"At ddds" with their story? The guy was advancing toward the officers and close enough that he died at one of their feet, was in fact armed with a knife, was not obeying verbal commands, and was behaving erratically just as the citizen who called the police said.
But let's hammer them for misstating the grip, because that's the key piece.
a person that thinks these police shootings are getting out of hand. But this is completely justified. You don't advance towards and officer with a weapon. He got what was coming to him.
"At ddds" with their story? The guy was advancing toward the officers and close enough that he died at one of their feet, was in fact armed with a knife, was not obeying verbal commands, and was behaving erratically just as the citizen who called the police said.
But let's hammer them for misstating the grip, because that's the key piece.
a person that thinks these police shootings are getting out of hand. But this is completely justified. You don't advance towards and officer with a weapon. He got what was coming to him.
a person that thinks these police shootings are getting out of hand. But this is completely justified. You don't advance towards and officer with a weapon. He got what was coming to him.
a person that thinks these police shootings are getting out of hand. But this is completely justified. You don't advance towards and officer with a weapon. He got what was coming to him.
a person that thinks these police shootings are getting out of hand. But this is completely justified. You don't advance towards and officer with a weapon. He got what was coming to him.
who thinks these police shootings are getting out of hand. But this.... completely justified. You don't advance towards an officer with a knife in your hand. He got what was coming to him.
a person that thinks these police shootings are getting out of hand. But this is completely justified. You don't advance towards and officer with a weapon. He got what was coming to him.
a person that thinks these police shootings are getting out of hand. But this is completely justified. You don't advance towards and officer with a weapon. He got what was coming to him.
a person that thinks these police shootings are getting out of hand. But this is completely justified. You don't advance towards and officer with a weapon. He got what was coming to him.
I guess you are trying to make a point, but think we are too stupid to get it the 1st, 3rd & 5th time so you kept hammering it home so there can be no mistake as to what it is
a person that thinks these police shootings are getting out of hand. But this is completely justified. You don't advance towards and officer with a weapon. He got what was coming to him.
I don't envy the extremely difficult and stressful situation that the police found themselves in, but wouldn't seeing someone act erratically like that and him telling the officers to shoot him make one think that maybe this isn't just a violent offender case as much as a person with severe mental issues?
I'm sure the police actions will be found justified in the end (and rightly so with the danger posed by this individual), but I think cases like this speaks volumes to how lacking our law enforcement's capability to deal with citizens with mental health issues. And that's not knocking the police as much as pointing out the obvious about how difficult their jobs are with the limited resources available.
You're missing the fact that you can't just pick out a body part and shoot it. Especially in a high stress situation. They are highly inaccurate when firing multiple rounds outside of a controlled setting. Center mass is the easiest and largest target to focus.
headline meant to stir up controversy and attact eyeballs (shocker). THis was suicide by cop and I feel bad that the officers were not only put in a life-threatening situation but were forced to kill a person too chicken-shit to do it himself.
One time to fire my 9mm semi auto handgun. I put a full torso target 10 yards out. He got cocky and tried to be a bad ass, unloaded the clip rapidly. ONE bullet grazed the very bottom right corner of the target. The other 9 completely missed. He learned pretty quickly how inaccurate a handgun was.
I thought I might have to turn in my man card admitting that
My comment to the original poster wasn't meant to be some demeaning man card type comment. It was simple fact. Some people don't realize how difficult it is to fire a weapon.
Go fire a pistol for the first time with no prior instruction and you literally will be lucky to hit the side of a barn.
Now you have cops who are facing a situation of maybe not surviving their shift for the first time. While trained and qualified, they never had to do it under that amount of stress.
Center mass.
I've seen people miss targets at mere 3 yards away... Â
with a handgun. Nothing about shooting a handgun is ever easy without much training, especially when you are in stressful situation with heart pumping fast and adrenaline spike in your system.
with all other things being equal, the longer the barrel, the more accurate the weapon is.
Trigger control and grip are very important when shooting handguns. The more stressful the situation (or faster you fire), the less you are focusing on those two crucial elements.
are trained extensively in firearms. I'm not saying stressful situations don't make it tougher, but typically many rounds have gone through a service revolver under various training scenarios and the shooter is well trained. Most know how to deal with the pressure, but there are many physiological (fight or flight; tache pysche) things that happen to a person in a combat situation and everyone responds differently. Trust me, I've been there. I'd like to say I responded perfectly everytine. Sadly, I can't. Every situation is different. For those people who question every action taken by LE, I ask them to step into these situations and see how they'd do. I'm certain most would fail.
which makes it exponentially harder to hit something like a "knee" with one shot that would maybe stop the guy in order that they satisfy the arm chair QB's who will criticize them for firing six shots.
are trained extensively in firearms. I'm not saying stressful situations don't make it tougher, but typically many rounds have gone through a service revolver under various training scenarios and the shooter is well trained. Most know how to deal with the pressure, but there are many physiological (fight or flight; tache pysche) things that happen to a person in a combat situation and everyone responds differently. Trust me, I've been there. I'd like to say I responded perfectly everytine. Sadly, I can't. Every situation is different. For those people who question every action taken by LE, I ask them to step into these situations and see how they'd do. I'm certain most would fail.
I will have to respectfully disagree with the training part on this post.
LE may get extensive training (to what extent beyond their required training though?) using handguns (their primary weapon) while the military gets enough using rifles (their primary weapon), but ask any conventional military enlisted or officer about how much handgun training they have gotten and they will be able to tell you most likely on one hand (or two depending on how long they have been in service). Aside from an annual pistol qualification (for which most in the military get waivers due to optempo), very few get the ability to really learn how to shoot handguns in stressful situations.
Conversely, one of the main issues I've had with these police officers having M-4 throughout this situation is that they most likely don't get the level of training that is required to fully appreciate the gravity of having such firepower in their hands (really getting to know that importance of proper rifle muzzle location for each situation), as evidenced in that "I will fucking kill you" video and plethora of photos where these officers are aiming their rifles at unarmed protesters.
knows that the last thing they ever want to do is use their weapon. And those who have shot or those who have justifiably killed a suspect are often very affected by it.
Having to protect the public while protectibg yourself every day is not easy, yet we expect officers to be perfect and seem to nitpick everything they do.
If a man is approaching you with a knife, this is what happens. it is what almost every one of us would do, even if we would be affected afterward by the outcome.
This idea that we can convict the police officer because he fired 6 shots (!) and didn't merely shoot Brown in the leg is ridiculous... yet many (including many BBIers) have essentially stated just that.
To further add to the point regarding firing six rounds at a charging Â
aggressor, you will be surprised how little time it takes to fire off six round (or even a full magazine of 15) when you are in a stressful situation. Let's just say that you probably can do all of that before before you can blink twice.
Why to they have to empty there guns on him? A shot in the leg would have made more sense.
Who say's they were shooting to kill? They were shooting to stop a man with a weapon from advancing and possibly harming them.
There is a difference between using deadly force and attempting to kill someone- they're not the same thing. Police are authorized in certain situations to use deadly force- meaning that they are aware that there is a possibility of death to the person. They are never authorized to "shoot to kill". They aren't executioners.
the fact that Wilson hit Brown with six shots from his pistol Â
Is what convinces me that the incident happened at very close range, say 10 feet or closer rather than the 35 feet some people have suggested. Wilson would have to be one hell of a marksman to put six rounds on target from 35 feet in a high-stress situation like that.
Plus lets be honest. These guys are likely a little scared and don't want to die. They want to go home and see their families at the end of the day like anyone else and to expect them to be attacked and yet not do everything to ensure they stop the threat is unfair. Again it is easy to sit back and criticize when you are safe on the sidelines.
The bottom line is many people should hold the person attacking the police more accountable than they do. And if there is evidence that a policeman shot a person with out any cause then he should be held accountable for that, but for goodness sake don't attack a man defending himself because you think you would have done it differently.
bull, if the guy is three times your size he'll take your night stick Â
Police carry night sticks and pepper spray. They don't have to use their guns in this fashion.
Sure the majority of police want nothing to do with using their gun. But there are several that are trigger happy.
I've seen people not be impacted by pepper spray and have heard of people not being impacted by baton to the body (even the legs) because they were so hopped up on something. Maybe the use of taser may have worked (if they had them), but at this point, you can fault them for using force that they were authorized to use.
I think we need to look beyond these officers (who were put in extremely difficult positions and reacted the best way they could have) and look at the broader topic of what kind of responses our law enforcement sends to incidents where assailants with mental issues may be encountered. In a perfect world, we would have mental issue specialists accompany these officers in situations like this, but we know we don't have the resources for it.
Police carry night sticks and pepper spray. They don't have to use their guns in this fashion.
Sure the majority of police want nothing to do with using their gun. But there are several that are trigger happy.
We aren't talking about your hypothetical cop. We're discussing the specifics of this case. Which is unfolding as many of us predicted. Can't wait to see the sonic youth braintrust skew the facts into their neat little world where police enjoy shooting people. Should be a fun time!
Plus lets be honest. These guys are likely a little scared and don't want to die. They want to go home and see their families at the end of the day like anyone else and to expect them to be attacked and yet not do everything to ensure they stop the threat is unfair. Again it is easy to sit back and criticize when you are safe on the sidelines.
The bottom line is many people should hold the person attacking the police more accountable than they do. And if there is evidence that a policeman shot a person with out any cause then he should be held accountable for that, but for goodness sake don't attack a man defending himself because you think you would have done it differently.
While I can agree on a broader scale, I really hate that line of argument. As Nitro and others have put it in another thread, you became a police officer knowing the danger. Yes, your well being as an officer should be a priority in situations like this, but it should not be THE priority. Not to say that this situation fits into that category, but if your top priority is to come home safe every night, then maybe you are in the wrong line of work.
knows that the last thing they ever want to do is use their weapon. And those who have shot or those who have justifiably killed a suspect are often very affected by it.
Having to protect the public while protectibg yourself every day is not easy, yet we expect officers to be perfect and seem to nitpick everything they do.
If a man is approaching you with a knife, this is what happens. it is what almost every one of us would do, even if we would be affected afterward by the outcome.
Well put....the main thing in any LEO field is to get home safe to your family.
"as evidenced in that "I will fucking kill you" video and plethora of photos where these officers are aiming their rifles at unarmed protesters."
A 20 year veteran from a very small town that probably never saw or has been in a event like this. Then there is the idiot protested that had the BB rifle that he saw. (as mentioned quickly on morning Joe this morning)
He completely over reacted. He had worked 4-12 shifts there the last 4 days.
The St. Louis County Sgt who comes by and moves his weapon and moves him away from the protesters in one smooth swoop, definitely had his shit together.
From someone who has been on the unified multi agency multi jurisdictional command staff of many large events, all I can say is that this is one cluster f@@k in terms of communication and organization.
Plus lets be honest. These guys are likely a little scared and don't want to die. They want to go home and see their families at the end of the day like anyone else and to expect them to be attacked and yet not do everything to ensure they stop the threat is unfair. Again it is easy to sit back and criticize when you are safe on the sidelines.
The bottom line is many people should hold the person attacking the police more accountable than they do. And if there is evidence that a policeman shot a person with out any cause then he should be held accountable for that, but for goodness sake don't attack a man defending himself because you think you would have done it differently.
While I can agree on a broader scale, I really hate that line of argument. As Nitro and others have put it in another thread, you became a police officer knowing the danger. Yes, your well being as an officer should be a priority in situations like this, but it should not be THE priority. Not to say that this situation fits into that category, but if your top priority is to come home safe every night, then maybe you are in the wrong line of work.
I think that the inference here is that "if you are coming at me to potentially kill me, then I am going to harm you and you may die". And yes, cops want to get home safe as does everyone. And no, cops don't want to kill a person because of situations just like this.
Plus lets be honest. These guys are likely a little scared and don't want to die. They want to go home and see their families at the end of the day like anyone else and to expect them to be attacked and yet not do everything to ensure they stop the threat is unfair. Again it is easy to sit back and criticize when you are safe on the sidelines.
The bottom line is many people should hold the person attacking the police more accountable than they do. And if there is evidence that a policeman shot a person with out any cause then he should be held accountable for that, but for goodness sake don't attack a man defending himself because you think you would have done it differently.
While I can agree on a broader scale, I really hate that line of argument. As Nitro and others have put it in another thread, you became a police officer knowing the danger. Yes, your well being as an officer should be a priority in situations like this, but it should not be THE priority. Not to say that this situation fits into that category, but if your top priority is to come home safe every night, then maybe you are in the wrong line of work.
I never said it should be their top priority, but to expect them when attacked to not do everything to stop the threat is naïve. I have known cops well, and any one of them knew the risks and accepted them and for that matter would risk their lives in a second to try and save another's. But I don't think anyone should expect them not to do everything to ensure their safety when attacked once they have given warning and it is ignored like in this case with the guy coming at them with the knife. That is asking too much.
Well put....the main thing in any LEO field is to get home safe to your family.
If that's your main thing, then you probably shouldn't be a cop.
I think you're confusing secret service and a police officer, your life is on the line everyday but you don't put yourself in deadly situations without protecting yourself first. What should have the police officer done in your opinion.
I never said it should be their top priority, but to expect them when attacked to not do everything to stop the threat is naïve. I have known cops well, and any one of them knew the risks and accepted them and for that matter would risk their lives in a second to try and save another's. But I don't think anyone should expect them not to do everything to ensure their safety when attacked once they have given warning and it is ignored like in this case with the guy coming at them with the knife. That is asking too much.
And no one is saying that they shouldn't do what is authorized for them in situations like this. I just think that the argument that police officers also want to come home alive to their loved ones is a lame one that doesn't need to be used to justify the deadly force they may need to use...I mean, no shit they do...but so do steel workers, construction workers, and everyone else.
This situation seems justified as per my previous posts, so I'm not saying the police did anything wrong.
Well put....the main thing in any LEO field is to get home safe to your family.
If that's your main thing, then you probably shouldn't be a cop.
I think you're confusing secret service and a police officer, your life is on the line everyday but you don't put yourself in deadly situations without protecting yourself first. What should have the police officer done in your opinion.
Read my previous post to steve. I would say that the main thing is to serve your community in such profession, whether you are putting yourself in harms way or not.
and you accept that you are constrained in what you can do to respond to that risk even if it prevents you from mitigating that risk, but there is nothing unconscionable about your first priority being to get home to your family. That is what most servicemembers want. It's the familiar "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6" and there is a kernel of truth to it, but self-preservation isn't incompatible with doing the right thing.
...I mean, no shit they do...but so do steel workers, construction workers, and everyone else.
I am simply pointing that out to people that appear to not be taking that into any real consideration and are placing unreasonable demands upon them. Why take exception to it?
Read my previous post to steve. I would say that the main thing is to serve your community in such profession, whether you are putting yourself in harms way or not. [/quote]
I would agree you can "risk" your life everyday for your community but not "give" it, the willingness is there but not just give up. The reaction time in studies for a knifed subject to close a 21 foot gap is about the same time to draw a sidearm and discharge it. 21 feet is a long distance. Split second decisions have to be made.
A cop's desire to go home safely does not abrogate the civil rights of other citizens.
And who ever said it did?
I said if someone is attacking even after having been given warning from the officer then at that point the officer should be able to do everything in his power to defend himself without being criticized and told he shouldn't have. This shoot in the leg nonsense is simply naïve. Do you disagree with that?
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Anyone who knows a cop.. Â
I would agree you can "risk" your life everyday for your community but not "give" it, the willingness is there but not just give up. The reaction time in studies for a knifed subject to close a 21 foot gap is about the same time to draw a sidearm and discharge it. 21 feet is a long distance. Split second decisions have to be made.
I think this is a good descriptor.
No one is asking a police officer to put themselves in harms way needlessly. And I don't think these officers really had a choice in this situation.
But the use of deadly force should be one of absolute necessity and should not be your primary, secondary, or even tertiary option if there are other more prudent and less deadly options available. Yes, it is all situational dependent...no one is seeing this as a black or white issue (no pun intended).
And steve, I didn't mean to make it seem like I was arguing against "you" but more the similar sentiment I've seen in multiple threads regarding police officers' main priority being that of coming home to their families alive. I apologize if my wording seemed like I was attacking you.
I already said that's nonsense. If I ever shoot at anyone, it will be center mass every time.
I was making a general point, not one specific to this shooting, but I'll say this much. People here are awfully quick to dismiss the lying in the cop's statement. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
Quote:
pulled out a knife and came at the officers, gripping and holding it high, Dotson said.
That's clearly bullshit. Powell's arms are at his sides, so why the lie? The only reason I can think of is, of course, that the cops in question were having second thoughts as to the menace Powell posed. "Hey, let's just say that he raised the knife in the air like he's going to stab us!"
Maybe this was all kosher by the laws of Missouri. I don't know that, so I can't say. All I know is what my eyes see, which is that there doesn't appear to be nearly the threat that those two cops claimed.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Anyone who knows a cop.. Â
I would agree you can "risk" your life everyday for your community but not "give" it, the willingness is there but not just give up. The reaction time in studies for a knifed subject to close a 21 foot gap is about the same time to draw a sidearm and discharge it. 21 feet is a long distance. Split second decisions have to be made.
