Continuing the "race" discussion...

[pastorjoeboggs]

Setting aside, for the moment, the Michael Brown shooting which, it has to be admitted, has a great deal of muddled details, I'm curious as to the reaction to the other incidents of black men meeting their deaths in encounters with white police officers - Eric Garner and Tamir Rice.

Garner died after an officer used a chokehold that is acknowledged as illegal. There is video of the incident, in which Garner can be heard saying "I can't breathe." Was Garner's crime - selling untaxed cigarettes - deserving of that response? And there is no indictment.

Tamir Rice - 12 years old - was shot and killed by a white officer within seconds of the officer's arrival on the scene where Rice was "brandishing" a pellet gun. There is no attempt made to disarm or to talk Rice into surrendering - the officer goes in guns blazing. Will there be an indictment there?

Neither Garner nor Rice deserved to die, and neither of them committed any crime warranting such an extreme response. Yet both are dead at the hands of the police.

At what point does this become a pattern? At what point can we begin to understand the lack of trust between the African American community and the police? At what point do we admit that something has to change?

 

[SDBoiler1]

I don't normally like to get involved with these kinds of discussions, but I feel compelled to respond to your post, pastorjoe.

How would you like to do the job that police have to do in parts of this country? Their lives are regularly put in danger by criminals at all kinds of levels. They have to work in places where lawlessness is not only tolerated, it is encouraged. It's brilliant that people would burn down businesses and buildings in their own town because they didn't like a decision of a jury of their own peers.

Obviously, the Rice case is a tragedy. Still, do you know how you'd react if you were put in that officer's shoes at that time? Who are you to judge the officer? He felt his live was imperiled by this kid pulling a pellet gun on him, which I'm sure looked like some kind of semi-automatic pistol.

Also, in the Brown case and the Garner case, just as in most cases in this country, there needs to be evidence in order to get an indictment. You don't get indictments because a mob of angry people want one. Hell, let's just go back to the old ways of dispensing judgments, and let the mob decide who should die and how.

Finally, three cases does not constitute a pattern. What would you change in order to make yourself feel better?

 

[kescwi]

I think there is a reason that it is those situations like MB, where the waters are muddied, that get the attention. Why aren't the shootings like the one linked below shown daily? I don't see how anyone can say this man wasn't profiled and the trooper reacted on the something other than the mans actions.

Listen to the trooper try to explain himself, "... then you jumped out- I'm telling you to get out of the car."

Unreal, guy does just what he is told but all the trooper sees is a threat. And I'll also add, I pull my seat belt off in the parking lot while still moving almost every time I pull into the gas station and have never been pulled let alone had an officer turn around to warn me or ticket me.

These shootings may not be all about race but IMHO race is a big part if it.



What did I do?

 

[qazplm]

you can't be serious

1. How would I react? I wouldn't roll up guns blazing. Watch the video, the car hadn't even fully stopped moving. The cops had seconds to analyze the situation there, NOT because they were forced to, but because that's how they handled it. I'm pretty sure there is no training that says when you get a report that a kid has a possible gun, don't roll up to within a foot of them and shoot them within 3 seconds of them even recognizing that you are there.

They could have stopped the car 100 yards away and barked instructions. They rolled the car right up to a 12 year old kid and shot him before he would have remotely have a chance to react. I wouldn't have reacted that way because I wouldn't have been foolish enough to jump into the situation that way. And if you think they would have rolled up to white kid playing with a bb gun the same why (or it would have even been called in) you're deluding yourself.

2. Who am I to judge the officer? Are you freaking kidding me? I'm a citizen. He works for us. He is invested with the power to take life, and with that comes the responsibility to do it correctly. Who but the people are going to judge him?? I have no concept of the mentality that basically says "whatever the cop does I support."

What would it have taken in that case for you to legitimately be upset enough to criticize a cop? What would have to do for you to say, ok, I feel like he did something wrong?

Did you know this particular cop was fired from his last job in Independence and was then hired by Cleveland? Did you know one of the reasons was that he "broke down emotionally" on a firing range?

The fact that a cop "feels like his life was imperiled" is meaningless. What matters is does the evidence OBJECTIVELY support that a REASONABLE person in his situation would have reacted the same way. No reasonable person shoots this kid in this case. No reasonable person does it while rolling to stop on the kid and within the first three seconds of having contact with the kid or assessing the situation.

