and we have a find a better way to screen those guys out. Until then, focus on the issue at hand which is holding bad cops accountable for their illegal or unjust actions.

I would say - being a police officer is dangerous, but it is not so dangerous as to justify gunning down 1000 people per year. If we cannot face up to that fact, then we are being dishonest. You may not like to hear it, but that doesn't change the reality. We lose way more loggers per year than police officers. We lose more taxi drivers. If we are going to talk about how dangerous being a police officer is every time someone guns down a person, then we should talk about how dangerous it actually is.

 

Furthermore, being a police officer is dangerous, but it is 10x less dangerous in the United Kingdom because the police in the United Kingdom don't have to worry that if they approach someone they will pull a gun. The best thing we could do other than reducing driving/making driving safer, to save officers lives, is have them deal with fewer armed people. But we've made it abundantly clear - having more people armed more often is more important to us, even sometimes over the objections of police. So there's another thing we should talk about - we have other priorities beyond the lives of police, including our precious guns. So let's also talk about what we respect more, the lives of police or our precious guns.

[Chicago White Sox]

I would say - being a police officer is dangerous, but it is not so dangerous as to justify gunning down 1000 people per year. If we cannot face up to that fact, then we are being dishonest. You may not like to hear it, but that doesn't change the reality. We lose way more loggers per year than police officers. We lose more taxi drivers. If we are going to talk about how dangerous being a police officer is every time someone guns down a person, then we should talk about how dangerous it actually is.

 

Furthermore, being a police officer is dangerous, but it is 10x less dangerous in the United Kingdom because the police in the United Kingdom don't have to worry that if they approach someone they will pull a gun. The best thing we could do other than reducing driving/making driving safer, to save officers lives, is have them deal with fewer armed people. But we've made it abundantly clear - having more people armed more often is more important to us, even sometimes over the objections of police. So there's another thing we should talk about - we have other priorities beyond the lives of police, including our precious guns. So let's also talk about what we respect more, the lives of police or our precious guns.

Are you actually suggesting that a material amount of those shootings deaths were unnecessary? If so, on what grounds are you basing this on?

[bigruss]

This is nonsense. They're not just civilians. They're asked to do things civilians would never do. Hence, they get some leeway in their decision making.

They are paid to do this decision making, the civilians they shoot arent. One chose the profession, the other can’t chose their skin color, their neighborhood, how the cop acts.

[Balta1701]

Are you actually suggesting that a material amount of those shootings deaths were unnecessary? If so, on what grounds are you basing this on?

There are cities where the number of police shootings drops dramatically due to a change in administration and a change in training and tactics. Dallas, Salt Lake. 34 states don't require any deescalation training and then places like Chicago make sure to stress "only if it is judged safe to deescalate" while offering that training.

 

And again, that doesn't count "what about the 1/2 of them where the person didn't need to have a gun but did".

[Balta1701]

Here's another stat - 1/3 of the people in this country killed by strangers are killed by police. That's rather remarkable.

[Chicago White Sox]

There are cities where the number of police shootings drops dramatically due to a change in administration and a change in training and tactics. Dallas, Salt Lake. 34 states don't require any deescalation training and then places like Chicago make sure to stress "only if it is judged safe to deescalate" while offering that training.

 

And again, that doesn't count "what about the 1/2 of them where the person didn't need to have a gun but did".

Let me ask you a question. Do you think someone making advances on a cop with a knife deserves to be shot?

[caulfield12]

Distance from cop? Speed of approach? Is it a military knife/K bar or Swiss Army knife? What other ways does he have to de-escalate the situation short of deadly force, like a taser? Is he alone or does he have backup, and how many?

 

There’s no one size fits all answer to that question.

[southsider2k5]

Are you actually suggesting that a material amount of those shootings deaths were unnecessary? If so, on what grounds are you basing this on?

 

They are quite literally advocating for more dead police officers.

[RockRaines]

They are quite literally advocating for more dead police officers.

Who is?

[Balta1701]

They are quite literally advocating for more dead police officers.