I think this is a good descriptor.
No one is asking a police officer to put themselves in harms way needlessly. And I don't think these officers really had a choice in this situation.
But the use of deadly force should be one of absolute necessity and should not be your primary, secondary, or even tertiary option if there are other more prudent and less deadly options available. Yes, it is all situational dependent...no one is seeing this as a black or white issue (no pun intended).
And steve, I didn't mean to make it seem like I was arguing against "you" but more the similar sentiment I've seen in multiple threads regarding police officers' main priority being that of coming home to their families alive. I apologize if my wording seemed like I was attacking you.
Well said....I'm unsure of other tools at their disposal, i.e. Tasers which I think are a great weapon to deploy in a situation like this. I just can't imagine being in that situation and having to make a decision like that in a split second.
A cop's desire to go home safely does not abrogate the civil rights of other citizens.
And for that matter Ronnie agrees with me as to the actions the officer should take but differs in that the reason for doing so being exclusively because of procedure (which I'm not arguing against) and not at all because the officer would want to live and be able to be their for his wife and children, which I still don't really understand. IMO the method and procedure and wanting to live go hand in hand at that moment and are not in any contradiction.
That's clearly bullshit. Powell's arms are at his sides, so why the lie? The only reason I can think of is, of course, that the cops in question were having second thoughts as to the menace Powell posed. "Hey, let's just say that he raised the knife in the air like he's going to stab us!"
Maybe this was all kosher by the laws of Missouri. I don't know that, so I can't say. All I know is what my eyes see, which is that there doesn't appear to be nearly the threat that those two cops claimed.
Reminds me of this police shooting in Dallas.
Quote:
Spencer wrote in a police report that Bennett refused to drop the knife and moved toward him and another officer "in a threatening manner." Spencer says that's when he fired at Bennett four times from about 20 feet away, wounding him.
The video tells a different story. Although the police report says Bennett "lunged" at the officers with a knife, in the video he stands up from the chair but then doesn't appear to move at all until the gun is fired and he crumples to the ground.
The surveillance video doesn't include audio, and Spencer wrote in his report that Bennett yelled at them, "You all are gonna need more officers than this!" But it doesn't show that the incident "escalated, which led an officer to fire his weapon upon the individual," as police spokesman Warren Mitchell said in a statement a few hours after the shooting.
Chief Brown said in a statement Thursday night that Spencer has been placed on indefinite administrative leave pending a "thorough criminal investigation."
Dallas police said the man acted aggressively toward the officers, forcing them to shoot. But the video shows that he had his arms by his side and was yards away when officers started shooting.
I would agree you can "risk" your life everyday for your community but not "give" it, the willingness is there but not just give up. The reaction time in studies for a knifed subject to close a 21 foot gap is about the same time to draw a sidearm and discharge it. 21 feet is a long distance. Split second decisions have to be made.
I think this is a good descriptor.
No one is asking a police officer to put themselves in harms way needlessly. And I don't think these officers really had a choice in this situation.
But the use of deadly force should be one of absolute necessity and should not be your primary, secondary, or even tertiary option if there are other more prudent and less deadly options available. Yes, it is all situational dependent...no one is seeing this as a black or white issue (no pun intended).
And steve, I didn't mean to make it seem like I was arguing against "you" but more the similar sentiment I've seen in multiple threads regarding police officers' main priority being that of coming home to their families alive. I apologize if my wording seemed like I was attacking you.
Ronnie, well maybe we just misunderstood each other. U didn't mean to imply a policeman should ever not follow procedure and infringe on anyone rights because he want to ensure his safety. My only point is that these are people that want to go home at the end of the day. Yes they are willing to risk that to protect society but to ask them not to properly defend themselves is crazy.
military? How do you know this? My combat personnel are at the range at least 4 times a month training on M4s and M9s and my LE neighbor is also regularly at the range training. Not sure where you get your information, but all my experience tells me there is more than enough training.
A cop's desire to go home safely does not abrogate the civil rights of other citizens.
And for that matter Ronnie agrees with me as to the actions the officer should take but differs in that the reason for doing so being exclusively because of procedure (which I'm not arguing against) and not at all because the officer would want to live and be able to be their for his wife and children, which I still don't really understand. IMO the method and procedure and wanting to live go hand in hand at that moment and are not in any contradiction.
You mistake me. I'm not saying that the police officer wanting to go home to his wife and children isn't important. But that shouldn't be his primary reason for killing someone if there are other options. One officer may view a situation different from another, and he may shoot first while another knows that there were other options. Maybe the first one's main priority was to go home safe to his family and it took precedence over all else (maybe due to poor training, poor decision making, lack of experience, etc.), while the second realized that although he also wants to go home to his family safe, he also knew better on what next step to take (better training, experience, decision making, etc.).
As I've stated, it isn't so clear and all situational dependent. However, as I've said multiple times, if your first priority is to be safe and you let that take precedence over all else, you're in the wrong line of work.
He obviously was the aggressor, had a knife and kept coming at them after repeated warnings all the while yelling shoot me which I would think would indicate they would have to shoot him in order to stop him.
My point is they were so obviously justified that they would have zero reason to lie. My thinking is in their mind holding it high maybe means high enough to be a threat. I don't automatically interpret it as they were trying to make up a reason because there simply is no reason for them to even consider doing that.
One thing no one mentions is that in these big cities, cops are Â
constantly under these types of situations. We just see the screw ups, but day in and day out they are dealing with this type of crap. Its kind of like Eli with no line. If you are constantly being threatened (or getting sacked in Eli's case), then I can understand being overly defensive and situations like this happening if the perpetrator doesn't follow directions. Its like Eli getting skittish in the pocket.
A cop's desire to go home safely does not abrogate the civil rights of other citizens.
And for that matter Ronnie agrees with me as to the actions the officer should take but differs in that the reason for doing so being exclusively because of procedure (which I'm not arguing against) and not at all because the officer would want to live and be able to be their for his wife and children, which I still don't really understand. IMO the method and procedure and wanting to live go hand in hand at that moment and are not in any contradiction.
You mistake me. I'm not saying that the police officer wanting to go home to his wife and children isn't important. But that shouldn't be his primary reason for killing someone if there are other options. One officer may view a situation different from another, and he may shoot first while another knows that there were other options. Maybe the first one's main priority was to go home safe to his family and it took precedence over all else (maybe due to poor training, poor decision making, lack of experience, etc.), while the second realized that although he also wants to go home to his family safe, he also knew better on what next step to take (better training, experience, decision making, etc.).
As I've stated, it isn't so clear and all situational dependent. However, as I've said multiple times, if your first priority is to be safe and you let that take precedence over all else, you're in the wrong line of work.
I think we both just misinterpreted what each other was trying to say. I never said it should be their first priority and didn't mean to imply that if I did.
military? How do you know this? My combat personnel are at the range at least 4 times a month training on M4s and M9s and my LE neighbor is also regularly at the range training. Not sure where you get your information, but all my experience tells me there is more than enough training.
Yes, Marine with five years in an infantry battalion with three deployments to Iraq in various roles from platoon commander to advisor to an Iraqi Army battalion to battalion intelligence officer with my fair share of being in the shits. Then three more years working in the intelligence community as a liaison officer with a deployment to Afghanistan supporting conventional and task force elements.
And I was an EMP (Enhanced Marksmanship Program) and CMP (Combat Marksmanship Program) instructor for my infantry battalion focused on real world/stress fire training.
So I've seen my fair share of how weapons training is done at the combat unit level and just how many instance of waiver request have been submitted for Marines and sailors due to optempo constraints.
Unless your combat personnel are in the SOF community, I highly doubt that they spent four times a month at a range, which means that they probably don't have time for anything else.
I think we both just misinterpreted what each other was trying to say. I never said it should be their first priority and didn't mean to imply that if I did.
all intergrated with SOF Ops. I wasn't looking for your bona fides or deployment dates, I simply questioned a blanket statement about LE and Military. From what I've seen of LE (FBI, ICE), there's plenty of range time and tactical training. Either way, nothing can take the place of real-world experience.
the pro-cop guys see nothing wrong, the anti-cop guys think the cops are lying. Once again, the same people filtering the same information through their own prejudices and agendas and coming up with the same conclusions they always do.
And your average local law enforcement. Seems to me that it would be a mistake to assume that most police departments are anywhere near FBI standards when it comes to weapons.
all intergrated with SOF Ops. I wasn't looking for your bona fides or deployment dates, I simply questioned a blanket statement about LE and Military. From what I've seen of LE (FBI, ICE), there's plenty of range time and tactical training. Either way, nothing can take the place of real-world experience.
And your blanket statement of fire arms training for 90% of the military wasn't necessarily correct either. No harm done.
And as said before in other threads, you can have the greatest shooting ability (which I freely admit I do not possess), but if you can't make proper decision when to apply those abilities, you are just as dangerous or even more so than those without same level of shooting ability. And no amount of range time is ever going to make up for that.
the pro-cop guys see nothing wrong, the anti-cop guys think the cops are lying. Once again, the same people filtering the same information through their own prejudices and agendas and coming up with the same conclusions they always do.
Pretty depressing, really.
Sure.
You can think that the one piece of information where the police stated that he had the knife up and was coming at them was a lie and still believe after watching the video that they did nothing wrong.
Read for the nuance in people's posts instead of searching for "pro-cop" and "anti-cop" and you'll actually see it.
for your service. Not an easy job you did in Iraq, and sadly, the outcome is not one any of us wanted to see there! ISIL must be stopped.
Likewise, rebel.
Yeah, 2005-2007 in al Anbar (including time in Ramadi) wasn't so much fun. And seeing all of it come to shit at this point is disappointing, but in the end, you can only do so much for them. Too much politics involved in talking about my own feelings about the ISIL so I'll spare you from it...:)
why aren't cops carrying tazers? Couldn't they have been used in both cases, or are they not that effective?
From the article in the OP:
Quote:
CNN's Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo pushed Dotson on the officers' decision to use lethal force, rather than opting for an alternate form of defense like a Taser.
"Certainly a Taser is an option that's available to the officers, but Tasers aren't 100 percent," Dotson said. "So you've got an individual with a knife who's moving towards you, not listening to any verbal commands, continues, says, 'shoot me now, kill me now.' Tasers aren't 100 percent. if that Taser misses, that [individual] continues on and hurts an officer."
"In a lethal situation, they used lethal force," he added.
the pro-cop guys see nothing wrong, the anti-cop guys think the cops are lying. Once again, the same people filtering the same information through their own prejudices and agendas and coming up with the same conclusions they always do.
Pretty depressing, really.
I was critical of the NYC police that choked that man and stood by and watched him die. So in that case I was on the opposite side of the argument and didn't use any preconceived point of view. Maybe it is hard for you but it is possible for people to use discernment and be objective.
you're 9:12 post is along the lines what i was thinking. To be able to put 6 shots on target, Brown had to be very close, or the officer wasn't under that much "stress or duress"..
Can't see how a person who is supposedly beaten almost unconscious, under stress and putting 6 shots on target..
I'm totally fine with police firing in self defense. I'm not as fine with the number of shots.
9 shots? The 1st 7 were excessive enough, but I'll let it slide as it happens quickly. But the last two were clearly fired when the target was prone on the ground. Those were kill shots, as if the 1st 7 didn't already do the job.
there is a situation where a teenager caught stealing at a Food lion was shot with a taser and died.
Of course, the cries of police brutality and why did they taser him instead of just pepper spray him have been going on for a while.
In my opinion, when you are in a confrontation with an officer, being anything but compliant puts you at risk of serious injury and death.
Why put yourself in a position where you have to force a person with the ability to kill you to decide whether or not to use deadly force, or even other means of force that can still cause severe harm. Tasers and pepper spray can still kill you.
What it sounds like your saying, like that cop who posted his statement on the Washington Post, whenever a cop just decides he want to stop you, question, whatever, we should let him do do it?..
What it sounds like your saying, like that cop who posted his statement on the Washington Post, whenever a cop just decides he want to stop you, question, whatever, we should let him do do it?..
Or maybe he is saying to not attack a policeman.
Your example in Charlotte does sound like people being stupid. Â
Why put yourself in a position where you have to force a person with the ability to kill you to decide whether or not to use deadly force, or even other means of force that can still cause severe harm. Tasers and pepper spray can still kill you.
while true, completely ignores the actual question at hand re: Lethal force.
Tasers and pepper spray are much less lethal than guns, no? Police are trained and expected to respond with the appropriate amount of force needed- and they should be held accountable when they go beyond the force necessary for the situation.
It's already known that the guy in this situation put himself in the situation where force was required to subdue him.
So the question is, did the police respond with appropriate force for the situation?
Other than the lie about him having the knife raised in a manner in which it looked like he would strike an officer, I don't think the police did anything wrong here. They were required to make a split second decision to protect themselves.
but the guy could have been holding the knife with an overhead grip, just down by his side. While he's he's walking towards the cops and going on that higher level, it could have created the impression that he was bringing his hands over his head.
We know as a matter of science that eyewitness testimony isn't always reliable and that our brains often patch memories together.
It's possible the cops saw the guy holding the knife a certain way, walking erratically, acting defiantly, and then started approaching the cops despite many warnings to stop, an remembers it as the guy at one point holding his arm up in the air.
What it sounds like your saying, like that cop who posted his statement on the Washington Post, whenever a cop just decides he want to stop you, question, whatever, we should let him do do it?..
I would. Why not? If I've done nothing wrong, what do I have to be scared of?
I know this for a fact, if I pull a knife out of my pocket, approach the police while ignoring their instructions to stop and drop the weapon, something bad is going to happen to me. That's common sense, something a lot of people are lacking these days.
What it sounds like your saying, like that cop who posted his statement on the Washington Post, whenever a cop just decides he want to stop you, question, whatever, we should let him do do it?..
I would. Why not? If I've done nothing wrong, what do I have to be scared of?
You're speaking from a very specific perspective. You understand that different people might have a different answer to this, right?
I would. Why not? If I've done nothing wrong, what do I have to be scared of?
I know this for a fact, if I pull a knife out of my pocket, approach the police while ignoring their instructions to stop and drop the weapon, something bad is going to happen to me. That's common sense, something a lot of people are lacking these days.
How about when you aren't doing something as extreme as holding a knife walking towards an officer.
For instance, what if you were walking with your girlfriend/wife and get stopped because you match a description of a robbery suspect? Yes, you can always comply because you haven't do anything wrong. However, what if those police officers manhandle you during their search, questioning, etc.? My sensibility says to just take it and complain later (to what end though? not all complaints are given much thought). My initial reaction says to confront the reason for such treatment (most likely to my own asskicking).
Now, I'm Asian so I probably won't be profiled too much, but there are people of other races, who do have to put up with such treatments.
I would. Why not? If I've done nothing wrong, what do I have to be scared of?
I know this for a fact, if I pull a knife out of my pocket, approach the police while ignoring their instructions to stop and drop the weapon, something bad is going to happen to me. That's common sense, something a lot of people are lacking these days.
How about when you aren't doing something as extreme as holding a knife walking towards an officer.
For instance, what if you were walking with your girlfriend/wife and get stopped because you match a description of a robbery suspect? Yes, you can always comply because you haven't do anything wrong. However, what if those police officers manhandle you during their search, questioning, etc.? My sensibility says to just take it and complain later (to what end though? not all complaints are given much thought). My initial reaction says to confront the reason for such treatment (most likely to my own asskicking).
Now, I'm Asian so I probably won't be profiled too much, but there are people of other races, who do have to put up with such treatments.
You say that now, but what if it was a car accident?
Sure I understand that, but it's the only perspective I have. Â
Here are three simple things I believe to be true.
1. If a police officer stops you to question you about something, there is probably some sort of reason, however small or large, that they feel the need to question you.
2. If you comply and answer all of their questions politely and are not guilty of doing anything wrong, there is a very high percentage that they will send you on your way, and at worst you are out five minutes of your time.
3. If you are defiant, or worse, the percentage of it turning out poorly for you increases exponentially.
I would. Why not? If I've done nothing wrong, what do I have to be scared of?
I know this for a fact, if I pull a knife out of my pocket, approach the police while ignoring their instructions to stop and drop the weapon, something bad is going to happen to me. That's common sense, something a lot of people are lacking these days.
How about when you aren't doing something as extreme as holding a knife walking towards an officer.
For instance, what if you were walking with your girlfriend/wife and get stopped because you match a description of a robbery suspect? Yes, you can always comply because you haven't do anything wrong. However, what if those police officers manhandle you during their search, questioning, etc.? My sensibility says to just take it and complain later (to what end though? not all complaints are given much thought). My initial reaction says to confront the reason for such treatment (most likely to my own asskicking).
Now, I'm Asian so I probably won't be profiled too much, but there are people of other races, who do have to put up with such treatments.