Since we are putting ourselves in shoes, why don't you put yourself in the kid's shoes for a moment. Think back to when you were 12, I'm sure you had a pop gun or toy gun, think about when you were outside playing with it, and how you'd have react if out of nowhere a car rolls up and 3-5 seconds later you're shot? Put yourself in the shoes of a parent. What would you want the cops to do if your kid were outside playing with a pop gun, would you like the cops to give him more than 3 seconds to react before shooting him?

As for cops lives regularly being put in danger? First of all define regularly? How many cops are shot at each year or put in any actual danger of harm versus the total number of cops out walking/driving a beat?

Second, how does that compare to Soldiers in combat who don't seem to have nearly the same volume/ratio of questionable shootings (and when they do they get are MUCH more likely to be held accountable for it, or even tried for it). I'll help you answer that question, they compare poorly, both in how they are held accountable and in the training they receive.

It shouldn't surprise me the lengths folks will go to give cops an insane level of benefit of the doubt simply because they do a "dangerous job" but it does. The mere fact that one does a dangerous job doesn't remove all responsibility. If Soldiers are held accountable, cops sure the heck can be.

 

[qazplm]

forget race

for a second. It's about that don't get me wrong, because if these were white victims there'd be more outrage from certain subsets. but let's pretend these are all just cops shooting people, and race doesn't even exist. What's mind-boggling to me is the lengths folks will go to say, well, I can't judge em because "dangerous job" and the victim should have done "x" to not get shot.

The response to this video will be, well he shouldn't have moved so fast, the cop doesn't know what he's going to do, as if the only consideration in all of this is officer safety. Not citizen safety, but officer safety, which is completely backwards. Citizen safety is first. Officer safety is highly important, it's not the overarching number one thing that defeats all other things.

 

[dingles87]

Originally posted by SDBoiler1:

I don't normally like to get involved with these kinds of discussions, but I feel compelled to respond to your post, pastorjoe.

How would you like to do the job that police have to do in parts of this country? Their lives are regularly put in danger by criminals at all kinds of levels. They have to work in places where lawlessness is not only tolerated, it is encouraged. It's brilliant that people would burn down businesses and buildings in their own town because they didn't like a decision of a jury of their own peers.

Obviously, the Rice case is a tragedy. Still, do you know how you'd react if you were put in that officer's shoes at that time? Who are you to judge the officer? He felt his live was imperiled by this kid pulling a pellet gun on him, which I'm sure looked like some kind of semi-automatic pistol.

Also, in the Brown case and the Garner case, just as in most cases in this country, there needs to be evidence in order to get an indictment. You don't get indictments because a mob of angry people want one. Hell, let's just go back to the old ways of dispensing judgments, and let the mob decide who should die and how.

Finally, three cases does not constitute a pattern. What would you change in order to make yourself feel better?

Why don't police officers crack the top 10 most dangerous/deadly jobs in the US if their lives are regularly put in danger?

How many cases would constitute a pattern? I am genuinely curious to know what your threshold is for constituting a pattern. Go ahead and google "police brutality", "police excessive force", or "puppycide" and see how many bad apples are out there. All isolated, I'm sure.

We can ignore race, too. White cop shooting white female teacher below.

Cop jumps on hood and fires away

 

[Purdue97]

Garner-

I will be the first to say dying while being arrested for selling illegal cigarettes is ludicrous. That said, anytime someone resists arrests things have the potential to get bad.

I also think, no, there is, much misunderstanding and misinformation about the Garner case. There was no choke hold used. This was not a choke hold death. Garner did not die of asphyxiation. There was no damage to his wind pipe. Garner was talking-people in choke holds simply cannot talk. People who are choking cannot talk.

You have a man here, that friends say wheezed when he talked, could not walk a block without needing to rest. He was in poor health, had asthma, hypertension, obese-he resisted arrest, and in the ensuing scuffle that occurred his pump could not take the stress.

Rice

911 call police responded to said an individual was waving guns around in people's faces scaring them. That is all the police knew.

They did pull up fast, officers yelling at the kid to put his hands up, kid walked towards the car, hand on the weapon inside his waist band, they shot him. Video is really clear on this except for the audio.

