It doesn't? Ok... if that's not enough... what about him getting into a physical confrontation with a couple of cops? Is that enough to be perceived as a threat? It appears to take a lot less for some others.
Surely you can understand my point about the difference between a direct deadly threat when it is believed that a person has a gun and one where they don't?
That is my point when responding about those two cases. Not who is more deserving or was more violent in general. Clearly the face eating guy was.
Sorry but no... not in this case. Why assume that he's reaching for a gun? Why not a knife? Or wallet? Or newpaper? Or lollipop? So it's ok to shoot someone just on the perception that they MAY have a gun? And lastly, why not think to tase him first? The other cop did. Why not her?
Can police really afford to assume it's not a gun when a person is not following their orders?
The one often common denominator in these situations is generally the person not following instructions given to them be the police.
Forget for a moment whether you believe she should or shouldn't have believed he made a move that could have been interpreted as possibly going for a weapon.
If you were a police officer and believed someone may possibly have a gun and instructed them accordingly and they didn't listen and instead made a move towards what could be a weapon would you wait to see if he first fired a gun at you or shoot when he made the move? Or to take it a step further do you really expect that of our police officers?
steve - maybe it comes across as unfair but yes... I'd prefer that an officer be sure there's a threat of a gun before using deadly force (notice I said 'deadly' force and not just force... for example a taser). A taser is fine because at least the person should survive and be taken into custody. They are legally allowed to carry a weapon that can kill someone and therefore they should be held to a standard where they can't just discharge that weapon because they THINK or PERCEIVE there to be a threat. That's what THEY signed up for. They weren't drafted or made to become officers, that's the occupation they chose. As someone said above, what if that person had a bad reaction to some kind of medicine? Is it still ok to shoot first and ask questions later? What if that person is simply having a bad day? Mentally retarded?
There's a reason why tasers were invented. To try and minimize having to kill a person in order to disarm and/or apprehend them. For some reason this woman didn't think having a taser would be good enough for this job but the officer standing right next to her did. Why is that?
T
I'm going to post a section of law from the NYS Penal Law related to use of force. By national standards NY is pretty strict regarding use of DPF, one exception being not requiring police to retreat, basically because you pay them not to. Almost every section refers to a 'person', meaning everyone, not just the police.
In any case the standard for using DPF in the limited cases where it is allowed is reasonableness. What would a reasonable person do under the same circumstances. So you better be able to articulate why exactly you used Deadly Physical Force because you likely will have to articulate your your case before a Grand Jury and/or a Criminal Jury. And that relates to both the police AND civilians.
In the age of cameras being almost everywhere, very little is going to slip through the cracks anymore.
S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use
physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she
reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a
third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to
cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the
use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has
withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such
withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing
the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical
force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by
agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is:
(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal
sexual act or robbery; or
(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that
the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.
there does not appear to be any objective reason for the officer to pull the trigger. subjective fear does not count as a sufficient reason.
hopefully charges are also laid against the north Miami officer who shot an unarmed behavioural specialist who was trying to coax his autistic patient out of the street and was following all orders, had his hands in the air etc
Friends of mine who are police were amazed at that Miami case. And not in anyway that is positive
the victim was literally on the ground with his hands in the air when he was shot. if that is not brutality I don't know what is
There were so many WTF facts in that incident that it boggles the mind. Seriously, that officer has no business being a police either based on his decision making or in his competency with his weapon.
can't you people figure out how to delete nonpertinent quotes? Â
Literally 15 shootings in Trenton over the weekend. One which left a pregnant mother dead???
#dothoselivesmatter?
Yes, those lives matter. However, their circumstances don't further anyone's agenda.
See the post above. The police shot and killed 990 people in in 2015. Out of the tens of millions of interactions with civilians, that's everyone. One would think there were a lot more than that.
If we are to believe that police are purposely targeting others then you would have to think that number would be much higher, no?
these are used to force better training methods for handling weapons for law enforcement. That it leads to using methods other than deadly force unless otherwise being unavoidable and it teaches police that being irresponsible has repurcussions.
I have no idea why the man was shot, but anytime a police officer's versions of events is so out of skew with video evidence, I hope there is punishment like this.
This is definitely the most cogent thought on this matter. She sounds like she panicked, and when you're a police officer, mixing fear with weapon leading to panicked reaction is a recipe for deadly disaster.
On the other hand, we can be grateful that the clown in Miami couldn't shoot for shit, since that poor bastard who was shot is still alive today.