I have dealt with a few dishonest (basically crooked) cops in the past and IMO it is better to just do your best to obey. I made the naïve mistake of even going to the police station once to complain about one who was so far out of line I assumed they would want to know and it did nothing but put me in constant risk of being ticketed anywhere I went until I simply moved from that town. Luckily it was in my youth and not in the same state as my home town so I never had to deal with any of that again.
Well, it is and isn't. You're aware enough of racial profiling and the fact that justice isn't always equal or handed out equally in this country. So understanding that not everyone feels as you--that fair treatment from the police is a given--seems at least worth considering.
(And no one should get this twisted. Anyone of any race who walks towards the cops brandishing a weapon is asking for trouble.)
You are looking at it form your perspective. i have been stopped a few times in NYC just because..And that's what a log of Black people are saying and therein lies the mistrust.
It's very easy to make statements that just let the cops do their job, but when you're being frisked in front of you wife and small children, or being asked for ID just because you are standing under a building, it gets frustrating..
Why to they have to empty there guns on him? A shot in the leg would have made more sense.
A shot in the leg is extremely difficult and it doesn't guarantee the guy with the knife will stop moving towards you. He was so close if they missed while trying to shoot his legs he could have been stabbing them in less than 2 seconds.
I understand there is racial profiling, and yes it sucks. Â
But I'm also big into my physical well being, and feel everybody should be as well.
By obeying and complying, as long as you are not doing anything wrong, you are greatly increasing the odds that everything will be fine.
Take this situation in Ferguson. Let's say the officer did not know about the robbery, that this was a simple traffic stop gone wrong. This whole thing could have been avoided if the kid who was shot simply got out of the middle of the street and on to the sidewalk. Same thing with this dude. All he had to do was put the knife down and stay put. Neither had to die, but neither one exactly did their best to avoid being shot, either.
are trained extensively in firearms. I'm not saying stressful situations don't make it tougher, but typically many rounds have gone through a service revolver under various training scenarios and the shooter is well trained. Most know how to deal with the pressure, but there are many physiological (fight or flight; tache pysche) things that happen to a person in a combat situation and everyone responds differently. Trust me, I've been there. I'd like to say I responded perfectly everytine. Sadly, I can't. Every situation is different. For those people who question every action taken by LE, I ask them to step into these situations and see how they'd do. I'm certain most would fail.
I will have to respectfully disagree with the training part on this post.
LE may get extensive training (to what extent beyond their required training though?) using handguns (their primary weapon) while the military gets enough using rifles (their primary weapon), but ask any conventional military enlisted or officer about how much handgun training they have gotten and they will be able to tell you most likely on one hand (or two depending on how long they have been in service). Aside from an annual pistol qualification (for which most in the military get waivers due to optempo), very few get the ability to really learn how to shoot handguns in stressful situations.
Conversely, one of the main issues I've had with these police officers having M-4 throughout this situation is that they most likely don't get the level of training that is required to fully appreciate the gravity of having such firepower in their hands (really getting to know that importance of proper rifle muzzle location for each situation), as evidenced in that "I will fucking kill you" video and plethora of photos where these officers are aiming their rifles at unarmed protesters.
I'm not sure it was a training error for Officer Gofuckyourself. I think it was more of a guy who had been there way too long dealing with idiots and lost his shit. I could be wrong, but most police I know have been trained on their rifles. I'm not saying they get paid or get the time to go to the range enough, because they don't. But when they got them they were trained very well on them.
You are looking at it form your perspective. i have been stopped a few times in NYC just because..And that's what a log of Black people are saying and therein lies the mistrust.
It's very easy to make statements that just let the cops do their job, but when you're being frisked in front of you wife and small children, or being asked for ID just because you are standing under a building, it gets frustrating..
I kind of understand...I suffer from the same impediment as Ronnie and, even before 9/11, every time we drove re-entered the country from Canada, our car was invariably one of the few that was pulled over and searched. A couple times we were fortunate to have brought birth certificates for our kids, albeit packed in luggage in the trunk (the certificates, not the kids) because the officer didn't believe that they were ours. Most times however, it for Ag searches. But it's true, there was a lot of smuggling of fruits and stuff coming from open air Chinese markets.
I agree it's frustrating because you can see selectivity. OTOH, the majority of the fruit smuggling was by Chinese people returning to the US, so it's not like it's merely "Lets get the Asians". And, even so, never once did I think of being anything but polite and cooperative.
I agree that both of them should have done what they were ordered to do.
But i am not going to be content with getting harassed and frisked at any cops whim. That's not saying i'm going to start becoming violent and physical with the officer, but i will let him know that it's not right to do it..if you're not subject to it, you won't understand how it feels.
i think the perspective you have for a normal situation is correct. but others may not think that way. And that is the great divide and mistrust..
And you just take a look at howm many Black men have been released in NYC due to crooked cops and false evidence, you might bet a better understanding of the mistrust of police by some Black people..
RE: I understand there is racial profiling, and yes it sucks. Â
But I'm also big into my physical well being, and feel everybody should be as well.
By obeying and complying, as long as you are not doing anything wrong, you are greatly increasing the odds that everything will be fine.
Take this situation in Ferguson. Let's say the officer did not know about the robbery, that this was a simple traffic stop gone wrong. This whole thing could have been avoided if the kid who was shot simply got out of the middle of the street and on to the sidewalk. Same thing with this dude. All he had to do was put the knife down and stay put. Neither had to die, but neither one exactly did their best to avoid being shot, either.
Is that not fair to say?
Sure it is.
It's also fair to ask if shooting was the best response to either of these guys.
Taser? Pepper spray? Those are also fair questions and are the one's being asked.
So far nobody has suggested that you should charge or threaten an officer, have they?
The question is about lethal force and if the amount used was justified.
When you mentioned being frisked in front of your wife and children, my heart hurt for you and I wondered if that were me what would I do and how would I feel.
If I had to think about what I would do in that situation, even though it would probably make me feel embarrassed and humiliated, I would comply for the sake of my children.
pepper spray on a person with a knife, ever. All it does is hurt their eyes...you can still see if you are determined. It's never an option, at least not a smart one.
They could have used a taser if the scenario didn't play out so quickly. Being that there were two of them, the taser would have been an option if he didn't approach so quickly. He fell right at one officers feet. If they waited and used a taser, and it missed, one of them might have gotten stabbed. The taser does not always work. It shoots two probes out of the cartridge and if both of them do not hit, it does not work.
When you mentioned being frisked in front of your wife and children, my heart hurt for you and I wondered if that were me what would I do and how would I feel.
If I had to think about what I would do in that situation, even though it would probably make me feel embarrassed and humiliated, I would comply for the sake of my children.
On top of that, what kind of image of the police does that present to the children? Someone that's going to frisk dad even when he didn't do anything wrong?
pepper spray on a person with a knife, ever. All it does is hurt their eyes...you can still see if you are determined. It's never an option, at least not a smart one.
They could have used a taser if the scenario didn't play out so quickly. Being that there were two of them, the taser would have been an option if he didn't approach so quickly. He fell right at one officers feet. If they waited and used a taser, and it missed, one of them might have gotten stabbed. The taser does not always work. It shoots two probes out of the cartridge and if both of them do not hit, it does not work.
Thanks for the explanation. I agree. Other than the apparent lie about the knife being raised, I can't see that the officers did anything wrong in this situation.
RE: RE: No, I do not pretend to know how it feels... Â
When you mentioned being frisked in front of your wife and children, my heart hurt for you and I wondered if that were me what would I do and how would I feel.
If I had to think about what I would do in that situation, even though it would probably make me feel embarrassed and humiliated, I would comply for the sake of my children.
On top of that, what kind of image of the police does that present to the children? Someone that's going to frisk dad even when he didn't do anything wrong?
I hate to speculate, because I don't know and haven't been in the situation, but if it played out like that for me, I think I would try to use it as a teaching moment... To show the children how to react properly, and then explain later that the officer was just doing his job (even if I perhaps didn't believe that to be true, or that he was overzealous), and that there was a reason he felt the need to stop me, but once he saw that I was innocent he let me continue on my way... If for no other reason to preserve the innocence of my children and let them believe that the police are more often than not there to help them, as well as to show them how to properly act if they are ever in the same situation later in life (because I don't want my kid getting gunned down in the sreet because they lost their cool, like one of these boys).
I know it's a corny answer, but I can't think of any other way to approach it.
I'm not sure it was a training error for Officer Gofuckyourself. I think it was more of a guy who had been there way too long dealing with idiots and lost his shit. I could be wrong, but most police I know have been trained on their rifles. I'm not saying they get paid or get the time to go to the range enough, because they don't. But when they got them they were trained very well on them.
That is a valid point. And maybe this guy was completely drained (that brings up another point then about putting people out there, who probably aren't in their optimal shape (not even close)).
However, how about all those other cops in the beginning of this entire ordeal aiming their rifles at random protesters. First two rules of weapons safety is always:
1) Treat every weapon as if it was loaded (which I'm certain all of those were)
2) Never point at anything you don't intend to shoot (which I doubt they were going to shoot those protesters)
Nothing more frightening or infuriating as someone aiming his weapon, especially one that most people mistake for "assault rifle", at you for no apparent reason.
I'm not sure what, exactly, happened in Ferguson. Â
But Eric Garner's death was ruled a homicide, I believe.
There's a disturbing pattern, that goes back away now, of African American males getting disproportionately rough (to say the least) treatment from the police. So saying, 'Well, from my perspective…' isn't showing much empathy.
Ideally, everyone would be comfortable with the police. Everyone could feel equal under their treatment. But we're not there. And haven't been, possibly, ever.
The burden is rightfully on the police to hold themselves to the highest standard. It's absolutely a tough, terrifying (at times) job that they've chosen. I feel for the really good guys and wish it seemed like the screening was a little tighter so it would be safe to assume they all were.
I consider that a corny answer..It's a very good answer, once you get over the anger of being stopped. What you would say to your kids is pretty much what should be said..
Now, that being said, now consider being frisked about 6 or 7 more times, not in front of your kids, but just basically on the phone or jogging to your car..Or maybe being questioned about why you are standing under a building and having to pull out ID..While it's not a big deal, it can start to piss you off..
I can only imagine how that would feel, Even though the situation is that most of the violators of birng food are Chines, does not mean every Chinese person should be searched..classic definition of racial profiling..
It seems to me that along with generational poverty... Â
mistrust of the police is a vicious cycle that is going to be hard, if not impossible, to break. For both sides. Kids are being raised from very early childhood to not trust, and be defiant to, the police, while police are then dealing with these kids as teens/adults and then profiling everybody based on the experiences they have with them, and having their own views skewed/hardened by the experience.
When people know nothing else, how will it ever change?
So in the meantime, you have to comply or you run the risk of bad things happening, like these two individuals.
I know it's not a very strong, principled answer, and some of you may even feel that it's weak minded, but I am into self preservation. I would like to live my life and go about my business without meeting a premature end over a misunderstanding.
I think folks were just asking you to step out of your own perspective and understand why someone with different circumstances than your own may get belligerent with police- even when they know they've done nothing wrong.
I think folks were just asking you to step out of your own perspective and understand why someone with different circumstances than your own may get belligerent with police- even when they know they've done nothing wrong.
but I keep coming back to the fact that no matter how many times I had been profiled, harrassed, etc... No matter how angry I was, it wouldn't be worth it to take a stand by refusing to do what an armed officer of the law was telling me to do, especially if it was a request as simple as getting out of the middle of the street, or dropping my weapon and standing still.
And that's what's at the heart of this whole matter, isn't it? Why are people choosing THIS situation to rally around? The facts aren't in yet, but neither of these instances involved two completely innocent people just going about their business and being unjustly harrassed. In a lot of ways, both of them brought this upon themselves. First by committing a crime which brought the police there, and then by escalating the situation to put the officers in a situation where they felt the need to draw their guns and use force. It was avoidable. Does anybody really disagree with that? Why the protests?
but I keep coming back to the fact that no matter how many times I had been profiled, harrassed, etc... No matter how angry I was, it wouldn't be worth it to take a stand by refusing to do what an armed officer of the law was telling me to do, especially if it was a request as simple as getting out of the middle of the street, or dropping my weapon and standing still.
And that's what's at the heart of this whole matter, isn't it? Why are people choosing THIS situation to rally around? The facts aren't in yet, but neither of these instances involved two completely innocent people just going about their business and being unjustly harrassed. In a lot of ways, both of them brought this upon themselves. First by committing a crime which brought the police there, and then by escalating the situation to put the officers in a situation where they felt the need to draw their guns and use force. It was avoidable. Does anybody really disagree with that? Why the protests?
And how many times have you been profiled exactly?
I can only imagine how that would feel, Even though the situation is that most of the violators of birng food are Chines, does not mean every Chinese person should be searched..classic definition of racial profiling..
The most frustrating part is that they don't repack my suitcases after dumping all the contents out.
RE: I can certainly do that, and am trying to... Â
but I keep coming back to the fact that no matter how many times I had been profiled, harrassed, etc... No matter how angry I was, it wouldn't be worth it to take a stand by refusing to do what an armed officer of the law was telling me to do, especially if it was a request as simple as getting out of the middle of the street, or dropping my weapon and standing still.
And that's what's at the heart of this whole matter, isn't it? Why are people choosing THIS situation to rally around? The facts aren't in yet, but neither of these instances involved two completely innocent people just going about their business and being unjustly harrassed. In a lot of ways, both of them brought this upon themselves. First by committing a crime which brought the police there, and then by escalating the situation to put the officers in a situation where they felt the need to draw their guns and use force. It was avoidable. Does anybody really disagree with that? Why the protests?
They aren't.
The situation they chose to rally around was an unarmed, gentle teenager shot in the back while he had his hands raised in surrender as was initially reported.
What has surfaced since is almost irrelevant as the issue itself is broader than just this one specific incident. Also because the snowball has gotten so big, that short of BlueLou dropping a nuke on it, nobody is going to stop it until it gets to the bottom of the hill.
I can only imagine how that would feel, Even though the situation is that most of the violators of birng food are Chines, does not mean every Chinese person should be searched..classic definition of racial profiling..
The most frustrating part is that they don't repack my suitcases after dumping all the contents out.
Same things used to happen to my relatives when they would fly in from Korea. I mean, come on, you have to profile Chinese people...not Koreans...amirite?
All kidding aside, even my wife, who is a petite blonde of English-Austrian heritage, has been profiled twice and detained for questioning when entering and leaving Israel just based on her middle name sounding different. Go figure, huh?
RE: RE: I can certainly do that, and am trying to... Â
but I keep coming back to the fact that no matter how many times I had been profiled, harrassed, etc... No matter how angry I was, it wouldn't be worth it to take a stand by refusing to do what an armed officer of the law was telling me to do, especially if it was a request as simple as getting out of the middle of the street, or dropping my weapon and standing still.
And that's what's at the heart of this whole matter, isn't it? Why are people choosing THIS situation to rally around? The facts aren't in yet, but neither of these instances involved two completely innocent people just going about their business and being unjustly harrassed. In a lot of ways, both of them brought this upon themselves. First by committing a crime which brought the police there, and then by escalating the situation to put the officers in a situation where they felt the need to draw their guns and use force. It was avoidable. Does anybody really disagree with that? Why the protests?
And how many times have you been profiled exactly?
I didn't say I had been profiled. In fact, I stated several times that I did not pretend to know how it feels.
My answer was a direct response to Cam saying I should try to put myself in somebody else's shoes, from their perspective.
RE: RE: RE: I can certainly do that, and am trying to... Â
I didn't say I had been profiled. In fact, I stated several times that I did not pretend to know how it feels.
My answer was a direct response to Cam saying I should try to put myself in somebody else's shoes, from their perspective.
I know. But you continue to try to put yourself in the shoes of people you have almost no comparable experience with. And as Cam stated, your chosen approach is very commendable and mature. However, you seem to be really fighting against understanding where people of color are coming from.
a person that thinks these police shootings are getting out of hand. But this is completely justified. You don't advance towards and officer with a weapon. He got what was coming to him.
1) Distrust of the police
2) Being compliant when approached by the police
When i was a teenager, I was stopped by people in authority numerous times for nothing more than just being outside and hanging out. The only time i ever remember anything out of the ordinary happening is when one of the group would get mouthy.
We are all profiled in some sort of way. But we still have a choice in how we react. If you are frisked and questioned for no apparent reason, I still contend that while there is anger there, simply being compliant and following instructions is going to keep you alive.
Is it demeaning? Possibly. Is it uncalled for? Sure.
But should you find yourself in a situation where an officer is confronting you, being compliant is going to keep you alive.
Even for the most suspicious looking on this board, how many times can you say you've been face-to-face with an officer with no reason to approach you? If it is in the single digits and you followed his orders, is it really that big of an inconvenience to lose a life over?
I know that isn't the best response, but I also wouldn't advise doing anything else. I guess you could file a complaint if the act was egregious enough, but i sure as hell wouldn't know where to start to get the process rolling.