Police did not know it was a pellet or air gun, had no way of knowing, were not given that part of 911 call(largely irrelevant anyway) and the red marking on weapon was removed.


I will say these are tragic and meaningless deaths. People need to start realizing that police do not have some super ninja type know all powers. If a 350 lb man resists arrests, they are going to have to use force to get him down.. Things can go bad. If they respond to a call of one brandishing a gun, see a gun, one does not put their hands up, they will shoot you.


I will say this, if there are not convictions in the case in SC, and the case in Utah where there was no indictment, then yes, there is an issue. Those cases are pretty bad.

 

[qazplm]

not true

First, the 911 caller actually said that he/she both thought it was a kid and that he/she thought it wasn't a real gun, but they weren't sure. What happened is that those facts didn't get passed along to the responding cops. STILL it's pretty obvious you are dealing with a pre-teen child, that should at least cause some sort of pause in how one responds. But too many of these cops have this "everyone's out to get me" mentality and THIS particular cop had a history of breakdowns and mental health issues and was fired from his prior police force for it.

Second, they didn't just pull up fast, they pulled up and within seconds that kid has been shot. You put any 12 year old into that situation and they are going to be completely bewildered about what is going on for a few moments, to place the burden, which is what you are effectively doing, on the kid and not on the police is something I don't understand. If the police don't know then how about doing things that actually give them time to properly assess the situation?

Third, choke holds are against police regulations in NY. REGARDLESS of whether or not he was "resisting arrest" and you know I don't know how much he's resisting when cops are piling on top of him, what you are saying is that fact frees the cops to ignore their own rules in how they deal with that resistance.

Where does the line start for police responsibility? Because clearly for some it doesn't start with a 12 year old playing in the snow with a toy gun, and it doesn't start in a minor arrest for selling loose cigarettes.

 

[Purdue97]

Re: you can't be serious

1. The report the cops got was he had a gun. The cops also told him to put his hands up 3 times, and the kid instead had his hands on the gun inside his waist band. The kid also gets up out of his seat and walks toward the cop car-he did react and recognize. Cop also thought the kid was 20 years old-not 12. That was on the radio transmit.

I will say pulling up from a distance and telling the kid to disarm himself, lay prone, and do not move would have been a better choice of action. Only thing the video does not show is what was near the camera. For all we know that cop drove his car between that kid and a larger group of people and the cop thought he was doing right thing.

I am not going to judge what they would or would not have done with a white kid. That is a hypothetical not relevant to the case.

2. I agree police should be judged as should all public employees. Soldiers in combat lie and cover for each other a lot more as well. I will say I think soldiers would have handled all of these situations differently.

As for the cop being fired and breaking down on a range-those are legit points. Much like the SC officer that had PTSD from a recent shootings, some negligence should get placed on people that hire them or put them in patrol positions.

I had a gun when I was 12. I sure as hell knew not to take it to a public park and I knew not to wave it in people's faces. That part seems to be getting left out.

 

[qazplm]

nope

1. the report they got was more than "he had a gun." And I thought guys like you were big in the second amendment? Since when is the mere possession of a gun cause to go in guns blazing? But let's ignore that for a moment. The kid reacted. We all "reacted" that's a far cry from "recognize" People who are surprised "react" that doesn't mean they "recognize" what has happened. A 12 year old is not an adult. We don't even let them work without stringent rules. They don't process information as quickly or logically as adults do. We don't trust them to do much of anything. The cops thought the 12 year old was 20?

Did you ask critically, ok how would that be? How tall was the kid? Do you know? Does the kid objectively look 20? If the answer is no, then you have two possibilities. 1, the cops are lying. 2, the cops believed that but were wrong because of an inability to have enough time to properly assess.

OK, lets' assume it's 2. So the next question is, why didn't they have enough time? Did they calmly and appropriately give the person sufficient time to recognize and properly react? The answer is clearly no, they didn't. But you aren't asking those questions. In fact, you are inventing possible things you don't even know about like large groups of people (there's no evidence there was anyone else out there). Of course you won't judge what would or wouldn't happened with a white kid. Would a 911 call have even happened if a red-headed 12 year old was out there playing cowboys and Indians? The answer is no, it wouldn't have.