Or be thankful since he said he was aiming at the mentally challenged man playing with a toy. Seriously...how is that fuck even a police officer (and even in their SWAT team)?
Cell phone video of the Charlotte shooting just got released Â
It is on NBC. You don't see the actual shooting, just his wife recording the situation but her view is blocked but you do hear the shots. She is telling the police he suffers from a Traumatic Brain Injury and is not armed.
One thing from the video when you watch it, there is no gun on the ground next to him when she first gets in view after the shooting, the gun shows up a few seconds later on the ground but you can't tell if it was taken from the guys hands and placed there. Its a bit odd because they video is shaky, but one minute its not there, and then it appears that the one officer standing in the white shirt drops the gun from about 3 feet up video link - ( New Window )
Cell phone video of the Charlotte shooting just got released Â
It is on NBC. You don't see the actual shooting, just his wife recording the situation but her view is blocked but you do hear the shots. She is telling the police he suffers from a Traumatic Brain Injury and is not armed.
One thing from the video when you watch it, there is no gun on the ground next to him when she first gets in view after the shooting, the gun shows up a few seconds later on the ground but you can't tell if it was taken from the guys hands and placed there. Its a bit odd because they video is shaky, but one minute its not there, and then it appears that the one officer standing in the white shirt drops the gun from about 3 feet up video link - ( New Window )
yup, just like the officer in Minnesota. I wouldn't trust these pants pissers to pour me hot coffee, let alone "protect & serve" while armed.
"Remain calm in tense situations" would seemingly be a useful trait for those elevated to the position of police officer. There's a reason vets often make good cops.
You actually can't tell if it is a gun flung to the ground Â
It is on NBC. You don't see the actual shooting, just his wife recording the situation but her view is blocked but you do hear the shots. She is telling the police he suffers from a Traumatic Brain Injury and is not armed.
One thing from the video when you watch it, there is no gun on the ground next to him when she first gets in view after the shooting, the gun shows up a few seconds later on the ground but you can't tell if it was taken from the guys hands and placed there. Its a bit odd because they video is shaky, but one minute its not there, and then it appears that the one officer standing in the white shirt drops the gun from about 3 feet up video link - ( New Window )
To quote Dave Chappelle, "just sprinkle some crack on him"
(server) but the police likely kept her from intervening. If he posed a threat there's no way they the police would let someone else near them or the perp.
Able to go home each day alive, and while that should always be the goal, of such priority causes one to panic and escalate a situation when there may be another way, then one doesn't have any business being a police officer.
Too often these incidents happen because those involved were too fast in drawing their weapons for the sake of self preservation.
RE: They identified one of the items tossed on the ground Â
is that if my wife has just been shot, I'm screaming like a wailing mourner, rushing to her side and completely freaking out. I'm not standing there with a video camera saying "She better not be dead. She better not be dead".
I know it is hard to judge situations, but a person has clearly been shot and may be dying and his spouse seemed more upset before the shooting than afterwards.
Showing video to family is not a problem, might even be the recommended course of action. Making it publicly available - caving in to public outcry. IMO, not the way to go.
ends up clearly showing a threat? Do people go back and make reparations for the destruction?
I don't know what value showing the video has. Even the wife who released the video shows the police clearly yelling "Drop the gun" over and over again. Pretty much debunks the idea it was onl a book in the man's hand.
I agree. My wife pointed out her flatness in emotion after the shooting and she made the point that had that been me, she'd freak out after the shooting where she said the wife seemed to freak out more before the shooting.
I can't judge how another one acts - it just seems odd and not in the expected way.
that's my point. People rioted because they thought this was a situation of an unarmed caring husband executed in his car while reading a book by a white officer.
Would they take to the streets if he was a multiple felon carrying a gun killed by a black cop?
My main criticism is of the media who takes these initial stories and runs with them, fueling emotions and hate, but when the stories end up being false or muted, there aren't any apologies.
I don't think one can regulate ones way out of this. Detailed instructions to police wont work if a few of them lack an understanding about the intended relationship between state and citizen in this nation .
Of course, citizens need that also, but obvíousky we invest a lot of power in our police so it's vital that they view their role from a Bill of Rights point of view. Training for all state employees ought to start with that and get those concepts and possible applications down before we preclude judgemts on the scene with bogs of detailed prescriptions. Same goes for all state employees.
This is from the other thread but its how I feel about Protesting Â
Protesting is a way to achieve a right. Civil Rights,ETC.
What right are they achieving? Bad Police? White on Black injustice? Please explain to me Why its necessary to Riot over this? Because the Media wants you too.