I can't say it doesn't happen, but can somebody produce an instance of an officer going up to a random person, who has no reason to be approached and shooting them dead in cold blood?
That's murder. That's execution. Having a conflict escaate into a death, while tragic, shouldn't be considered either of those things, especially when the victims have control over their fate.
Come on. 'Hey, look another white guy. He's probably okay.' isn't really the same thing.
Quote:
I can't say it doesn't happen, but can somebody produce an instance of an officer going up to a random person, who has no reason to be approached and shooting them dead in cold blood?
That's murder.
Not murdering people in cold blood is the lowest standard to which you could hold law enforcement. And you're not even sure it doesn't happen.
but there is a difference between not being sure and assuming they do.
When the police are called murderers and executioners, the latter is at play.
The key point here is that not being compliant is costing people lives. Yet, i get the feeling that the point is consider invalid by many as if we should all have the right to menace the police when confronted and live to tell about it.
If I'm aggressive towards a police officer, I expect to get arrested if it is verbal and manhandled and cuffed if it is physical. Oh and yes, a chance I'd end up dead, too.
Having a conflict escaate into a death, while tragic, shouldn't be considered either of those things, especially when the victims have control over their fate.
that they aren't victims.
I agree that yes, you should comply with officers.
The question your argument is missing is does non compliance = death? Should it?
If the answer to that question is, "no" then what you're doing is blaming the victim.
Non compliance without violence towards an officer shouldn't even equal a beating, much less death. If it is a lawful order it's going to equal a citation and perhaps being detained. It shouldn't go further especially if you are unarmed and not attacking the officer.
Sure people SHOULD comply, but we know that some people will not in every circumstance. That doesn't mean that if they're killed or beaten that they "got what they deserved", which seems to be what you are implying.
If I'm aggressive towards a police officer, I expect to get arrested if it is verbal and manhandled and cuffed if it is physical. Oh and yes, a chance I'd end up dead, too.
But don't you see the craziness in this statement? They make all the rules, so we should just shut our mouths and comply or else risk, arrest or even death?
Not saying I advocate mouthing off or getting physical with them, but to raise concern about the reason for such treatment is being sacrificed so that we won't get killed by the very people who have the duty to protect their fellow citizens?
Even if you are verbally non-compliant, do you think an officer will simply walk away? non-compliance shouldn't result in death, but being aggressive in any manner towards the police should result in some reprimand. It should take the form of a citation or arrest, but my guess is a guy who just manhandled a store clerk isn't going to just throw up his arms and go peacefully.
If I'm aggressive towards a police officer, I expect to get arrested if it is verbal and manhandled and cuffed if it is physical. Oh and yes, a chance I'd end up dead, too.
But don't you see the craziness in this statement? They make all the rules, so we should just shut our mouths and comply or else risk, arrest or even death?
Not saying I advocate mouthing off or getting physical with them, but to raise concern about the reason for such treatment is being sacrificed so that we won't get killed by the very people who have the duty to protect their fellow citizens?
Without "fear" of consequence how would we ever uphold the law?
do you have a better means for handling the situation?
You are incorrectly confronted by an officer. Is being aggressive going to change his mind? If you are aggressive towards an NFL ref who flagged you is he going to pick up the flag?
By the time you are confronted, the ship has sailed. you can either comply and hope all goes well, or you can fight back. what I'm saying is fighting back is going to have a negative result. If you comply, it might not. Then, if you feel so aggrieved to do something about it, I guess you could file a complaint, something you will at least be alive or not in jail to be able to do.
Without "fear" of consequence how would we ever uphold the law?
I didn't realize that I should fear any consequences for being an innocent citizen, who wants to know why I'm being harassed by a police officer if he can't provide me a justifiable reason. And there are many who are harassed by police with nothing more than the officers' hunch.
but there is a difference between not being sure and assuming they do.
When the police are called murderers and executioners, the latter is at play.
The key point here is that not being compliant is costing people lives. Yet, i get the feeling that the point is consider invalid by many as if we should all have the right to menace the police when confronted and live to tell about it.
If I'm aggressive towards a police officer, I expect to get arrested if it is verbal and manhandled and cuffed if it is physical. Oh and yes, a chance I'd end up dead, too.
That's just logical.
No one, but no one, has said being aggressive to the police is wise, noble or admirable. Quite the contrary, everyone understands it's specifically unwise.
But if you're part of a group in which their are disproportionate bad outcomes with the police (and, let's face it, we know only a very small portion of those), you may feel like your life is threatened from jump. The standard applied to the police using deadly force on the citizenry should be damn high. And for sometime now, when it comes to African American males, there are legitimate questions to be asked. I can only imagine how scary it would be to feel like the armed enforcers of the law are biased 'against' me. And talking from an idealized position about 'teachable moments' (for instance) doesn't seem like much of an attempt to understand.
I don't know a short term solution to this. But as I said above, it strikes me that the standard needs to be higher for who we trust to represent The Armed Law in this country. Because it only takes a small percent of douchebags working out their personal frustrations to make thing dangerous for the real good guys. And then they cycle of mistrust perpetrates itself.
If I'm going to place more blame, it's going to be on the guys who are entrusted to protect and serve us. They need be above reproach.
do you have a better means for handling the situation?
You are incorrectly confronted by an officer. Is being aggressive going to change his mind? If you are aggressive towards an NFL ref who flagged you is he going to pick up the flag?
By the time you are confronted, the ship has sailed. you can either comply and hope all goes well, or you can fight back. what I'm saying is fighting back is going to have a negative result. If you comply, it might not. Then, if you feel so aggrieved to do something about it, I guess you could file a complaint, something you will at least be alive or not in jail to be able to do.
I get your point, but I don't agree to the extent that I need to just take it and hope that it ends fast so I can go on my merry ways. And then maybe if I want to deal with the headache, I can file a complaint, right?
And while situations like the ones we are talking about don't happen often at all throughout the nation, they used to happen quite frequently in large cities like New York. So maybe something more than just a hunch or "he looks suspicious" should be used to harass someone.
guys impeding traffic on the street won't be stopped? Like I said before, once you are confronted, the ship has sailed.
Profiling is a problem that must be resolved. But, so is the reaction to being stopped. People take personal offense.
While inconvenient, if you are stopped and let go, has there really been harm done? That's another problem. Christ, I know people who get stopped going 15 miles over the limit speeding and flip out as if the cop should have better things to do.
guys impeding traffic on the street won't be stopped? Like I said before, once you are confronted, the ship has sailed.
Profiling is a problem that must be resolved. But, so is the reaction to being stopped. People take personal offense.
While inconvenient, if you are stopped and let go, has there really been harm done? That's another problem. Christ, I know people who get stopped going 15 miles over the limit speeding and flip out as if the cop should have better things to do.
Hmmm...if I'm walking down the street with my family and get stopped for no reason...or if I'm just standing in front of my apartment and someone comes up to search me...sure some harm has been done. You make it seem like there's always a legitimate reason why people get stopped. No one is speeding, impeding traffic, or any other infractions. Some people are just being who they are...fitting a profile.
Taking the stance that complying will more often than not save your life, or at the very least make it a lot easier, regardless of the reason you've been stopped?
Or believing that it's realistic to hold police officers to such a high standard that they no longer become human, and can act completely void of emotion, and with computer like accuracy in deciphering a situation and reacting to it in seconds with 100% accuracy leaving any doubt into their actions?
One of those doesn't take much work or thought to start saving lives immediately, including the two individuals we've been talking about.
guys impeding traffic on the street won't be stopped? Like I said before, once you are confronted, the ship has sailed.
Profiling is a problem that must be resolved. But, so is the reaction to being stopped. People take personal offense.
While inconvenient, if you are stopped and let go, has there really been harm done? That's another problem. Christ, I know people who get stopped going 15 miles over the limit speeding and flip out as if the cop should have better things to do.
It's a really tough job being a police officer. That's why they give them weapons. They're going to be on the wrong end of bad behavior every single day.
But when the lives of unarmed citizens in particular is, literally, in their hands, the burden is always on them to be the better actor.
If the rest of us did the right thing all the time, we wouldn't need them.
So believing that people will be compliant 100% of the time is Â
If you agree that people aren't always going to comply, then you have to have some sort of standard for the amount of force used. And with that standard comes negative consequences for not following it. EXACTLY like there are negative consequences for not complying.
He told me the same thing. If you get stopped, just do what they tell you. White, black, male, female, doesn't matter.
Of course the issue is that black males will get stopped more often. Is it profiling? Yes. Everyone profiles everyone. It's just the way it is. Hopefully it will change. But there must be change on both sides. Cops have to stop profiling, but if you are stopped, don't post a threat to the cop or you will put yourself in danger. That goes for everyone.
is once people aren't compliant, the 100% chance they will remain unharmed plummets.
police deal with drunk and disorderly people all the time. Nightly. they also deal with aggressive people daily. The vast majority of those cases don't end up with a dead man. heck, the vast majority of officers getting punched don't end up with a dead man, they end with an arrest.
Compliance ensures safety. non-compliance brings chance into the mix.
Taking the stance that complying will more often than not save your life, or at the very least make it a lot easier, regardless of the reason you've been stopped?
Or believing that it's realistic to hold police officers to such a high standard that they no longer become human, and can act completely void of emotion, and with computer like accuracy in deciphering a situation and reacting to it in seconds with 100% accuracy leaving any doubt into their actions?
One of those doesn't take much work or thought to start saving lives immediately, including the two individuals we've been talking about.
You keep coming back to the portion of your argument that no one is arguing with.
Eric Garner got choked to death by police. Now he was also obese and asthmatic. So you could also make the argument if he was in better shape, the officer's choke-hold may not have killed him. If one's inclined to look at everything the victim could have/should have done differently, anyway.
I don't think the police have to be 100% perfect. Just 1% better than the people they're dealing with. If you're not holding the good guys to a higher standard than the bad guys, why make the distinction?
Taking the stance that complying will more often than not save your life, or at the very least make it a lot easier, regardless of the reason you've been stopped?
Or believing that it's realistic to hold police officers to such a high standard that they no longer become human, and can act completely void of emotion, and with computer like accuracy in deciphering a situation and reacting to it in seconds with 100% accuracy leaving any doubt into their actions?
One of those doesn't take much work or thought to start saving lives immediately, including the two individuals we've been talking about.
You keep coming back to the portion of your argument that no one is arguing with.
Eric Garner got choked to death by police. Now he was also obese and asthmatic. So you could also make the argument if he was in better shape, the officer's choke-hold may not have killed him. If one's inclined to look at everything the victim could have/should have done differently, anyway.
I don't think the police have to be 100% perfect. Just 1% better than the people they're dealing with. If you're not holding the good guys to a higher standard than the bad guys, why make the distinction?
is once people aren't compliant, the 100% chance they will remain unharmed plummets.
police deal with drunk and disorderly people all the time. Nightly. they also deal with aggressive people daily. The vast majority of those cases don't end up with a dead man. heck, the vast majority of officers getting punched don't end up with a dead man, they end with an arrest.
Compliance ensures safety. non-compliance brings chance into the mix.
I don't think anyone is actually arguing against that are they?
is once people aren't compliant, the 100% chance they will remain unharmed plummets.
police deal with drunk and disorderly people all the time. Nightly. they also deal with aggressive people daily. The vast majority of those cases don't end up with a dead man. heck, the vast majority of officers getting punched don't end up with a dead man, they end with an arrest.
Compliance ensures safety. non-compliance brings chance into the mix.
If people were 100% compliant, again, we wouldn't need police. The police already have the scales tipped in their favor by being armed with deadly force. It should be the very last resort. That doesn't appear to have been the case with Eric Garner. Ferguson, we'll see. But (let's say) a punch versus 6 bullets? Or a punch versus even one bullet? That's a disproportionate response, no?
is once people aren't compliant, the 100% chance they will remain unharmed plummets.
police deal with drunk and disorderly people all the time. Nightly. they also deal with aggressive people daily. The vast majority of those cases don't end up with a dead man. heck, the vast majority of officers getting punched don't end up with a dead man, they end with an arrest.
Compliance ensures safety. non-compliance brings chance into the mix.
I don't think anyone is actually arguing against that are they?
The ones putting all of the blame on the cops are pretty much doing just that.
of a man who became agitated when confronted by police and they didn't shoot him, but he ended up dead nonetheless.
Once an officer is forced to physically subdue somebody, the chances of getting harmed rise.
If you have a 300+pound man who is non-compliant, what means do you have to deal with him? I've heard they should have tasered him. what if he died from that?
Non-compliance is often a lose-lose for ALL parties. Do you think police want to arrest people?
If a cop responds with disproportionate force, he deserves every bit of blame, no?
In the case in the OP, it doesn't seem like they did.
With Michael Brown, it's starting to look like Wilson may have acted within the law. If it's found that he didn't, doesn't he deserve some blame for Brown's death?
I think when they take the job, they're pretty much aware it's going to come up. Some probably like it, yeah. Hopefully, a really, really small percentage.
Do you think people want to be killed? (Rhetorical.)
We're at the bottom of this hole. Have a good afternoon.
If I'm aggressive towards a police officer, I expect to get arrested if it is verbal and manhandled and cuffed if it is physical. Oh and yes, a chance I'd end up dead, too.
But don't you see the craziness in this statement? They make all the rules, so we should just shut our mouths and comply or else risk, arrest or even death?
Not saying I advocate mouthing off or getting physical with them, but to raise concern about the reason for such treatment is being sacrificed so that we won't get killed by the very people who have the duty to protect their fellow citizens?
I think what gets lost a lot in these discussions is the actual purpose of the police and of the law itself. IMO, there's a little bit of a trade-off and we look at the police officer as only an aggressor and never a protector. In reality his aggression to us is a consequence of the environment or times or history where some event occurred that is not desirable for repetition. It comes back to the security/freedom question and, with apologies to Franklin, we do all trade to some extent. I think part of the compliance and politeness even when you haven't done anything is part of that trade-off. Sure, it can go out of bounds and over the top, but it can go that way in both directions and if the police had done too little to challenge a person and a crime had resulted, then we would complain there too.
using disproportionate force deserves to be punished, but there are so many cases where it is difficult to determine that.
At face value, getting punched shouldn't mean unloading 6 shots in a guy, but if it a guy who is being punched by a 300 pound man, who has been aggressive an non-compliant and seems to still be a threat, some measure has to be taken. I would guess that Officer wilson questions what he did ever since the event happened. This will have changed his life forever, all for the way he responded. Believe me, every police man realizes this can happen. Like I said above, no officer looks to be violent, but once they are forced to, all bets are off.
sadly, wilson could have done everything he was supposed to do, especially if his gun was ever in threat of being compromised and he will still be seen as a villian in the eyes of a lot of people.
If people were 100% compliant, again, we wouldn't need police.
I'm exclusively talking about compliance when in direct contact with an officer of the law issuing a personal order to you.
Not compliance with the law in general.
I get the distinction. But I also make distinctions between armed and unarmed. And the behavior I expect from those inclined to break the law versus those entrusted to enforce it. I expect more from the former. You seem to weight them equally. I don't get that expectation. At this point, I'm not thinking that clarity is forthcoming, so we're wasting our time now. You have a (sincerely) good afternoon.
I think Melvin Santiago is a good, and relevant, counter example. Â
using disproportionate force deserves to be punished, but there are so many cases where it is difficult to determine that.
At face value, getting punched shouldn't mean unloading 6 shots in a guy, but if it a guy who is being punched by a 300 pound man, who has been aggressive an non-compliant and seems to still be a threat, some measure has to be taken. I would guess that Officer wilson questions what he did ever since the event happened. This will have changed his life forever, all for the way he responded. Believe me, every police man realizes this can happen. Like I said above, no officer looks to be violent, but once they are forced to, all bets are off.
sadly, wilson could have done everything he was supposed to do, especially if his gun was ever in threat of being compromised and he will still be seen as a villian in the eyes of a lot of people.
It's a shitty situation, for sure. And I do really hope Wilson did everything right.
using disproportionate force deserves to be punished, but there are so many cases where it is difficult to determine that.
At face value, getting punched shouldn't mean unloading 6 shots in a guy, but if it a guy who is being punched by a 300 pound man, who has been aggressive an non-compliant and seems to still be a threat, some measure has to be taken. I would guess that Officer wilson questions what he did ever since the event happened. This will have changed his life forever, all for the way he responded. Believe me, every police man realizes this can happen. Like I said above, no officer looks to be violent, but once they are forced to, all bets are off.
sadly, wilson could have done everything he was supposed to do, especially if his gun was ever in threat of being compromised and he will still be seen as a villian in the eyes of a lot of people.
Sadly for some people he likely would have had to have been killed by Brown in order for him to completely avoid any blame.
vibe, I doubt we're actually all that far apart in our beliefs. Â
that is very true. I don't think much of the opinion is all that different. It is a nuanced argument.