Yes, how dare a 12 year old do something immature like waive a toy gun in people's faces. You talk about the "better course of action" as if it's one option and that this was another option. It's not just a better course of action, it was a far superior course of action, and one that would have been required to remotely access the situation.

The cops got it wrong. Not because the kid forced them to make a quick choice, but because they created a situation where both they and the kid had to react with seconds to something. The difference is, they were adults, they knew what was coming, they were supposedly also professionals. The kid, was a 12 year old kid, who had zero idea that 4 seconds from now he was going to be in a life or death situation.

 

[beardownboiler]

Originally posted by kescwi:
I think there is a reason that it is those situations like MB, where the waters are muddied, that get the attention. Why aren't the shootings like the one linked below shown daily? I don't see how anyone can say this man wasn't profiled and the trooper reacted on the something other than the mans actions.

Listen to the trooper try to explain himself, "... then you jumped out- I'm telling you to get out of the car."

Unreal, guy does just what he is told but all the trooper sees is a threat. And I'll also add, I pull my seat belt off in the parking lot while still moving almost every time I pull into the gas station and have never been pulled let alone had an officer turn around to warn me or ticket me.

These shootings may not be all about race but IMHO race is a big part if it.

I've seen the video of this before. To me, this is the most ridiculous one of them all. With the chokehold, etc., you can kind of see past the issue of race, etc. But here, we have someone who isn't a threat at all. He is pulled over for a seatbelt violation. And he may have moved too quickly (I guess

), but was just doing as the officer asked. It is more likely that the officer thought he was a threat from the outset. Was it because he is black? Maybe. That was the issue in the Trayvon Martin case (groan, I know). Among the other issues, the real race issue was that it appeared Martin was profiled for being a black male. That's the issue I have with this video. It appears that a completely innocent man (which can't be said for most of the cases brought up) gets shot because the officer is too suspicious of black people.

 

[Purdue97]

Re: not true

-I am not sure the officers would care if it was a toy or not. Nor should they. These air guns, especially once the toy markings have been removed, are indistinguishable from real ones.

-I think the hiring parties/assignment in Cleveland and SC case, deserve blame and are negligent.

-To me, it is real clear that the kid in the video, gets up out of his seat, and walks toward the cop car. The cops said they told him three times to put his hands up. He reacted by walking toward them with his hands on his gun in his waist band.

-Cops said in radio transmit the kid looked 20 years old. I am going to imagine that the kid did not look like the nice school picture everyone showed.

-It was not a choke hold. The guy was talking, which means he was breathing, which means there was no choke hold. He properly employed a take down technique.

-That video shows he resisted arrest at the beginning of the ordeal. Once arrest is resisted, things get ugly.

The issue with your last statement of police responsibility in these two cases
-The police did not know this was a toy gun
-The police were not responsible for poor health and the initial resisting arrest that led to scuffle

 

[beardownboiler]

Re: forget race

Originally posted by qazplm:
for a second. It's about that don't get me wrong, because if these were white victims there'd be more outrage from certain subsets. but let's pretend these are all just cops shooting people, and race doesn't even exist. What's mind-boggling to me is the lengths folks will go to say, well, I can't judge em because "dangerous job" and the victim should have done "x" to not get shot.

The response to this video will be, well he shouldn't have moved so fast, the cop doesn't know what he's going to do, as if the only consideration in all of this is officer safety. Not citizen safety, but officer safety, which is completely backwards. Citizen safety is first. Officer safety is highly important, it's not the overarching number one thing that defeats all other things.

Exactly this. I don't see how he couldn't have just yelled at the guy. This is the video that outrages me the most (aside from the video of the cop wailing on a homeless woman by the highway). It's almost impossible to say that there's some grey area for this video. The cop overreacted to a man getting his wallet out of his truck. Sure, you're taught to keep your hands visible when you get pulled over. And while people are going to say that maybe this cop was nervous (why? because the man was black?), what about the guy who got pulled over? I've talked to cops during traffic stops, etc. It's a situation where citizens get nervous. And I can especially see how a black citizen would be nervous. There's another video somewhere of a man getting pulled out of the window of a car with children in the back seat. It's almost as bad (especially given the shattered window).

Outside of race, the US needs to work on officer aggression. It's getting ludicrous.