IF the Rioters and Looters win what do they win? Are they running a Candidate for Police Chief? Mayor? President?
Are we to abolish the Police Forces and Let the Citizens fend for themselves? (Chicago)? Please explain to me what the protest want to achieve? Civil Rights, Sex Revolution Gay Rights how did they achieve their goals? They took part in the Government around them. So when are the next anti police politicians running?
Rioting for the sake of looting and destroying property is just crime.
This is from the other thread but its how I feel about Protesting Â
Protesting is a way to achieve a right. Civil Rights,ETC.
What right are they achieving? Bad Police? White on Black injustice? Please explain to me Why its necessary to Riot over this? Because the Media wants you too.
IF the Rioters and Looters win what do they win? Are they running a Candidate for Police Chief? Mayor? President?
Are we to abolish the Police Forces and Let the Citizens fend for themselves? (Chicago)? Please explain to me what the protest want to achieve? Civil Rights, Sex Revolution Gay Rights how did they achieve their goals? They took part in the Government around them. So when are the next anti police politicians running?
Rioting for the sake of looting and destroying property is just crime.
It's a business. Hard to sell advertising space by saying "We will have to patiently wait while the investigation and court proceedings run their course."
Don't get me wrong, a responsible and effective media can be a very effective protector against the abuses of government agents - but....what they do is about more than that, and some of it is not good.
Every action of public officials. Police. Teachers, social workers in various agencies, not only do not help enforce principles such as are in the bill of rights, but may often msy inadvertently serve to contradict those principles.
We need to empower officials to make Principled decisions on the spot guided by concepts like rights rather than regulations. In this instance, a sergeant would have just suggested that the team stay in their vehicles as he calmly discussed with the individual or something.
Training is not all that helpful outside of principles and ones being allowed to employ bill if rights based principles on the spot without fear of reprimand.
I'm always hesitant to jump into these dicussions, but I did want to add something that I think people don't consider in these discussions.
Too often we discuss "the police" as if they were one entity and we compare police shooting that occur across various jurisdictions, states, departments, etc...You need to look at all those factors when considering incidents, shootings and the overall narrative. A particular department could be racist, have bias or a lack of training, but the reasoning behind why an officer did or didn't shoot will vary depending on a lot of factors that often aren't considered.
A better analysis would be to consider how that department typically reacts. For example, instead of comparing the Charlotte shooting to Tulsa or any other recent death, compare it to other police interactions in Charlotte, or compare Tulsa to Tulsa. The Dallas PD has been praised on multiple threads, does that mean if a police shooting happens in Dallas in the next few months, they should now be lumped in with what happened in Tulsa?
Of rights inadvertently by regulations is the diminishment of individual rights by the zero sum game of group rights.
If each and every citizen has his bill of rights rights as an individual , than he does not need them as a group member. But as soon as we seek to promote one group over another, we have destroyed that.
Individual liberties does get us to where civil rights promises to get us, but fails.
Regulations,some of which were a backdoor attempt to trade agreed upon bill of rights rights in for a group rights concept not in the Constitution, have left us with neither.
on Tulsa officer (didn't read thru entire thread so this may have been posted already) link - ( New Window )
Some similarities with the female cop being hired as an officer after being incompetent in other police departments and then shooting and killing a White teenager opening his door holding a game controller. I do remember the riot by video game players a few years back after that incident.
Seriously this sounds like a hiring and training problem more than anything else. The race aspect may or may not be an added factor.
In order to accommodate state employees that we don't trust to embody bill if rights concepts or,in order to push agendas not agreed to by the general population, we have moved away from a society based on an idea, bill of rights, to a society based on reams of regulations that seek to direct every action of public employees a.....and ended up with less rights than we had before
Add to that the background investigation of one officer involved in Cleveland shooting - these were not close calls re: the hiring decision.
Some things are BRIGHT RED FLAGS - (i.e., involvement in domestic disturbances, instability, poor employment record especially w/previous law enforcement agency.)
For one thing, our diets of rich carbs, cooked meat and processed food enabled us to get more bang for our buck, nutritionally speaking. For another, the phenomenon of sharing food meant that humans could take time to go after high-risk, high-reward energy sources, like a tasty mammoth.
1) So, if eating animals was an essential part of the journey from Lucy or her cousins to homo sapiens, where along that journey did we lose the right to include animal protein in our diet?
2) For those of you who think we did lose that right somewhere during the trip, would you prefer to still be eating walnuts and bugs?