My wife is often accused by her sister as living in a world of rainbows and Care bears. Frankly, our lives have been relatively free from conflict, tragic or early death, or poor upbringings.
As a result, I tend to think that the vast majority of people want to do the right thing. That people working in a profession want to uphold the ideals of that profession. i give people the benefit of the doubt, in life, and in events like this. Hell, I spend a good portion of the football season on BBI defending players, coaches and FO guys that are routinely killed here for the most minor of infractions.
I recognize that not all share my optimism. To me, the biggest issue in this shooting isn't the event itself. It is that it could have been lessened in magnitude if people didn't immediately demand "justice" or retribution. A crime is a crime whether it is dealt with one day later or several days later, and not waiting to find out what happened just cost a lot of innocent people their livlihoods. That to me is the true issue.
And I think it was Eric Allen that when asked his views on this said something to the effect that it could have been anyone of his four boys who was gunned down and how wrong it was.
No mention by him of the strong armed robbery or alleged assault on the officer. If course nobody challenged him in any way by bringing any of those things up either and only thanked him for his thoughtful wise insight.
It is so obvious that many people will excuse Brown's behavior and blame the policeman to the extent that there really is nothing an officer can likely do in that situation that would satisfy some people.
The sad part is that this type of one sided thinking is broadcasted by networks. Even sports networks.
You also have people saying that because he robbed the store and has a picture floating around the internet of him giving a peace sign that he is a "savage" and a "thug" and deserved to be put down.
the assumption is that Brown was stopped simply for being black. Not because he was impeding traffic and was most likely causing a disturbance.
Everything else has built off of that faulty premise from the characterization of him being a "Gentle Giant" to the "Hands up, Don't shoot" rally like he was a meek kid gunned down as he peacefully surrendered. That's why I find the biggest issue to be the rush to judgement because it has perpetrated a host of myths.
You also have people saying that because he robbed the store and has a picture floating around the internet of him giving a peace sign that he is a "savage" and a "thug" and deserved to be put down.
That true and saying he deserved to die is wrong, but to tell you the truth I have seen any commentary saying that, although I am sure I missed some at least. I have seen all kinds of comments on major news networks all along the lines of claiming he was simply gunned down for stealing cigars and none of the other facts were brought up to bring in any perspective. Another example was yesterday I watched Spike Lee ranting about it yesterday and given a platform to say anything without any challenge or counter points being raised?
the assumption is that Brown was stopped simply for being black. Not because he was impeding traffic and was most likely causing a disturbance.
Everything else has built off of that faulty premise from the characterization of him being a "Gentle Giant" to the "Hands up, Don't shoot" rally like he was a meek kid gunned down as he peacefully surrendered. That's why I find the biggest issue to be the rush to judgement because it has perpetrated a host of myths.
Yes but when people are still saying these things on major networks as of yesterday and allowed to without any of the other facts being raised there is something horribly wrong.
which is why I really feel the Media has fueled this incident and incidents like it in recent history.
Their need to fill air space leads to meaningless interviews, questionable "expert" opinion, and an over reliance on biased information to keep the story "hot".
I was just reading an article about the media response and Â
It doesn't draw conclusions, but it's an interesting read. He'll , it doesn't even speak of content, just number of tweets and minutes of air time devoted.
I think you are spot on. Officers are making split second decisions about their own safety. One bad decision and they are dead or hurt very badly. Does that mean they all behave properly? No. But in the Brown case, it appears like this officer did the right thing.
I hope it gets Ben Crump and Daryl Parks out of the way permanently.They are evil men.
by the time you un-holster and fire, and that's if you are ready and the first shot is usually the least accurate. Police also have to be aware of their surroundings and people in harms way. A bad guy doesn't care if he shoots innocent by standards. Plus a bullet doesn't instantly kill somebody in most cases, like the shows suggest. With adrenaline, many people won't even feel too injured even if they are about to die.
should wait for all the facts a week ago are no longer waiting for all the facts.
While my opinion of the events have certainly changed since this all began and as more "testimony" and evidence came out, certainly there is much more to come... Yet nobody seems to be asking everyone to wait for all of the facts anymore?
I think many people are waiting for the facts. I only stepped into this discussion a few days in because of the constant Sonic Youth-like demonization of the cops.
Ultimately the truth will probably lie somewhere in between. A kid made some really poor choices and a cop killed him when other means might have been just as effective in stopping him.
Ultimately, the facts will probably say there is fault on both ends, but not criminal fault, just like in the Zimmerman case, especially so since Wilson is an officer and has to make a quick decision on how to handle the perpetrator.
The end result is that blacks are going to feel disenfranchised and cops are going to feel more and more threatened. It is a lose-lose for all of us, mainly because people jumped to convict a cop hours after an incident happened.
It's a lose-lose mainly because a young black man Â
I think it is a lose-lose because of the rush to convict.
If this had been a black on black or a white on white killing, there might have been some local repurcussions, but it wouldn't have reached National status.
In fact, there had been at least 4 instances of unarmed people being killed by same race officers in July, all which seem to be treated as justifiable at this point. One month later, there is no furor over them.
One day after this event, we had people mischaracterizing both the victim and the cop and it continues when guys like Ben Crump keep calling it an execution or when hundreds of people chant "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" nightly.
If this had been a black on black or a white on white killing, there might have been some local repurcussions, but it wouldn't have reached National status.
In fact, there had been at least 4 instances of unarmed people being killed by same race officers in July, all which seem to be treated as justifiable at this point. One month later, there is no furor over them.
It's the circumstances of the incident.
I agree, the media has certainly played a part. But your example shows that it was the circumstances of this particular incident (white cop shoots unarmed black teen) that made it national news.
The other incidents as you have pointed out didn't incite the furor that this one has- not because of the media- because of the circumstances.
Did you read the pew link? Twitter had a hold of this before any news outlet. That wasn't 'the media'. That was twitter users. If anything, it was the 'outrage' of twitter users that attracted the media in the first place. To your point- yep, they didn't have all of the facts, but what they did have were the basic circumstances that made this a national story- the media didn't make that part up.
Let me ask you this. If George Zimmerman was named Jorge Gonzalez, would that incident have been a national story?
I highly doubt it. It made news because social Media INITIALLY took the stance that a white man gunned down a black kid.
That's also why later descriptions of Zimmerman called him a White Hispanic, not because it was some little-use Census categorization, but because they needed to keep the white on black angle going.
Let me ask you this. If George Zimmerman was named Jorge Gonzalez, would that incident have been a national story?
I highly doubt it. It made news because social Media INITIALLY took the stance that a white man gunned down a black kid.
That's also why later descriptions of Zimmerman called him a White Hispanic, not because it was some little-use Census categorization, but because they needed to keep the white on black angle going.
The basic facts were reported correctly in Ferguson and those are what lead to the rush in judgement and the (still) perceived injustice.
In the Zimmerman case, the basic facts were not initially correct- specifically the race of curious George. And the "rush to judgement" didn't really occur until after the 911 tapes were released.
There is a huge difference between the reaction of both the media and twitter users in these two cases (IMO because one involves a white Police Officer):
The two are about two different, although somewhat related things: White citizens mistrusting and mistreating innocent black kids (Martin) and Law Enforcement mistrusting and mistreating innocent black kids (Brown). There's a big distinction there. One speaks to institutional racism in a way, while the other doesn't.
And to answer your question, of course not. For whatever reasons that we probably shouldn't get into here, brown on brown crime doesn't make the headlines for the most part.
The basic facts were reported correctly in Ferguson and those are what lead to the rush in judgement and the (still) perceived injustice.
Like a black kid died at the hands of a white officer. Because many other details were wrong. The "Hands Up" mantra. That he was a gentle giant who never had any problems. That there was a peaceful surrender.
Frankly, it seems like a lot was misreported.
No. That an unarmed black kid was killed by a white cop. Â
The rest I agree added a bunch of fuel to the fire.
I think we mostly agree- I just think the media didn't create this issue. They helped to build it to where it got after 'regular people' had already started the outrage.
The publicity of the Zimmerman case didn't hinge Â
on misrepresentations of his race. I can think of cases in which black people were shot by white males that weren't remotely as well publicized. I bet most of BBI wouldn't recognize the names of Michael Dunn or Theodore Wafer. Their cases didn't get the same coverage because arrests were made relatively quickly and the families felt like justice was served. Both men were eventually convicted.
On the other side is the Sean Bell case. I don't think anger lessened over his death and the subsequent non-charges because 3 of the 4 officers involved were black or hispanic. Bell's fiancee didn't choose not to sue the city because of the race of the officers.
So if GZ's name was Jorge Gonzalez and everything else in the case was the same, I think it still would've been a major story.
Link - ( New Window )
But let's hammer them for misstating the grip, because that's the key piece.
But let's hammer them for misstating the grip, because that's the key piece.
Pretty much how it goes these days.
If it were only that easy but it's not like it is on TV.
Police are taught to shoot center mass only because it's the easiest target and bullets often don't come out
If he shoots the guys leg it misses bone and goes right through and hits a little kid the title of the article is police shoot child.
I'm sure the police actions will be found justified in the end (and rightly so with the danger posed by this individual), but I think cases like this speaks volumes to how lacking our law enforcement's capability to deal with citizens with mental health issues. And that's not knocking the police as much as pointing out the obvious about how difficult their jobs are with the limited resources available.
You've obviously never shot a hand gun.
You're missing the fact that you can't just pick out a body part and shoot it. Especially in a high stress situation. They are highly inaccurate when firing multiple rounds outside of a controlled setting. Center mass is the easiest and largest target to focus.
My comment to the original poster wasn't meant to be some demeaning man card type comment. It was simple fact. Some people don't realize how difficult it is to fire a weapon.
Now you have cops who are facing a situation of maybe not surviving their shift for the first time. While trained and qualified, they never had to do it under that amount of stress.
Center mass.
It never made it off the floor because it's basically putting every cop at risk and is simply unrealistic for anyone that's ever shot a gun.
Trigger control and grip are very important when shooting handguns. The more stressful the situation (or faster you fire), the less you are focusing on those two crucial elements.
Plus these "targets' are moving erratically.
You have a man card? There must have been some processing error somewhere.
I will have to respectfully disagree with the training part on this post.
LE may get extensive training (to what extent beyond their required training though?) using handguns (their primary weapon) while the military gets enough using rifles (their primary weapon), but ask any conventional military enlisted or officer about how much handgun training they have gotten and they will be able to tell you most likely on one hand (or two depending on how long they have been in service). Aside from an annual pistol qualification (for which most in the military get waivers due to optempo), very few get the ability to really learn how to shoot handguns in stressful situations.
Conversely, one of the main issues I've had with these police officers having M-4 throughout this situation is that they most likely don't get the level of training that is required to fully appreciate the gravity of having such firepower in their hands (really getting to know that importance of proper rifle muzzle location for each situation), as evidenced in that "I will fucking kill you" video and plethora of photos where these officers are aiming their rifles at unarmed protesters.
Having to protect the public while protectibg yourself every day is not easy, yet we expect officers to be perfect and seem to nitpick everything they do.
If a man is approaching you with a knife, this is what happens. it is what almost every one of us would do, even if we would be affected afterward by the outcome.
Who say's they were shooting to kill? They were shooting to stop a man with a weapon from advancing and possibly harming them.
There is a difference between using deadly force and attempting to kill someone- they're not the same thing. Police are authorized in certain situations to use deadly force- meaning that they are aware that there is a possibility of death to the person. They are never authorized to "shoot to kill". They aren't executioners.
Sure the majority of police want nothing to do with using their gun. But there are several that are trigger happy.
The bottom line is many people should hold the person attacking the police more accountable than they do. And if there is evidence that a policeman shot a person with out any cause then he should be held accountable for that, but for goodness sake don't attack a man defending himself because you think you would have done it differently.
Sure the majority of police want nothing to do with using their gun. But there are several that are trigger happy.
I've seen people not be impacted by pepper spray and have heard of people not being impacted by baton to the body (even the legs) because they were so hopped up on something. Maybe the use of taser may have worked (if they had them), but at this point, you can fault them for using force that they were authorized to use.
I think we need to look beyond these officers (who were put in extremely difficult positions and reacted the best way they could have) and look at the broader topic of what kind of responses our law enforcement sends to incidents where assailants with mental issues may be encountered. In a perfect world, we would have mental issue specialists accompany these officers in situations like this, but we know we don't have the resources for it.
Sure the majority of police want nothing to do with using their gun. But there are several that are trigger happy.
Who specifically? Please provide names.
Sure the majority of police want nothing to do with using their gun. But there are several that are trigger happy.
The bottom line is many people should hold the person attacking the police more accountable than they do. And if there is evidence that a policeman shot a person with out any cause then he should be held accountable for that, but for goodness sake don't attack a man defending himself because you think you would have done it differently.
While I can agree on a broader scale, I really hate that line of argument. As Nitro and others have put it in another thread, you became a police officer knowing the danger. Yes, your well being as an officer should be a priority in situations like this, but it should not be THE priority. Not to say that this situation fits into that category, but if your top priority is to come home safe every night, then maybe you are in the wrong line of work.
Having to protect the public while protectibg yourself every day is not easy, yet we expect officers to be perfect and seem to nitpick everything they do.
If a man is approaching you with a knife, this is what happens. it is what almost every one of us would do, even if we would be affected afterward by the outcome.
Well put....the main thing in any LEO field is to get home safe to your family.
A 20 year veteran from a very small town that probably never saw or has been in a event like this. Then there is the idiot protested that had the BB rifle that he saw. (as mentioned quickly on morning Joe this morning)
He completely over reacted. He had worked 4-12 shifts there the last 4 days.
The St. Louis County Sgt who comes by and moves his weapon and moves him away from the protesters in one smooth swoop, definitely had his shit together.
From someone who has been on the unified multi agency multi jurisdictional command staff of many large events, all I can say is that this is one cluster f@@k in terms of communication and organization.
If that's your main thing, then you probably shouldn't be a cop.
Quote:
Plus lets be honest. These guys are likely a little scared and don't want to die. They want to go home and see their families at the end of the day like anyone else and to expect them to be attacked and yet not do everything to ensure they stop the threat is unfair. Again it is easy to sit back and criticize when you are safe on the sidelines.
The bottom line is many people should hold the person attacking the police more accountable than they do. And if there is evidence that a policeman shot a person with out any cause then he should be held accountable for that, but for goodness sake don't attack a man defending himself because you think you would have done it differently.
While I can agree on a broader scale, I really hate that line of argument. As Nitro and others have put it in another thread, you became a police officer knowing the danger. Yes, your well being as an officer should be a priority in situations like this, but it should not be THE priority. Not to say that this situation fits into that category, but if your top priority is to come home safe every night, then maybe you are in the wrong line of work.
Quote:
Plus lets be honest. These guys are likely a little scared and don't want to die. They want to go home and see their families at the end of the day like anyone else and to expect them to be attacked and yet not do everything to ensure they stop the threat is unfair. Again it is easy to sit back and criticize when you are safe on the sidelines.
The bottom line is many people should hold the person attacking the police more accountable than they do. And if there is evidence that a policeman shot a person with out any cause then he should be held accountable for that, but for goodness sake don't attack a man defending himself because you think you would have done it differently.
While I can agree on a broader scale, I really hate that line of argument. As Nitro and others have put it in another thread, you became a police officer knowing the danger. Yes, your well being as an officer should be a priority in situations like this, but it should not be THE priority. Not to say that this situation fits into that category, but if your top priority is to come home safe every night, then maybe you are in the wrong line of work.
I never said it should be their top priority, but to expect them when attacked to not do everything to stop the threat is naïve. I have known cops well, and any one of them knew the risks and accepted them and for that matter would risk their lives in a second to try and save another's. But I don't think anyone should expect them not to do everything to ensure their safety when attacked once they have given warning and it is ignored like in this case with the guy coming at them with the knife. That is asking too much.
Quote:
Well put....the main thing in any LEO field is to get home safe to your family.
If that's your main thing, then you probably shouldn't be a cop.
I think you're confusing secret service and a police officer, your life is on the line everyday but you don't put yourself in deadly situations without protecting yourself first. What should have the police officer done in your opinion.
And no one is saying that they shouldn't do what is authorized for them in situations like this. I just think that the argument that police officers also want to come home alive to their loved ones is a lame one that doesn't need to be used to justify the deadly force they may need to use...I mean, no shit they do...but so do steel workers, construction workers, and everyone else.
This situation seems justified as per my previous posts, so I'm not saying the police did anything wrong.
Quote:
In comment 11817557 Joeguido said:
Quote:
Well put....the main thing in any LEO field is to get home safe to your family.
If that's your main thing, then you probably shouldn't be a cop.
I think you're confusing secret service and a police officer, your life is on the line everyday but you don't put yourself in deadly situations without protecting yourself first. What should have the police officer done in your opinion.
Read my previous post to steve. I would say that the main thing is to serve your community in such profession, whether you are putting yourself in harms way or not.
I am simply pointing that out to people that appear to not be taking that into any real consideration and are placing unreasonable demands upon them. Why take exception to it?