 

[Purdue97]

well you seem to be back to your old self

-I clearly state in my previous post that a better way to have handled the situation would have been to pull up from a distance away, and give the kid instructions, etc. Sure that would have given them more time to assess

-I then clearly state that the one thing we do not see is what is near the camera on the other side of the street. Maybe the cops pulled up like they did because there was a group of people over there and they put their car between them and the group. Simply asked a question. You are right there is no evidence of others out there or rest of surroundings, but what is there could explain their action. If there was nobody or nothing there, then pulling up 100 yards away would be a more superior choice.

-I am big on the second amendment. That does not mean that you pull out a gun in public places and waive it at people. Not sure what the 2nd amendment has to do with this.

-This kid was not playing cowboys and Indians. He had a toy gun, that looked real, that had the red marking removed that signalled it was a toy, and waiving it at people. But man, even when I agree with you for the most part, you still like to argue and paint a completely different picture.

This post was edited on 12/4 3:00 PM by Purdue97

 

[Purdue97]

Re: not true

Thought you might find this interesting

Cop used a tught move

 

[Purdue97]

Re: forget race

This was posted on here before. Not sure anyone defended the cop. Shots three and four are horrific. 1 and 2 are bad and likely had the cop wondering why he went back into the car.

I think the superiors that hire and place these officers in positions share responsibility. This cop reportedly has ptsd from another shooting.

 

[hunkgolden]

Originally posted by pastorjoeboggs:

At what point does this become a pattern? At what point can we begin to understand the lack of trust between the African American community and the police? At what point do we admit that something has to change?

If there is a problem - based on the below, not sure it's about race:
From the U.S. Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, CDC:
-In 2012, 43 million blacks lived in the U.S.
Of those 43 million, 123 blacks were killed by police with a gun; compared to 326 whites that were killed by police with a gun that same year.
- In 2013, Blacks committed 5,375 murders; Whites committed 4,396 murders.
Whites are 63% of the population; Blacks are 13%.

 

[beardownboiler]

Originally posted by hunkgolden:

Originally posted by pastorjoeboggs:

At what point does this become a pattern? At what point can we begin to understand the lack of trust between the African American community and the police? At what point do we admit that something has to change?

If there is a problem - based on the below, not sure it's about race:
From the U.S. Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, CDC:
-In 2012, 43 million blacks lived in the U.S.
Of those 43 million, 123 blacks were killed by police with a gun; compared to 326 whites that were killed by police with a gun that same year.
- In 2013, Blacks committed 5,375 murders; Whites committed 4,396 murders.
Whites are 63% of the population; Blacks are 13%.

Didn't you post this crap elsewhere?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: you can't be serious

Originally posted by qazplm:

Second, how does that compare to Soldiers in combat who don't seem to have nearly the same volume/ratio of questionable shootings (and when they do they get are MUCH more likely to be held accountable for it, or even tried for it). I'll help you answer that question, they compare poorly, both in how they are held accountable and in the training they receive.

Hell, I'm hardly a weapon-bearing soldier but I've had tons of deadly force training over 15 years. I hesitate to criticize how individuals act in perilous situations, but I wholeheartedly agree that it seems like Soldiers and Sailors are scrutinized more heavily with respect to discharging firearms than are the police, and that probably also applies to use of deadly/brute force regardless of whether it's a gun or not. That's screwed up.

We had a Sailor who violated weapons protocol in a foreign port resulting in the accidental single-round discharge of a .50-caliber machine gun while in the stow position (meaning the weapon was pointing upward at an 80-degree angle and of no danger of hitting anyone or anything). NCIS conducted trajectory analysis and determined that the round likely fell harmlessly in the middle of nowhere. That Sailor was administratively discharged from the Navy, waiving his right to a court-martial.... and that was in a case where no one was endangered.

If likely innocent civilians in foreign countries get shot unnecessarily by military folks, heads roll, and usually not just those of the individual, but their supervisors and higher ups. See Blackwater. It's alarming that the same standard is not applied to our own citizens and our own police.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: well you seem to be back to your old self


Two Sailors were running around the barracks near here with AirSof weapons recently. The call went in to the police that two people were going through the barracks with hand guns shooting people. My base was placed on lockdown. The MAs arrived and locked down the building, calling the two individuals out and diffusing the situation with minimum of force applied. I agree that going in guns blazing in the kid's case is excessive. Acting with incomplete information often leads to the wrong decisions, and we have an obligation to ensure deadly force is a LAST resort, not a GO TO tactic. Some police seem to feel otherwise.