If the choice is "more dead police officers" or "More people killed by police officers", we need to be smart enough to find a third option. Your statement could be misinterpreted the same way as "you are quite literally advocating for more people murdered by police officers".

[Chicago White Sox]

If the choice is "more dead police officers" or "More people killed by police officers", we need to be smart enough to find a third option. Your statement could be misinterpreted the same way as "you are quite literally advocating for more people murdered by police officers".

I’m still trying to understand if you’re suggesting most police shootings are unwarranted because your use of the word “murder” certainly seems imply that.

Edited December 9, 2017 by Chicago White Sox

[Balta1701]

I’m still trying to understand if you’re suggesting most police shootings are unwarranted because your use of the word “murder” certainly seems imply that.

I think it's a fair description of this video and the use in this case is deliberate.

[caulfield12]

Trump argued last night that stricter gun laws in Chicago have made no difference,

So...what is the nuanced solution to all these confrontations that doesn’t take a side?

 

 

Republicans would argue that all we have to do is build a wall, block chain migration, end DACA, sanctuary cities, hire more ICE and Homeland Security/Border Patrol officers, pass Kate’s Law, stop M-13, problem solved!

 

But what about addressing the training and conflict resolution/threat mediation and de-escalation skills of modern-day police officers? Why does every video come across like the officers are dealing with alleged criminals like they’re confronting non-humans in a video game environment...with zero empathy or compassion or consideration, just cold-hearted brutality?

 

There was a time when the relationship between police and the neighborhoods they protected was not 100% adversarial. Maybe every member of Congress needs to sit through at least one season of The Wire so they can start to have a broader, more realistic perspective? Perhaps they could also watch The Interrupters (2011 documentary about Chicago) and see that not every single minority in the inner city is the enemy, just like the majority of police officers are not the enemy?

 

But that’s asking way too much. We talk so much about gun control and the police, but hardly ever address real issues like endemic poverty and the woeful state of public education today.

Edited December 9, 2017 by caulfield12

[Jake]

Here's a question. Are these two ideas compatible?

 

1. Police officers can be afforded some leeway, in the words of several posters here, given that use of deadly force is very possibly warranted in their day-to-day work and would be warranted much more frequently than the justifiable uses of force are for typical civilians.

 

2. Police officers, as an important part of the criminal justice system, should be expected to give the benefit of the doubt to the people they confront even if it entails risk of bodily harm to the officer. This is because the least desirable outcome of an encounter between a citizen and police is a death, regardless of how innocent or guilty the citizen is because that cannot be known definitively until the other arms of the justice system have decided. This is also not to suggest that cops shouldn't defend themselves, sometimes with deadly force, when there is no margin for a benefit of the doubt.

[caulfield12]

Here's a question. Are these two ideas compatible?

 

1. Police officers can be afforded some leeway, in the words of several posters here, given that use of deadly force is very possibly warranted in their day-to-day work and would be warranted much more frequently than the justifiable uses of force are for typical civilians.

 

2. Police officers, as an important part of the criminal justice system, should be expected to give the benefit of the doubt to the people they confront even if it entails risk of bodily harm to the officer. This is because the least desirable outcome of an encounter between a citizen and police is a death, regardless of how innocent or guilty the citizen is because that cannot be known definitively until the other arms of the justice system have decided. This is also not to suggest that cops shouldn't defend themselves, sometimes with deadly force, when there is no margin for a benefit of the doubt.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/video-shows-ma...y-shot/?ref=yfp

 

And here’s the perfect companion video.

Officer overrun, taser fails...another officer basically has to come to his rescue. You almost get the feeling they were too patient. So then it comes back to the Greg comment of why do you have to shoot to kill instead of just to “take him down”? The first officer was getting the worst of it, but was his life in imminent danger? Nevertheless, we all know that if you don’t back down (lucky to get even one warning) and you’re assaulting an officer of the law, you’re assuredly going to to end up being shot.

 

He had multiple opportunities to back off (the victim). Would have to see the toxicology results to find out if the victim had any drugs or alcohol in his system that might have exacerbated the situation.

Edited December 9, 2017 by caulfield12