Read my previous post to steve. I would say that the main thing is to serve your community in such profession, whether you are putting yourself in harms way or not. [/quote]
I would agree you can "risk" your life everyday for your community but not "give" it, the willingness is there but not just give up. The reaction time in studies for a knifed subject to close a 21 foot gap is about the same time to draw a sidearm and discharge it. 21 feet is a long distance. Split second decisions have to be made.
And who ever said it did?
I said if someone is attacking even after having been given warning from the officer then at that point the officer should be able to do everything in his power to defend himself without being criticized and told he shouldn't have. This shoot in the leg nonsense is simply naïve. Do you disagree with that?
I think this is a good descriptor.
No one is asking a police officer to put themselves in harms way needlessly. And I don't think these officers really had a choice in this situation.
But the use of deadly force should be one of absolute necessity and should not be your primary, secondary, or even tertiary option if there are other more prudent and less deadly options available. Yes, it is all situational dependent...no one is seeing this as a black or white issue (no pun intended).
And steve, I didn't mean to make it seem like I was arguing against "you" but more the similar sentiment I've seen in multiple threads regarding police officers' main priority being that of coming home to their families alive. I apologize if my wording seemed like I was attacking you.
I was making a general point, not one specific to this shooting, but I'll say this much. People here are awfully quick to dismiss the lying in the cop's statement. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
That's clearly bullshit. Powell's arms are at his sides, so why the lie? The only reason I can think of is, of course, that the cops in question were having second thoughts as to the menace Powell posed. "Hey, let's just say that he raised the knife in the air like he's going to stab us!"
Maybe this was all kosher by the laws of Missouri. I don't know that, so I can't say. All I know is what my eyes see, which is that there doesn't appear to be nearly the threat that those two cops claimed.
Quote:
I would agree you can "risk" your life everyday for your community but not "give" it, the willingness is there but not just give up. The reaction time in studies for a knifed subject to close a 21 foot gap is about the same time to draw a sidearm and discharge it. 21 feet is a long distance. Split second decisions have to be made.
I think this is a good descriptor.
No one is asking a police officer to put themselves in harms way needlessly. And I don't think these officers really had a choice in this situation.
But the use of deadly force should be one of absolute necessity and should not be your primary, secondary, or even tertiary option if there are other more prudent and less deadly options available. Yes, it is all situational dependent...no one is seeing this as a black or white issue (no pun intended).
And steve, I didn't mean to make it seem like I was arguing against "you" but more the similar sentiment I've seen in multiple threads regarding police officers' main priority being that of coming home to their families alive. I apologize if my wording seemed like I was attacking you.
Well said....I'm unsure of other tools at their disposal, i.e. Tasers which I think are a great weapon to deploy in a situation like this. I just can't imagine being in that situation and having to make a decision like that in a split second.
And for that matter Ronnie agrees with me as to the actions the officer should take but differs in that the reason for doing so being exclusively because of procedure (which I'm not arguing against) and not at all because the officer would want to live and be able to be their for his wife and children, which I still don't really understand. IMO the method and procedure and wanting to live go hand in hand at that moment and are not in any contradiction.
Maybe this was all kosher by the laws of Missouri. I don't know that, so I can't say. All I know is what my eyes see, which is that there doesn't appear to be nearly the threat that those two cops claimed.
Reminds me of this police shooting in Dallas.
The video tells a different story. Although the police report says Bennett "lunged" at the officers with a knife, in the video he stands up from the chair but then doesn't appear to move at all until the gun is fired and he crumples to the ground.
The surveillance video doesn't include audio, and Spencer wrote in his report that Bennett yelled at them, "You all are gonna need more officers than this!" But it doesn't show that the incident "escalated, which led an officer to fire his weapon upon the individual," as police spokesman Warren Mitchell said in a statement a few hours after the shooting.
Chief Brown said in a statement Thursday night that Spencer has been placed on indefinite administrative leave pending a "thorough criminal investigation."
Dallas police said the man acted aggressively toward the officers, forcing them to shoot. But the video shows that he had his arms by his side and was yards away when officers started shooting.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
I would agree you can "risk" your life everyday for your community but not "give" it, the willingness is there but not just give up. The reaction time in studies for a knifed subject to close a 21 foot gap is about the same time to draw a sidearm and discharge it. 21 feet is a long distance. Split second decisions have to be made.
I think this is a good descriptor.
No one is asking a police officer to put themselves in harms way needlessly. And I don't think these officers really had a choice in this situation.
But the use of deadly force should be one of absolute necessity and should not be your primary, secondary, or even tertiary option if there are other more prudent and less deadly options available. Yes, it is all situational dependent...no one is seeing this as a black or white issue (no pun intended).
And steve, I didn't mean to make it seem like I was arguing against "you" but more the similar sentiment I've seen in multiple threads regarding police officers' main priority being that of coming home to their families alive. I apologize if my wording seemed like I was attacking you.
Ronnie, well maybe we just misunderstood each other. U didn't mean to imply a policeman should ever not follow procedure and infringe on anyone rights because he want to ensure his safety. My only point is that these are people that want to go home at the end of the day. Yes they are willing to risk that to protect society but to ask them not to properly defend themselves is crazy.
Quote:
A cop's desire to go home safely does not abrogate the civil rights of other citizens.
And for that matter Ronnie agrees with me as to the actions the officer should take but differs in that the reason for doing so being exclusively because of procedure (which I'm not arguing against) and not at all because the officer would want to live and be able to be their for his wife and children, which I still don't really understand. IMO the method and procedure and wanting to live go hand in hand at that moment and are not in any contradiction.
You mistake me. I'm not saying that the police officer wanting to go home to his wife and children isn't important. But that shouldn't be his primary reason for killing someone if there are other options. One officer may view a situation different from another, and he may shoot first while another knows that there were other options. Maybe the first one's main priority was to go home safe to his family and it took precedence over all else (maybe due to poor training, poor decision making, lack of experience, etc.), while the second realized that although he also wants to go home to his family safe, he also knew better on what next step to take (better training, experience, decision making, etc.).
As I've stated, it isn't so clear and all situational dependent. However, as I've said multiple times, if your first priority is to be safe and you let that take precedence over all else, you're in the wrong line of work.
He obviously was the aggressor, had a knife and kept coming at them after repeated warnings all the while yelling shoot me which I would think would indicate they would have to shoot him in order to stop him.
My point is they were so obviously justified that they would have zero reason to lie. My thinking is in their mind holding it high maybe means high enough to be a threat. I don't automatically interpret it as they were trying to make up a reason because there simply is no reason for them to even consider doing that.
Quote:
In comment 11817581 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
A cop's desire to go home safely does not abrogate the civil rights of other citizens.
And for that matter Ronnie agrees with me as to the actions the officer should take but differs in that the reason for doing so being exclusively because of procedure (which I'm not arguing against) and not at all because the officer would want to live and be able to be their for his wife and children, which I still don't really understand. IMO the method and procedure and wanting to live go hand in hand at that moment and are not in any contradiction.
You mistake me. I'm not saying that the police officer wanting to go home to his wife and children isn't important. But that shouldn't be his primary reason for killing someone if there are other options. One officer may view a situation different from another, and he may shoot first while another knows that there were other options. Maybe the first one's main priority was to go home safe to his family and it took precedence over all else (maybe due to poor training, poor decision making, lack of experience, etc.), while the second realized that although he also wants to go home to his family safe, he also knew better on what next step to take (better training, experience, decision making, etc.).
As I've stated, it isn't so clear and all situational dependent. However, as I've said multiple times, if your first priority is to be safe and you let that take precedence over all else, you're in the wrong line of work.
I think we both just misinterpreted what each other was trying to say. I never said it should be their first priority and didn't mean to imply that if I did.
So was that your thinking before you saw the video?
If not, you're doing nothing more than altering your theory to match the outcome you're seeking.
Yes, Marine with five years in an infantry battalion with three deployments to Iraq in various roles from platoon commander to advisor to an Iraqi Army battalion to battalion intelligence officer with my fair share of being in the shits. Then three more years working in the intelligence community as a liaison officer with a deployment to Afghanistan supporting conventional and task force elements.
And I was an EMP (Enhanced Marksmanship Program) and CMP (Combat Marksmanship Program) instructor for my infantry battalion focused on real world/stress fire training.
So I've seen my fair share of how weapons training is done at the combat unit level and just how many instance of waiver request have been submitted for Marines and sailors due to optempo constraints.
Unless your combat personnel are in the SOF community, I highly doubt that they spent four times a month at a range, which means that they probably don't have time for anything else.
Yeah, I realized that after your 10:18 post...:)
Pretty depressing, really.
And your blanket statement of fire arms training for 90% of the military wasn't necessarily correct either. No harm done.
And as said before in other threads, you can have the greatest shooting ability (which I freely admit I do not possess), but if you can't make proper decision when to apply those abilities, you are just as dangerous or even more so than those without same level of shooting ability. And no amount of range time is ever going to make up for that.
Did you watch the video? It is pretty clear that he was continuing towards them when shot.
Pretty depressing, really.
Sure.
You can think that the one piece of information where the police stated that he had the knife up and was coming at them was a lie and still believe after watching the video that they did nothing wrong.
Read for the nuance in people's posts instead of searching for "pro-cop" and "anti-cop" and you'll actually see it.
Likewise, rebel.
Yeah, 2005-2007 in al Anbar (including time in Ramadi) wasn't so much fun. And seeing all of it come to shit at this point is disappointing, but in the end, you can only do so much for them. Too much politics involved in talking about my own feelings about the ISIL so I'll spare you from it...:)
From the article in the OP:
"Certainly a Taser is an option that's available to the officers, but Tasers aren't 100 percent," Dotson said. "So you've got an individual with a knife who's moving towards you, not listening to any verbal commands, continues, says, 'shoot me now, kill me now.' Tasers aren't 100 percent. if that Taser misses, that [individual] continues on and hurts an officer."
"In a lethal situation, they used lethal force," he added.
Pretty depressing, really.
I was critical of the NYC police that choked that man and stood by and watched him die. So in that case I was on the opposite side of the argument and didn't use any preconceived point of view. Maybe it is hard for you but it is possible for people to use discernment and be objective.
Can't see how a person who is supposedly beaten almost unconscious, under stress and putting 6 shots on target..
9 shots? The 1st 7 were excessive enough, but I'll let it slide as it happens quickly. But the last two were clearly fired when the target was prone on the ground. Those were kill shots, as if the 1st 7 didn't already do the job.
Of course, the cries of police brutality and why did they taser him instead of just pepper spray him have been going on for a while.
In my opinion, when you are in a confrontation with an officer, being anything but compliant puts you at risk of serious injury and death.
Why put yourself in a position where you have to force a person with the ability to kill you to decide whether or not to use deadly force, or even other means of force that can still cause severe harm. Tasers and pepper spray can still kill you.
Or maybe he is saying to not attack a policeman.
while true, completely ignores the actual question at hand re: Lethal force.
Tasers and pepper spray are much less lethal than guns, no? Police are trained and expected to respond with the appropriate amount of force needed- and they should be held accountable when they go beyond the force necessary for the situation.
It's already known that the guy in this situation put himself in the situation where force was required to subdue him.
So the question is, did the police respond with appropriate force for the situation?
Other than the lie about him having the knife raised in a manner in which it looked like he would strike an officer, I don't think the police did anything wrong here. They were required to make a split second decision to protect themselves.
We know as a matter of science that eyewitness testimony isn't always reliable and that our brains often patch memories together.
It's possible the cops saw the guy holding the knife a certain way, walking erratically, acting defiantly, and then started approaching the cops despite many warnings to stop, an remembers it as the guy at one point holding his arm up in the air.
I would. Why not? If I've done nothing wrong, what do I have to be scared of?
I know this for a fact, if I pull a knife out of my pocket, approach the police while ignoring their instructions to stop and drop the weapon, something bad is going to happen to me. That's common sense, something a lot of people are lacking these days.
Quote:
What it sounds like your saying, like that cop who posted his statement on the Washington Post, whenever a cop just decides he want to stop you, question, whatever, we should let him do do it?..
I would. Why not? If I've done nothing wrong, what do I have to be scared of?
You're speaking from a very specific perspective. You understand that different people might have a different answer to this, right?
I know this for a fact, if I pull a knife out of my pocket, approach the police while ignoring their instructions to stop and drop the weapon, something bad is going to happen to me. That's common sense, something a lot of people are lacking these days.
How about when you aren't doing something as extreme as holding a knife walking towards an officer.
For instance, what if you were walking with your girlfriend/wife and get stopped because you match a description of a robbery suspect? Yes, you can always comply because you haven't do anything wrong. However, what if those police officers manhandle you during their search, questioning, etc.? My sensibility says to just take it and complain later (to what end though? not all complaints are given much thought). My initial reaction says to confront the reason for such treatment (most likely to my own asskicking).
Now, I'm Asian so I probably won't be profiled too much, but there are people of other races, who do have to put up with such treatments.
Quote:
I would. Why not? If I've done nothing wrong, what do I have to be scared of?
I know this for a fact, if I pull a knife out of my pocket, approach the police while ignoring their instructions to stop and drop the weapon, something bad is going to happen to me. That's common sense, something a lot of people are lacking these days.
How about when you aren't doing something as extreme as holding a knife walking towards an officer.
For instance, what if you were walking with your girlfriend/wife and get stopped because you match a description of a robbery suspect? Yes, you can always comply because you haven't do anything wrong. However, what if those police officers manhandle you during their search, questioning, etc.? My sensibility says to just take it and complain later (to what end though? not all complaints are given much thought). My initial reaction says to confront the reason for such treatment (most likely to my own asskicking).
Now, I'm Asian so I probably won't be profiled too much, but there are people of other races, who do have to put up with such treatments.
You say that now, but what if it was a car accident?
1. If a police officer stops you to question you about something, there is probably some sort of reason, however small or large, that they feel the need to question you.
2. If you comply and answer all of their questions politely and are not guilty of doing anything wrong, there is a very high percentage that they will send you on your way, and at worst you are out five minutes of your time.
3. If you are defiant, or worse, the percentage of it turning out poorly for you increases exponentially.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
I would. Why not? If I've done nothing wrong, what do I have to be scared of?
I know this for a fact, if I pull a knife out of my pocket, approach the police while ignoring their instructions to stop and drop the weapon, something bad is going to happen to me. That's common sense, something a lot of people are lacking these days.
How about when you aren't doing something as extreme as holding a knife walking towards an officer.
For instance, what if you were walking with your girlfriend/wife and get stopped because you match a description of a robbery suspect? Yes, you can always comply because you haven't do anything wrong. However, what if those police officers manhandle you during their search, questioning, etc.? My sensibility says to just take it and complain later (to what end though? not all complaints are given much thought). My initial reaction says to confront the reason for such treatment (most likely to my own asskicking).
Now, I'm Asian so I probably won't be profiled too much, but there are people of other races, who do have to put up with such treatments.
I have dealt with a few dishonest (basically crooked) cops in the past and IMO it is better to just do your best to obey. I made the naïve mistake of even going to the police station once to complain about one who was so far out of line I assumed they would want to know and it did nothing but put me in constant risk of being ticketed anywhere I went until I simply moved from that town. Luckily it was in my youth and not in the same state as my home town so I never had to deal with any of that again.
Well, it is and isn't. You're aware enough of racial profiling and the fact that justice isn't always equal or handed out equally in this country. So understanding that not everyone feels as you--that fair treatment from the police is a given--seems at least worth considering.
(And no one should get this twisted. Anyone of any race who walks towards the cops brandishing a weapon is asking for trouble.)
You are looking at it form your perspective. i have been stopped a few times in NYC just because..And that's what a log of Black people are saying and therein lies the mistrust.
It's very easy to make statements that just let the cops do their job, but when you're being frisked in front of you wife and small children, or being asked for ID just because you are standing under a building, it gets frustrating..
A shot in the leg is extremely difficult and it doesn't guarantee the guy with the knife will stop moving towards you. He was so close if they missed while trying to shoot his legs he could have been stabbing them in less than 2 seconds.
By obeying and complying, as long as you are not doing anything wrong, you are greatly increasing the odds that everything will be fine.
Take this situation in Ferguson. Let's say the officer did not know about the robbery, that this was a simple traffic stop gone wrong. This whole thing could have been avoided if the kid who was shot simply got out of the middle of the street and on to the sidewalk. Same thing with this dude. All he had to do was put the knife down and stay put. Neither had to die, but neither one exactly did their best to avoid being shot, either.
Is that not fair to say?
Quote:
are trained extensively in firearms. I'm not saying stressful situations don't make it tougher, but typically many rounds have gone through a service revolver under various training scenarios and the shooter is well trained. Most know how to deal with the pressure, but there are many physiological (fight or flight; tache pysche) things that happen to a person in a combat situation and everyone responds differently. Trust me, I've been there. I'd like to say I responded perfectly everytine. Sadly, I can't. Every situation is different. For those people who question every action taken by LE, I ask them to step into these situations and see how they'd do. I'm certain most would fail.