 

[qazplm]

yes they should care

because a 12 year old with a toy is not a threat. They should care whether they get that fact right or not. They should take steps to try to get that fact right. IF they take appropriate steps to try and ascertain those facts, and then understandably get them wrong, then they should be excused for that mistake. When they take no steps they should get no benefit of the doubt.

A toy gun MAY be indistinguishable, but I suspect a few moments of watching this kid would have yielded a much lower threat assessment and increased the likelihood that hey, maybe this is a toy gun and this is just a kid, and we should react at a lower threat level.

So, you think in the time, mere seconds, it took for the car to roll onto the scene and shots fired the kid really was "told three times" to put his hands up? If so, there's a bridge I'd like you to give me some money for, it's real cheap, great location.

Do you think the kid in that time remotely understood what was going on? Do you have a 12 year old? Have you been around them?

You imagine the kid didn't look like a recent photograph taken of him? Wow.

It was a choke hold. It's on the cover of several NY publications. Look it up. A cop has his hands around the guys neck from behind in one of the images. This is before he was taken to the ground. The fact that he was able to spit out some words does not mean he wasn't being choked. Obviously the cause of death was related to the fact that he was being choked.

Resisting arrest should not lead to death unless you are doing things that actively endanger the life and well-being of the officers to the point where shooting you is the only alternative to protect the lives of others. So saying "once you resist, things get ugly" is ridiculous.

Your last two issues are backwards:

1. The police "did not know" because they PUT THEMSELVES in a position where they made a quick decision with almost minimal information. If a cop is FORCED into that situation THEN it might be understandable that they make a quick judgment call based on limited information. THEY were the reason they didn't know.

2. The police KNEW that this was a person in poor health and a poor physical condition. He was CLEARLY obese, and he had a bunch of cops on top of him as he complained of not being able to breath. We also know that AFTER they got off him, no one lifted a finger to try to resuscitate him or give him assistance for quite some time. But I guess that's the "ugly" part of resisting arrest for ya.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Originally posted by beardownboiler:
Didn't you post this crap elsewhere?

Yes, he did.

Unfortunately, the few statistics mentioned by the CDC don't delve very far into a complex issue. Here is a more detailed discussion.

At the end of the day, it's still true that we don't know how many
people are killed by police in America. We know some things about some
people who are killed by police. The facts we do know are enough to make
it clear that more information is needed - and enough to suggest that
the racial disparities in the American criminal justice system extend to
the barrel of an officer's gun.

 

[qazplm]

Re: not true

Do I find it interesting that the police union President and the cop's attorney assert it was an authorized take down technique? No, I don't find that interesting at all. I would find it shocking if they didn't assert that.

I might, might find it interesting if the actual police said it was, but we don't have that do we?

 

[qazplm]

again let's ignore race

for a moment, how about simply "do we have a problem with the use of force by cops in this country?"

Because if that question is finally seriously asked, and the answer is yes, then maybe we'll get solutions that help everyone, black, white or green.

 

[hunkgolden]

Originally posted by beardownboiler:

Originally posted by hunkgolden:

Originally posted by pastorjoeboggs:

At what point does this become a pattern? At what point can we begin to understand the lack of trust between the African American community and the police? At what point do we admit that something has to change?

If there is a problem - based on the below, not sure it's about race:
From the U.S. Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, CDC:
-In 2012, 43 million blacks lived in the U.S.
Of those 43 million, 123 blacks were killed by police with a gun; compared to 326 whites that were killed by police with a gun that same year.
- In 2013, Blacks committed 5,375 murders; Whites committed 4,396 murders.
Whites are 63% of the population; Blacks are 13%.

Didn't you post this crap elsewhere?

Why yes...yes I did. But felt these statistics were applicable here as well. Why are these statistics crap? Because they challenge your beliefs?

 

[Beeazlebub]

Re: again let's ignore race

Originally posted by qazplm:
for a moment, how about simply "do we have a problem with the use of force by cops in this country?"

Because if that question is finally seriously asked, and the answer is yes, then maybe we'll get solutions that help everyone, black, white or green.