Quote:
In comment 13137402 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 13137379 steve in ky said:
Quote:
Quote:
It doesn't? Ok... if that's not enough... what about him getting into a physical confrontation with a couple of cops? Is that enough to be perceived as a threat? It appears to take a lot less for some others.
Surely you can understand my point about the difference between a direct deadly threat when it is believed that a person has a gun and one where they don't?
That is my point when responding about those two cases. Not who is more deserving or was more violent in general. Clearly the face eating guy was.
Sorry but no... not in this case. Why assume that he's reaching for a gun? Why not a knife? Or wallet? Or newpaper? Or lollipop? So it's ok to shoot someone just on the perception that they MAY have a gun? And lastly, why not think to tase him first? The other cop did. Why not her?
Can police really afford to assume it's not a gun when a person is not following their orders?
The one often common denominator in these situations is generally the person not following instructions given to them be the police.
Forget for a moment whether you believe she should or shouldn't have believed he made a move that could have been interpreted as possibly going for a weapon.
If you were a police officer and believed someone may possibly have a gun and instructed them accordingly and they didn't listen and instead made a move towards what could be a weapon would you wait to see if he first fired a gun at you or shoot when he made the move? Or to take it a step further do you really expect that of our police officers?
steve - maybe it comes across as unfair but yes... I'd prefer that an officer be sure there's a threat of a gun before using deadly force (notice I said 'deadly' force and not just force... for example a taser). A taser is fine because at least the person should survive and be taken into custody. They are legally allowed to carry a weapon that can kill someone and therefore they should be held to a standard where they can't just discharge that weapon because they THINK or PERCEIVE there to be a threat. That's what THEY signed up for. They weren't drafted or made to become officers, that's the occupation they chose. As someone said above, what if that person had a bad reaction to some kind of medicine? Is it still ok to shoot first and ask questions later? What if that person is simply having a bad day? Mentally retarded?
There's a reason why tasers were invented. To try and minimize having to kill a person in order to disarm and/or apprehend them. For some reason this woman didn't think having a taser would be good enough for this job but the officer standing right next to her did. Why is that?
T
I'm going to post a section of law from the NYS Penal Law related to use of force. By national standards NY is pretty strict regarding use of DPF, one exception being not requiring police to retreat, basically because you pay them not to. Almost every section refers to a 'person', meaning everyone, not just the police.
In any case the standard for using DPF in the limited cases where it is allowed is reasonableness. What would a reasonable person do under the same circumstances. So you better be able to articulate why exactly you used Deadly Physical Force because you likely will have to articulate your your case before a Grand Jury and/or a Criminal Jury. And that relates to both the police AND civilians.
In the age of cameras being almost everywhere, very little is going to slip through the cracks anymore.
S 35.15 Justification; use of physical force in defense of a person.
1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subdivision two, use
physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she
reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself, herself or a
third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or
imminent use of unlawful physical force by such other person, unless:
(a) The latter's conduct was provoked by the actor with intent to
cause physical injury to another person; or
(b) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case the
use of physical force is nevertheless justifiable if the actor has
withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such
withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing
the incident by the use or threatened imminent use of unlawful physical
force; or
(c) The physical force involved is the product of a combat by
agreement not specifically authorized by law.
2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person
under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:
(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or
about to use deadly physical force. Even in such case, however, the
actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with
complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the
necessity of so doing by retreating; except that the actor is under no
duty to retreat if he or she is:
(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor; or
(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police
officer or a peace officer at the latter`s direction, acting pursuant to
section 35.30; or
(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal
sexual act or robbery; or
(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing
or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that
the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of
section 35.20.
Quote:
In comment 13137350 Les in TO said:
Quote:
there does not appear to be any objective reason for the officer to pull the trigger. subjective fear does not count as a sufficient reason.
hopefully charges are also laid against the north Miami officer who shot an unarmed behavioural specialist who was trying to coax his autistic patient out of the street and was following all orders, had his hands in the air etc
Friends of mine who are police were amazed at that Miami case. And not in anyway that is positive
the victim was literally on the ground with his hands in the air when he was shot. if that is not brutality I don't know what is
There were so many WTF facts in that incident that it boggles the mind. Seriously, that officer has no business being a police either based on his decision making or in his competency with his weapon.
Quote:
In comment 13137175 BlueHurricane said:
Quote:
Literally 15 shootings in Trenton over the weekend. One which left a pregnant mother dead???
#dothoselivesmatter?
Yes, those lives matter. However, their circumstances don't further anyone's agenda.