I will have to respectfully disagree with the training part on this post.
LE may get extensive training (to what extent beyond their required training though?) using handguns (their primary weapon) while the military gets enough using rifles (their primary weapon), but ask any conventional military enlisted or officer about how much handgun training they have gotten and they will be able to tell you most likely on one hand (or two depending on how long they have been in service). Aside from an annual pistol qualification (for which most in the military get waivers due to optempo), very few get the ability to really learn how to shoot handguns in stressful situations.
Conversely, one of the main issues I've had with these police officers having M-4 throughout this situation is that they most likely don't get the level of training that is required to fully appreciate the gravity of having such firepower in their hands (really getting to know that importance of proper rifle muzzle location for each situation), as evidenced in that "I will fucking kill you" video and plethora of photos where these officers are aiming their rifles at unarmed protesters.
I'm not sure it was a training error for Officer Gofuckyourself. I think it was more of a guy who had been there way too long dealing with idiots and lost his shit. I could be wrong, but most police I know have been trained on their rifles. I'm not saying they get paid or get the time to go to the range enough, because they don't. But when they got them they were trained very well on them.
You are looking at it form your perspective. i have been stopped a few times in NYC just because..And that's what a log of Black people are saying and therein lies the mistrust.
It's very easy to make statements that just let the cops do their job, but when you're being frisked in front of you wife and small children, or being asked for ID just because you are standing under a building, it gets frustrating..
I kind of understand...I suffer from the same impediment as Ronnie and, even before 9/11, every time we drove re-entered the country from Canada, our car was invariably one of the few that was pulled over and searched. A couple times we were fortunate to have brought birth certificates for our kids, albeit packed in luggage in the trunk (the certificates, not the kids) because the officer didn't believe that they were ours. Most times however, it for Ag searches. But it's true, there was a lot of smuggling of fruits and stuff coming from open air Chinese markets.
I agree it's frustrating because you can see selectivity. OTOH, the majority of the fruit smuggling was by Chinese people returning to the US, so it's not like it's merely "Lets get the Asians". And, even so, never once did I think of being anything but polite and cooperative.
But i am not going to be content with getting harassed and frisked at any cops whim. That's not saying i'm going to start becoming violent and physical with the officer, but i will let him know that it's not right to do it..if you're not subject to it, you won't understand how it feels.
i think the perspective you have for a normal situation is correct. but others may not think that way. And that is the great divide and mistrust..
And you just take a look at howm many Black men have been released in NYC due to crooked cops and false evidence, you might bet a better understanding of the mistrust of police by some Black people..
By obeying and complying, as long as you are not doing anything wrong, you are greatly increasing the odds that everything will be fine.
Take this situation in Ferguson. Let's say the officer did not know about the robbery, that this was a simple traffic stop gone wrong. This whole thing could have been avoided if the kid who was shot simply got out of the middle of the street and on to the sidewalk. Same thing with this dude. All he had to do was put the knife down and stay put. Neither had to die, but neither one exactly did their best to avoid being shot, either.
Is that not fair to say?
Sure it is.
It's also fair to ask if shooting was the best response to either of these guys.
Taser? Pepper spray? Those are also fair questions and are the one's being asked.
So far nobody has suggested that you should charge or threaten an officer, have they?
The question is about lethal force and if the amount used was justified.
When you mentioned being frisked in front of your wife and children, my heart hurt for you and I wondered if that were me what would I do and how would I feel.
If I had to think about what I would do in that situation, even though it would probably make me feel embarrassed and humiliated, I would comply for the sake of my children.
They could have used a taser if the scenario didn't play out so quickly. Being that there were two of them, the taser would have been an option if he didn't approach so quickly. He fell right at one officers feet. If they waited and used a taser, and it missed, one of them might have gotten stabbed. The taser does not always work. It shoots two probes out of the cartridge and if both of them do not hit, it does not work.
Dammit...I can't even say you're a racist for that comment...:(
When you mentioned being frisked in front of your wife and children, my heart hurt for you and I wondered if that were me what would I do and how would I feel.
If I had to think about what I would do in that situation, even though it would probably make me feel embarrassed and humiliated, I would comply for the sake of my children.
On top of that, what kind of image of the police does that present to the children? Someone that's going to frisk dad even when he didn't do anything wrong?
They could have used a taser if the scenario didn't play out so quickly. Being that there were two of them, the taser would have been an option if he didn't approach so quickly. He fell right at one officers feet. If they waited and used a taser, and it missed, one of them might have gotten stabbed. The taser does not always work. It shoots two probes out of the cartridge and if both of them do not hit, it does not work.
Thanks for the explanation. I agree. Other than the apparent lie about the knife being raised, I can't see that the officers did anything wrong in this situation.
Quote:
When you mentioned being frisked in front of your wife and children, my heart hurt for you and I wondered if that were me what would I do and how would I feel.
If I had to think about what I would do in that situation, even though it would probably make me feel embarrassed and humiliated, I would comply for the sake of my children.
On top of that, what kind of image of the police does that present to the children? Someone that's going to frisk dad even when he didn't do anything wrong?
I hate to speculate, because I don't know and haven't been in the situation, but if it played out like that for me, I think I would try to use it as a teaching moment... To show the children how to react properly, and then explain later that the officer was just doing his job (even if I perhaps didn't believe that to be true, or that he was overzealous), and that there was a reason he felt the need to stop me, but once he saw that I was innocent he let me continue on my way... If for no other reason to preserve the innocence of my children and let them believe that the police are more often than not there to help them, as well as to show them how to properly act if they are ever in the same situation later in life (because I don't want my kid getting gunned down in the sreet because they lost their cool, like one of these boys).
I know it's a corny answer, but I can't think of any other way to approach it.
That is a valid point. And maybe this guy was completely drained (that brings up another point then about putting people out there, who probably aren't in their optimal shape (not even close)).
However, how about all those other cops in the beginning of this entire ordeal aiming their rifles at random protesters. First two rules of weapons safety is always:
1) Treat every weapon as if it was loaded (which I'm certain all of those were)
2) Never point at anything you don't intend to shoot (which I doubt they were going to shoot those protesters)
Nothing more frightening or infuriating as someone aiming his weapon, especially one that most people mistake for "assault rifle", at you for no apparent reason.
There's a disturbing pattern, that goes back away now, of African American males getting disproportionately rough (to say the least) treatment from the police. So saying, 'Well, from my perspective…' isn't showing much empathy.
Ideally, everyone would be comfortable with the police. Everyone could feel equal under their treatment. But we're not there. And haven't been, possibly, ever.
The burden is rightfully on the police to hold themselves to the highest standard. It's absolutely a tough, terrifying (at times) job that they've chosen. I feel for the really good guys and wish it seemed like the screening was a little tighter so it would be safe to assume they all were.
Now, that being said, now consider being frisked about 6 or 7 more times, not in front of your kids, but just basically on the phone or jogging to your car..Or maybe being questioned about why you are standing under a building and having to pull out ID..While it's not a big deal, it can start to piss you off..
When people know nothing else, how will it ever change?
So in the meantime, you have to comply or you run the risk of bad things happening, like these two individuals.
I know it's not a very strong, principled answer, and some of you may even feel that it's weak minded, but I am into self preservation. I would like to live my life and go about my business without meeting a premature end over a misunderstanding.
Yes. That.
And that's what's at the heart of this whole matter, isn't it? Why are people choosing THIS situation to rally around? The facts aren't in yet, but neither of these instances involved two completely innocent people just going about their business and being unjustly harrassed. In a lot of ways, both of them brought this upon themselves. First by committing a crime which brought the police there, and then by escalating the situation to put the officers in a situation where they felt the need to draw their guns and use force. It was avoidable. Does anybody really disagree with that? Why the protests?
I dunno, man. It feels like you're fighting empathy more than attempting to embrace it.
And that's what's at the heart of this whole matter, isn't it? Why are people choosing THIS situation to rally around? The facts aren't in yet, but neither of these instances involved two completely innocent people just going about their business and being unjustly harrassed. In a lot of ways, both of them brought this upon themselves. First by committing a crime which brought the police there, and then by escalating the situation to put the officers in a situation where they felt the need to draw their guns and use force. It was avoidable. Does anybody really disagree with that? Why the protests?
And how many times have you been profiled exactly?
The most frustrating part is that they don't repack my suitcases after dumping all the contents out.
And that's what's at the heart of this whole matter, isn't it? Why are people choosing THIS situation to rally around? The facts aren't in yet, but neither of these instances involved two completely innocent people just going about their business and being unjustly harrassed. In a lot of ways, both of them brought this upon themselves. First by committing a crime which brought the police there, and then by escalating the situation to put the officers in a situation where they felt the need to draw their guns and use force. It was avoidable. Does anybody really disagree with that? Why the protests?
They aren't.
The situation they chose to rally around was an unarmed, gentle teenager shot in the back while he had his hands raised in surrender as was initially reported.
What has surfaced since is almost irrelevant as the issue itself is broader than just this one specific incident. Also because the snowball has gotten so big, that short of BlueLou dropping a nuke on it, nobody is going to stop it until it gets to the bottom of the hill.
Quote:
I can only imagine how that would feel, Even though the situation is that most of the violators of birng food are Chines, does not mean every Chinese person should be searched..classic definition of racial profiling..
The most frustrating part is that they don't repack my suitcases after dumping all the contents out.
Same things used to happen to my relatives when they would fly in from Korea. I mean, come on, you have to profile Chinese people...not Koreans...amirite?
All kidding aside, even my wife, who is a petite blonde of English-Austrian heritage, has been profiled twice and detained for questioning when entering and leaving Israel just based on her middle name sounding different. Go figure, huh?
Quote:
but I keep coming back to the fact that no matter how many times I had been profiled, harrassed, etc... No matter how angry I was, it wouldn't be worth it to take a stand by refusing to do what an armed officer of the law was telling me to do, especially if it was a request as simple as getting out of the middle of the street, or dropping my weapon and standing still.
And that's what's at the heart of this whole matter, isn't it? Why are people choosing THIS situation to rally around? The facts aren't in yet, but neither of these instances involved two completely innocent people just going about their business and being unjustly harrassed. In a lot of ways, both of them brought this upon themselves. First by committing a crime which brought the police there, and then by escalating the situation to put the officers in a situation where they felt the need to draw their guns and use force. It was avoidable. Does anybody really disagree with that? Why the protests?
And how many times have you been profiled exactly?
I didn't say I had been profiled. In fact, I stated several times that I did not pretend to know how it feels.
My answer was a direct response to Cam saying I should try to put myself in somebody else's shoes, from their perspective.
My answer was a direct response to Cam saying I should try to put myself in somebody else's shoes, from their perspective.
I know. But you continue to try to put yourself in the shoes of people you have almost no comparable experience with. And as Cam stated, your chosen approach is very commendable and mature. However, you seem to be really fighting against understanding where people of color are coming from.
Thanks for this, I needed a good laugh today
2) Being compliant when approached by the police
When i was a teenager, I was stopped by people in authority numerous times for nothing more than just being outside and hanging out. The only time i ever remember anything out of the ordinary happening is when one of the group would get mouthy.
We are all profiled in some sort of way. But we still have a choice in how we react. If you are frisked and questioned for no apparent reason, I still contend that while there is anger there, simply being compliant and following instructions is going to keep you alive.
Is it demeaning? Possibly. Is it uncalled for? Sure.
But should you find yourself in a situation where an officer is confronting you, being compliant is going to keep you alive.
Even for the most suspicious looking on this board, how many times can you say you've been face-to-face with an officer with no reason to approach you? If it is in the single digits and you followed his orders, is it really that big of an inconvenience to lose a life over?
I know that isn't the best response, but I also wouldn't advise doing anything else. I guess you could file a complaint if the act was egregious enough, but i sure as hell wouldn't know where to start to get the process rolling.
I can't say it doesn't happen, but can somebody produce an instance of an officer going up to a random person, who has no reason to be approached and shooting them dead in cold blood?
That's murder. That's execution. Having a conflict escaate into a death, while tragic, shouldn't be considered either of those things, especially when the victims have control over their fate.
We are all profiled in some sort of way.
Come on. 'Hey, look another white guy. He's probably okay.' isn't really the same thing.
I can't say it doesn't happen, but can somebody produce an instance of an officer going up to a random person, who has no reason to be approached and shooting them dead in cold blood?
That's murder.
Not murdering people in cold blood is the lowest standard to which you could hold law enforcement. And you're not even sure it doesn't happen.
When the police are called murderers and executioners, the latter is at play.
The key point here is that not being compliant is costing people lives. Yet, i get the feeling that the point is consider invalid by many as if we should all have the right to menace the police when confronted and live to tell about it.
If I'm aggressive towards a police officer, I expect to get arrested if it is verbal and manhandled and cuffed if it is physical. Oh and yes, a chance I'd end up dead, too.
That's just logical.
that they aren't victims.
I agree that yes, you should comply with officers.
The question your argument is missing is does non compliance = death? Should it?
If the answer to that question is, "no" then what you're doing is blaming the victim.
Non compliance without violence towards an officer shouldn't even equal a beating, much less death. If it is a lawful order it's going to equal a citation and perhaps being detained. It shouldn't go further especially if you are unarmed and not attacking the officer.
Sure people SHOULD comply, but we know that some people will not in every circumstance. That doesn't mean that if they're killed or beaten that they "got what they deserved", which seems to be what you are implying.
But don't you see the craziness in this statement? They make all the rules, so we should just shut our mouths and comply or else risk, arrest or even death?
Not saying I advocate mouthing off or getting physical with them, but to raise concern about the reason for such treatment is being sacrificed so that we won't get killed by the very people who have the duty to protect their fellow citizens?
Even if you are verbally non-compliant, do you think an officer will simply walk away? non-compliance shouldn't result in death, but being aggressive in any manner towards the police should result in some reprimand. It should take the form of a citation or arrest, but my guess is a guy who just manhandled a store clerk isn't going to just throw up his arms and go peacefully.
Oh, that's right - "Hands Up. Don't Shoot".
Quote:
If I'm aggressive towards a police officer, I expect to get arrested if it is verbal and manhandled and cuffed if it is physical. Oh and yes, a chance I'd end up dead, too.
But don't you see the craziness in this statement? They make all the rules, so we should just shut our mouths and comply or else risk, arrest or even death?
Not saying I advocate mouthing off or getting physical with them, but to raise concern about the reason for such treatment is being sacrificed so that we won't get killed by the very people who have the duty to protect their fellow citizens?
Without "fear" of consequence how would we ever uphold the law?
You are incorrectly confronted by an officer. Is being aggressive going to change his mind? If you are aggressive towards an NFL ref who flagged you is he going to pick up the flag?
By the time you are confronted, the ship has sailed. you can either comply and hope all goes well, or you can fight back. what I'm saying is fighting back is going to have a negative result. If you comply, it might not. Then, if you feel so aggrieved to do something about it, I guess you could file a complaint, something you will at least be alive or not in jail to be able to do.
I didn't realize that I should fear any consequences for being an innocent citizen, who wants to know why I'm being harassed by a police officer if he can't provide me a justifiable reason. And there are many who are harassed by police with nothing more than the officers' hunch.
When the police are called murderers and executioners, the latter is at play.
The key point here is that not being compliant is costing people lives. Yet, i get the feeling that the point is consider invalid by many as if we should all have the right to menace the police when confronted and live to tell about it.
If I'm aggressive towards a police officer, I expect to get arrested if it is verbal and manhandled and cuffed if it is physical. Oh and yes, a chance I'd end up dead, too.
That's just logical.
No one, but no one, has said being aggressive to the police is wise, noble or admirable. Quite the contrary, everyone understands it's specifically unwise.
But if you're part of a group in which their are disproportionate bad outcomes with the police (and, let's face it, we know only a very small portion of those), you may feel like your life is threatened from jump. The standard applied to the police using deadly force on the citizenry should be damn high. And for sometime now, when it comes to African American males, there are legitimate questions to be asked. I can only imagine how scary it would be to feel like the armed enforcers of the law are biased 'against' me. And talking from an idealized position about 'teachable moments' (for instance) doesn't seem like much of an attempt to understand.
I don't know a short term solution to this. But as I said above, it strikes me that the standard needs to be higher for who we trust to represent The Armed Law in this country. Because it only takes a small percent of douchebags working out their personal frustrations to make thing dangerous for the real good guys. And then they cycle of mistrust perpetrates itself.
If I'm going to place more blame, it's going to be on the guys who are entrusted to protect and serve us. They need be above reproach.
You are incorrectly confronted by an officer. Is being aggressive going to change his mind? If you are aggressive towards an NFL ref who flagged you is he going to pick up the flag?
By the time you are confronted, the ship has sailed. you can either comply and hope all goes well, or you can fight back. what I'm saying is fighting back is going to have a negative result. If you comply, it might not. Then, if you feel so aggrieved to do something about it, I guess you could file a complaint, something you will at least be alive or not in jail to be able to do.