The easy part of that answer is yes.

The more difficult portion is why we have the problem in the first place, and what to do about it.

Like Gr8 said below, I have military folks in some of my classes who are appalled at the lack of training and willingness to use deadly force by police. Add to the equation the military surplus available to many local PDs and this situation becomes even messier.

 

[qazplm]

and what beliefs do you think these stats challenge

exactly?

What does killed with a gun have to do with committed a murder? Do you think every police shooting involved a murderer? Or even involved a violent person at all?

Do you think one year's worth of data is meaningful?
There are a whole list of questions one could asked that wouldn't remotely be answered by what you appear to think is a clever, genius response.

 

[qazplm]

agreed

lack of training is a huge problem, but the bigger problem is lack of care.

We apparently have enough care about who our Soldiers shoot to have a system that is heavily invested in investigating said shootings, not covering them up (at least not remotely to the degree that happens in law enforcement) and punishing wrongdoers.

We don't have nearly that level of care for cops. Why? And it's not just the cops fault. These are grand juries of our peers making these calls. It's folks on this forum making all the same excuses/justifications or citing to the race of the victim as if that's a legit point to consider in whether or not the cops were justified (while simultaneously saying "it's not about race" but here let me give you some racial stats).

We are just not starting to get the idea that hey, might be nice to have recording devices on cars and bodies everywhere instead of sporadically. So we can actually see what happened. But even when it's videotaped, still no relief. I mean look, I don't think you charge the cops in the choking case with murder. I don't think they intended to kill the guy. But why not simple assault?

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: again let's ignore race

Originally posted by qazplm:
for a moment, how about simply "do we have a problem with the use of force by cops in this country?"

Because if that question is finally seriously asked, and the answer is yes, then maybe we'll get solutions that help everyone, black, white or green.

I hope we ask that question.

I also hope that we don't allow the pendulum to swing so far that it becomes "a cop can never take the first shot." That happened in Fifth Fleet, where I was directly asked by the Commander, Fifth Fleet (VADM Fox) what I thought "disciplined restraint" meant. I answered him, frankly, "I think it means I cannot take the first shot." I was not alone in that answer, apparently, because the disciplined restraint term/initiative was removed shortly thereafter.

As Commanding Officers, we get that we can't start a war, but we also have an obligation to protect the 30-500 Sailors whose lives and safety are charged to us, nevermind the $30million - $1billion warships we are responsible for. But that weapons release authority lies with us and a very small number of hand-selected and qualified officers. On my ship, a very small patrol craft of 30 people and a whole lot of guns, I was the only officer with weapons release authority unless I was incapacitated. I did that for a reason (namely my ship was small so I was always close at hand).

Police and Soldiers in the field cannot have that same restriction for reasons that should be obvious. That said, with the importance that we place on weapons release against foreign citizens, we really need to look hard at the use of force against our own.

 

[qazplm]

there's always a line

where someone crosses that forces a cop to take that person's life in defense of others, or himself.

And if someone comes close enough to the line without going over, one can imagine even then once you factor in tempo, speed, information, and other criteria in a neutral, objectively matter, you might still decide not to go after the officer.

But just like a Soldier needs to consider the Law of War, and needs to be sure of his target before firing, so do cops have to apply similar principles in how they make the decision to take a life. And quite frankly, I see little evidence that this is being universally done.

IOW, let's worry about where the pendulum goes after we get it unpegged from the far end it's currently swung to IMO.

 

[kescwi]

Yeah, qazplm posted it a while back and I put it up again because it troubles me as well. Of all the videos I have seen this is the one that seems to show what AA are taking about, that trooper is not seeing the same reality as the man he has pulled over. I don't know what he is seeing but to me is seems obvious the trooper enters that encounter viewing that man as a potential threat and even without the shooting I think that man was in for some serious harassment. Why?

 

[beardownboiler]

Originally posted by hunkgolden:

Originally posted by beardownboiler:

Originally posted by hunkgolden:

Originally posted by pastorjoeboggs:

At what point does this become a pattern? At what point can we begin to understand the lack of trust between the African American community and the police? At what point do we admit that something has to change?