I get your point, but I don't agree to the extent that I need to just take it and hope that it ends fast so I can go on my merry ways. And then maybe if I want to deal with the headache, I can file a complaint, right?
And while situations like the ones we are talking about don't happen often at all throughout the nation, they used to happen quite frequently in large cities like New York. So maybe something more than just a hunch or "he looks suspicious" should be used to harass someone.
Profiling is a problem that must be resolved. But, so is the reaction to being stopped. People take personal offense.
While inconvenient, if you are stopped and let go, has there really been harm done? That's another problem. Christ, I know people who get stopped going 15 miles over the limit speeding and flip out as if the cop should have better things to do.
Profiling is a problem that must be resolved. But, so is the reaction to being stopped. People take personal offense.
While inconvenient, if you are stopped and let go, has there really been harm done? That's another problem. Christ, I know people who get stopped going 15 miles over the limit speeding and flip out as if the cop should have better things to do.
Hmmm...if I'm walking down the street with my family and get stopped for no reason...or if I'm just standing in front of my apartment and someone comes up to search me...sure some harm has been done. You make it seem like there's always a legitimate reason why people get stopped. No one is speeding, impeding traffic, or any other infractions. Some people are just being who they are...fitting a profile.
Or believing that it's realistic to hold police officers to such a high standard that they no longer become human, and can act completely void of emotion, and with computer like accuracy in deciphering a situation and reacting to it in seconds with 100% accuracy leaving any doubt into their actions?
One of those doesn't take much work or thought to start saving lives immediately, including the two individuals we've been talking about.
Profiling is a problem that must be resolved. But, so is the reaction to being stopped. People take personal offense.
While inconvenient, if you are stopped and let go, has there really been harm done? That's another problem. Christ, I know people who get stopped going 15 miles over the limit speeding and flip out as if the cop should have better things to do.
It's a really tough job being a police officer. That's why they give them weapons. They're going to be on the wrong end of bad behavior every single day.
But when the lives of unarmed citizens in particular is, literally, in their hands, the burden is always on them to be the better actor.
If the rest of us did the right thing all the time, we wouldn't need them.
Because that's what's basically being said.
"Just comply, you'll be fine."
If you agree that people aren't always going to comply, then you have to have some sort of standard for the amount of force used. And with that standard comes negative consequences for not following it. EXACTLY like there are negative consequences for not complying.
Of course the issue is that black males will get stopped more often. Is it profiling? Yes. Everyone profiles everyone. It's just the way it is. Hopefully it will change. But there must be change on both sides. Cops have to stop profiling, but if you are stopped, don't post a threat to the cop or you will put yourself in danger. That goes for everyone.
police deal with drunk and disorderly people all the time. Nightly. they also deal with aggressive people daily. The vast majority of those cases don't end up with a dead man. heck, the vast majority of officers getting punched don't end up with a dead man, they end with an arrest.
Compliance ensures safety. non-compliance brings chance into the mix.
Or believing that it's realistic to hold police officers to such a high standard that they no longer become human, and can act completely void of emotion, and with computer like accuracy in deciphering a situation and reacting to it in seconds with 100% accuracy leaving any doubt into their actions?
One of those doesn't take much work or thought to start saving lives immediately, including the two individuals we've been talking about.
You keep coming back to the portion of your argument that no one is arguing with.
Eric Garner got choked to death by police. Now he was also obese and asthmatic. So you could also make the argument if he was in better shape, the officer's choke-hold may not have killed him. If one's inclined to look at everything the victim could have/should have done differently, anyway.
I don't think the police have to be 100% perfect. Just 1% better than the people they're dealing with. If you're not holding the good guys to a higher standard than the bad guys, why make the distinction?
Quote:
Taking the stance that complying will more often than not save your life, or at the very least make it a lot easier, regardless of the reason you've been stopped?
Or believing that it's realistic to hold police officers to such a high standard that they no longer become human, and can act completely void of emotion, and with computer like accuracy in deciphering a situation and reacting to it in seconds with 100% accuracy leaving any doubt into their actions?
One of those doesn't take much work or thought to start saving lives immediately, including the two individuals we've been talking about.
You keep coming back to the portion of your argument that no one is arguing with.
Eric Garner got choked to death by police. Now he was also obese and asthmatic. So you could also make the argument if he was in better shape, the officer's choke-hold may not have killed him. If one's inclined to look at everything the victim could have/should have done differently, anyway.
I don't think the police have to be 100% perfect. Just 1% better than the people they're dealing with. If you're not holding the good guys to a higher standard than the bad guys, why make the distinction?
No. He didn't.
police deal with drunk and disorderly people all the time. Nightly. they also deal with aggressive people daily. The vast majority of those cases don't end up with a dead man. heck, the vast majority of officers getting punched don't end up with a dead man, they end with an arrest.
Compliance ensures safety. non-compliance brings chance into the mix.
I don't think anyone is actually arguing against that are they?
police deal with drunk and disorderly people all the time. Nightly. they also deal with aggressive people daily. The vast majority of those cases don't end up with a dead man. heck, the vast majority of officers getting punched don't end up with a dead man, they end with an arrest.
Compliance ensures safety. non-compliance brings chance into the mix.
If people were 100% compliant, again, we wouldn't need police. The police already have the scales tipped in their favor by being armed with deadly force. It should be the very last resort. That doesn't appear to have been the case with Eric Garner. Ferguson, we'll see. But (let's say) a punch versus 6 bullets? Or a punch versus even one bullet? That's a disproportionate response, no?
Quote:
is once people aren't compliant, the 100% chance they will remain unharmed plummets.
police deal with drunk and disorderly people all the time. Nightly. they also deal with aggressive people daily. The vast majority of those cases don't end up with a dead man. heck, the vast majority of officers getting punched don't end up with a dead man, they end with an arrest.
Compliance ensures safety. non-compliance brings chance into the mix.
I don't think anyone is actually arguing against that are they?
The ones putting all of the blame on the cops are pretty much doing just that.
Once an officer is forced to physically subdue somebody, the chances of getting harmed rise.
If you have a 300+pound man who is non-compliant, what means do you have to deal with him? I've heard they should have tasered him. what if he died from that?
Non-compliance is often a lose-lose for ALL parties. Do you think police want to arrest people?
In the case in the OP, it doesn't seem like they did.
With Michael Brown, it's starting to look like Wilson may have acted within the law. If it's found that he didn't, doesn't he deserve some blame for Brown's death?
I'm exclusively talking about compliance when in direct contact with an officer of the law issuing a personal order to you.
Not compliance with the law in general.
Do you think people want to be killed? (Rhetorical.)
We're at the bottom of this hole. Have a good afternoon.
Quote:
If I'm aggressive towards a police officer, I expect to get arrested if it is verbal and manhandled and cuffed if it is physical. Oh and yes, a chance I'd end up dead, too.
But don't you see the craziness in this statement? They make all the rules, so we should just shut our mouths and comply or else risk, arrest or even death?
Not saying I advocate mouthing off or getting physical with them, but to raise concern about the reason for such treatment is being sacrificed so that we won't get killed by the very people who have the duty to protect their fellow citizens?
I think what gets lost a lot in these discussions is the actual purpose of the police and of the law itself. IMO, there's a little bit of a trade-off and we look at the police officer as only an aggressor and never a protector. In reality his aggression to us is a consequence of the environment or times or history where some event occurred that is not desirable for repetition. It comes back to the security/freedom question and, with apologies to Franklin, we do all trade to some extent. I think part of the compliance and politeness even when you haven't done anything is part of that trade-off. Sure, it can go out of bounds and over the top, but it can go that way in both directions and if the police had done too little to challenge a person and a crime had resulted, then we would complain there too.
At face value, getting punched shouldn't mean unloading 6 shots in a guy, but if it a guy who is being punched by a 300 pound man, who has been aggressive an non-compliant and seems to still be a threat, some measure has to be taken. I would guess that Officer wilson questions what he did ever since the event happened. This will have changed his life forever, all for the way he responded. Believe me, every police man realizes this can happen. Like I said above, no officer looks to be violent, but once they are forced to, all bets are off.
sadly, wilson could have done everything he was supposed to do, especially if his gun was ever in threat of being compromised and he will still be seen as a villian in the eyes of a lot of people.
Quote:
If people were 100% compliant, again, we wouldn't need police.
I'm exclusively talking about compliance when in direct contact with an officer of the law issuing a personal order to you.
Not compliance with the law in general.
I get the distinction. But I also make distinctions between armed and unarmed. And the behavior I expect from those inclined to break the law versus those entrusted to enforce it. I expect more from the former. You seem to weight them equally. I don't get that expectation. At this point, I'm not thinking that clarity is forthcoming, so we're wasting our time now. You have a (sincerely) good afternoon.
At face value, getting punched shouldn't mean unloading 6 shots in a guy, but if it a guy who is being punched by a 300 pound man, who has been aggressive an non-compliant and seems to still be a threat, some measure has to be taken. I would guess that Officer wilson questions what he did ever since the event happened. This will have changed his life forever, all for the way he responded. Believe me, every police man realizes this can happen. Like I said above, no officer looks to be violent, but once they are forced to, all bets are off.
sadly, wilson could have done everything he was supposed to do, especially if his gun was ever in threat of being compromised and he will still be seen as a villian in the eyes of a lot of people.
It's a shitty situation, for sure. And I do really hope Wilson did everything right.
At face value, getting punched shouldn't mean unloading 6 shots in a guy, but if it a guy who is being punched by a 300 pound man, who has been aggressive an non-compliant and seems to still be a threat, some measure has to be taken. I would guess that Officer wilson questions what he did ever since the event happened. This will have changed his life forever, all for the way he responded. Believe me, every police man realizes this can happen. Like I said above, no officer looks to be violent, but once they are forced to, all bets are off.
sadly, wilson could have done everything he was supposed to do, especially if his gun was ever in threat of being compromised and he will still be seen as a villian in the eyes of a lot of people.
Sadly for some people he likely would have had to have been killed by Brown in order for him to completely avoid any blame.
My wife is often accused by her sister as living in a world of rainbows and Care bears. Frankly, our lives have been relatively free from conflict, tragic or early death, or poor upbringings.
As a result, I tend to think that the vast majority of people want to do the right thing. That people working in a profession want to uphold the ideals of that profession. i give people the benefit of the doubt, in life, and in events like this. Hell, I spend a good portion of the football season on BBI defending players, coaches and FO guys that are routinely killed here for the most minor of infractions.
I recognize that not all share my optimism. To me, the biggest issue in this shooting isn't the event itself. It is that it could have been lessened in magnitude if people didn't immediately demand "justice" or retribution. A crime is a crime whether it is dealt with one day later or several days later, and not waiting to find out what happened just cost a lot of innocent people their livlihoods. That to me is the true issue.
No mention by him of the strong armed robbery or alleged assault on the officer. If course nobody challenged him in any way by bringing any of those things up either and only thanked him for his thoughtful wise insight.
It is so obvious that many people will excuse Brown's behavior and blame the policeman to the extent that there really is nothing an officer can likely do in that situation that would satisfy some people.
The sad part is that this type of one sided thinking is broadcasted by networks. Even sports networks.
Everything else has built off of that faulty premise from the characterization of him being a "Gentle Giant" to the "Hands up, Don't shoot" rally like he was a meek kid gunned down as he peacefully surrendered. That's why I find the biggest issue to be the rush to judgement because it has perpetrated a host of myths.
That true and saying he deserved to die is wrong, but to tell you the truth I have seen any commentary saying that, although I am sure I missed some at least. I have seen all kinds of comments on major news networks all along the lines of claiming he was simply gunned down for stealing cigars and none of the other facts were brought up to bring in any perspective. Another example was yesterday I watched Spike Lee ranting about it yesterday and given a platform to say anything without any challenge or counter points being raised?
Everything else has built off of that faulty premise from the characterization of him being a "Gentle Giant" to the "Hands up, Don't shoot" rally like he was a meek kid gunned down as he peacefully surrendered. That's why I find the biggest issue to be the rush to judgement because it has perpetrated a host of myths.
Yes but when people are still saying these things on major networks as of yesterday and allowed to without any of the other facts being raised there is something horribly wrong.
since when?
Their need to fill air space leads to meaningless interviews, questionable "expert" opinion, and an over reliance on biased information to keep the story "hot".
It compares twitter, MSNBC, CNN, andFox.
It doesn't draw conclusions, but it's an interesting read. He'll , it doesn't even speak of content, just number of tweets and minutes of air time devoted.
I'll see if I can find the link.
link - ( New Window )
I hope it gets Ben Crump and Daryl Parks out of the way permanently.They are evil men.
Fact: When the security cage is down, the entire neighborhood is in the store grabbing beer, cigs et.
The President has about as much in common with inner city America as W did.
He would wet his pants if he spent a night in the projects my wife grew up in, or the neighborhood that my family moved out of.
Inner city poor have a different sense of what is right and what is wrong then those with money.
While my opinion of the events have certainly changed since this all began and as more "testimony" and evidence came out, certainly there is much more to come... Yet nobody seems to be asking everyone to wait for all of the facts anymore?
I think many people are waiting for the facts. I only stepped into this discussion a few days in because of the constant Sonic Youth-like demonization of the cops.
Ultimately the truth will probably lie somewhere in between. A kid made some really poor choices and a cop killed him when other means might have been just as effective in stopping him.
Ultimately, the facts will probably say there is fault on both ends, but not criminal fault, just like in the Zimmerman case, especially so since Wilson is an officer and has to make a quick decision on how to handle the perpetrator.
The end result is that blacks are going to feel disenfranchised and cops are going to feel more and more threatened. It is a lose-lose for all of us, mainly because people jumped to convict a cop hours after an incident happened.
Hope the latter is true.
If this had been a black on black or a white on white killing, there might have been some local repurcussions, but it wouldn't have reached National status.
In fact, there had been at least 4 instances of unarmed people being killed by same race officers in July, all which seem to be treated as justifiable at this point. One month later, there is no furor over them.
One day after this event, we had people mischaracterizing both the victim and the cop and it continues when guys like Ben Crump keep calling it an execution or when hundreds of people chant "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" nightly.
In fact, there had been at least 4 instances of unarmed people being killed by same race officers in July, all which seem to be treated as justifiable at this point. One month later, there is no furor over them.
It's the circumstances of the incident.
I agree, the media has certainly played a part. But your example shows that it was the circumstances of this particular incident (white cop shoots unarmed black teen) that made it national news.
The other incidents as you have pointed out didn't incite the furor that this one has- not because of the media- because of the circumstances.
Did you read the pew link? Twitter had a hold of this before any news outlet. That wasn't 'the media'. That was twitter users. If anything, it was the 'outrage' of twitter users that attracted the media in the first place. To your point- yep, they didn't have all of the facts, but what they did have were the basic circumstances that made this a national story- the media didn't make that part up.
Let me ask you this. If George Zimmerman was named Jorge Gonzalez, would that incident have been a national story?
I highly doubt it. It made news because social Media INITIALLY took the stance that a white man gunned down a black kid.
That's also why later descriptions of Zimmerman called him a White Hispanic, not because it was some little-use Census categorization, but because they needed to keep the white on black angle going.
Let me ask you this. If George Zimmerman was named Jorge Gonzalez, would that incident have been a national story?
I highly doubt it. It made news because social Media INITIALLY took the stance that a white man gunned down a black kid.
That's also why later descriptions of Zimmerman called him a White Hispanic, not because it was some little-use Census categorization, but because they needed to keep the white on black angle going.
The basic facts were reported correctly in Ferguson and those are what lead to the rush in judgement and the (still) perceived injustice.
In the Zimmerman case, the basic facts were not initially correct- specifically the race of curious George. And the "rush to judgement" didn't really occur until after the 911 tapes were released.
There is a huge difference between the reaction of both the media and twitter users in these two cases (IMO because one involves a white Police Officer):
The two are about two different, although somewhat related things: White citizens mistrusting and mistreating innocent black kids (Martin) and Law Enforcement mistrusting and mistreating innocent black kids (Brown). There's a big distinction there. One speaks to institutional racism in a way, while the other doesn't.
And to answer your question, of course not. For whatever reasons that we probably shouldn't get into here, brown on brown crime doesn't make the headlines for the most part.
Like a black kid died at the hands of a white officer. Because many other details were wrong. The "Hands Up" mantra. That he was a gentle giant who never had any problems. That there was a peaceful surrender.
Frankly, it seems like a lot was misreported.
The rest I agree added a bunch of fuel to the fire.
I think we mostly agree- I just think the media didn't create this issue. They helped to build it to where it got after 'regular people' had already started the outrage.
On the other side is the Sean Bell case. I don't think anger lessened over his death and the subsequent non-charges because 3 of the 4 officers involved were black or hispanic. Bell's fiancee didn't choose not to sue the city because of the race of the officers.
So if GZ's name was Jorge Gonzalez and everything else in the case was the same, I think it still would've been a major story.