If there is a problem - based on the below, not sure it's about race:
From the U.S. Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, CDC:
-In 2012, 43 million blacks lived in the U.S.
Of those 43 million, 123 blacks were killed by police with a gun; compared to 326 whites that were killed by police with a gun that same year.
- In 2013, Blacks committed 5,375 murders; Whites committed 4,396 murders.
Whites are 63% of the population; Blacks are 13%.

Didn't you post this crap elsewhere?

Why yes...yes I did. But felt these statistics were applicable here as well. Why are these statistics crap? Because they challenge your beliefs?

Witty. Of course, you say this to the person who argues against his own beliefs on this board . . . So, yeah. I must have a real problem with being challenged (ex. the thread where I argue with qaz over gay rights).

 

[Purdue97]

Re: not true

That article was edited. There was a part in there that had stated that was a trained take down move. That is why I named the link what I did-and found it a bit hypocritical.

Do I find the Union President's and his lawyers comments that interesting? No. Just as I am not buying the choking death narrative from the media interesting either. Both are likely biased and twisting the event.

 

[GMM]

#BlackLivesMatter.....

......should be changed to #SomeBlackLivesMatterButOnlyWhenTheyCanBeUsedToPromoteTheLeft'sAgenda.

Setting aside, for the moment, the Michael Brown shooting which, it has to be admitted, has a great deal of muddled details....

Does it? That's not what we were told initially. We were told it was "yet another" incidence of a white racist cop murdering an innocent black person. An unarmed teenager at that. That story, like so many other stories, were distorted or portrayed falsely to promote a leftist agenda. Namely, that America and its cops are racist monsters who target innocent black people because they'll get away with it. The riots and the anti-police hysteria that followed were not an accident.

At what point does this become a pattern?

There is no pattern. The incident rate of innocent black people being killed by the cops is incredibly small. Where's the outrage--the riot-inducing outrage--at street gangs who kill far more innocent black people? Whoops, that wouldn't fit the agenda so nevermind. Unless it can be blamed on white people or racism or profiling or.......

Along with being arrested/convicted more often, men are killed by cops far more than women. Does that concern you? Do the cops need sensitivity training so they'll stop being so sexist?

At what point can we begin to understand the lack of trust between the African American community and the police?

Your implication is that if blacks don't trust the police there must be something wrong with the police. It could never be because blacks won't take responsibility for their own actions (compared to other racial groups) or that they have an awful attitude with regards to the police ("snitches get stitches") or that the left constantly agitates black people to be angry at the cops, The System, Whitey, etc. while mocking those who don't. No, all black anger at targets that are politically incorrect is to be understood and submitted to. Period.

Maybe the African American community would feel better if they were policed by African cops. What a glorious reputation they have!

At what point do we admit that something has to change?

OK, let's put you and your fellow progressives in charge of crime policy. We've seen that before. What happened? The crime rates went up. Who was disproportionately harmed? Innocent black people.

 

[qazplm]

Re: not true

so he wasnt choked, but he died of, what was it again??

 

[qazplm]

you know why

we all know why. Some deny it, some like GMM revel in it, some admit it.

 

[qazplm]

^#RacistRamblings

.

 

[threeeputtt]

Randy Vetter


Both sides make great arguments. Yes, there are problems racially by our police. I have been detained once and I simply did whatever the officer asked (no I am not black). Had I resisted there very likely could have been a problem even though I wasn't happy about it I never let him know. I walked away after it was determined I was not the person they were looking for.

All of these cases would be moot save the 12 year olds case if they SIMPLY followed instruction (Brown & Garner probably would have been arrested though). So we ALL know what we would do and what is right? Sure.

Let me put this in perspective about a second cousin of my wife's, Randy Vetter. The killer was stopped for a simple seat belt violation. I guess Randy should have hugged or said please be nice? It took about 15-20 seconds. One person would be alive if they simply followed instructions and the other still be free. A seat belt violation?



This post was edited on 12/4 7:22 PM by threeeputtt

Randy Vetter

 

[GMM]

^#PhonyOutrage

*

 

[kescwi]

Re: Randy Vetter

I feel for his/your family but if this is in response to the SC shooting, I don't see much similarity and no one has said being a cop doesn't carry risk. What is being said is that risk doesn't trump all else or give a free pass to any action an officer takes, especially when, in the SC case, the man is doing exactly what the trooper is asking him to do.