See the post above. The police shot and killed 990 people in in 2015. Out of the tens of millions of interactions with civilians, that's everyone. One would think there were a lot more than that.
If we are to believe that police are purposely targeting others then you would have to think that number would be much higher, no?
Exactly my point
I have no idea why the man was shot, but anytime a police officer's versions of events is so out of skew with video evidence, I hope there is punishment like this.
This is definitely the most cogent thought on this matter. She sounds like she panicked, and when you're a police officer, mixing fear with weapon leading to panicked reaction is a recipe for deadly disaster.
Or be thankful since he said he was aiming at the mentally challenged man playing with a toy. Seriously...how is that fuck even a police officer (and even in their SWAT team)?
One thing from the video when you watch it, there is no gun on the ground next to him when she first gets in view after the shooting, the gun shows up a few seconds later on the ground but you can't tell if it was taken from the guys hands and placed there. Its a bit odd because they video is shaky, but one minute its not there, and then it appears that the one officer standing in the white shirt drops the gun from about 3 feet up
video link - ( New Window )
One thing from the video when you watch it, there is no gun on the ground next to him when she first gets in view after the shooting, the gun shows up a few seconds later on the ground but you can't tell if it was taken from the guys hands and placed there. Its a bit odd because they video is shaky, but one minute its not there, and then it appears that the one officer standing in the white shirt drops the gun from about 3 feet up
video link - ( New Window )
"Remain calm in tense situations" would seemingly be a useful trait for those elevated to the position of police officer. There's a reason vets often make good cops.
One thing from the video when you watch it, there is no gun on the ground next to him when she first gets in view after the shooting, the gun shows up a few seconds later on the ground but you can't tell if it was taken from the guys hands and placed there. Its a bit odd because they video is shaky, but one minute its not there, and then it appears that the one officer standing in the white shirt drops the gun from about 3 feet up video link - ( New Window )
To quote Dave Chappelle, "just sprinkle some crack on him"
Also, when did he suffer the traumatic brain injury? And if so, why is he driving every day?
Probably got a call from the mayor
Also, when did he suffer the traumatic brain injury? And if so, why is he driving every day?
Because if she intervened she would almost certainly be shot as well?
Also, when did he suffer the traumatic brain injury? And if so, why is he driving every day?
Because if she intervened she would almost certainly be shot as well?
Probably got a call from the mayor
Too often these incidents happen because those involved were too fast in drawing their weapons for the sake of self preservation.
There is something that appears to be the gun at 1:05 behind the officer wearing the red shirt.
They believe it "keeps things even and prevents planted evidence"
They believe it acts as a modulating voice reminding police of consequences for uneven treatment
Some believe the media is a the court that modulates uneven power
"Cant we all just get along?"
I know it is hard to judge situations, but a person has clearly been shot and may be dying and his spouse seemed more upset before the shooting than afterwards.
I don't know what value showing the video has. Even the wife who released the video shows the police clearly yelling "Drop the gun" over and over again. Pretty much debunks the idea it was onl a book in the man's hand.
I can't judge how another one acts - it just seems odd and not in the expected way.
link - ( New Window )
Would they take to the streets if he was a multiple felon carrying a gun killed by a black cop?
My main criticism is of the media who takes these initial stories and runs with them, fueling emotions and hate, but when the stories end up being false or muted, there aren't any apologies.
Of course, citizens need that also, but obvíousky we invest a lot of power in our police so it's vital that they view their role from a Bill of Rights point of view. Training for all state employees ought to start with that and get those concepts and possible applications down before we preclude judgemts on the scene with bogs of detailed prescriptions. Same goes for all state employees.
What right are they achieving? Bad Police? White on Black injustice? Please explain to me Why its necessary to Riot over this? Because the Media wants you too.
IF the Rioters and Looters win what do they win? Are they running a Candidate for Police Chief? Mayor? President?
Are we to abolish the Police Forces and Let the Citizens fend for themselves? (Chicago)? Please explain to me what the protest want to achieve? Civil Rights, Sex Revolution Gay Rights how did they achieve their goals? They took part in the Government around them. So when are the next anti police politicians running?
Rioting for the sake of looting and destroying property is just crime.
What right are they achieving? Bad Police? White on Black injustice? Please explain to me Why its necessary to Riot over this? Because the Media wants you too.
IF the Rioters and Looters win what do they win? Are they running a Candidate for Police Chief? Mayor? President?
Are we to abolish the Police Forces and Let the Citizens fend for themselves? (Chicago)? Please explain to me what the protest want to achieve? Civil Rights, Sex Revolution Gay Rights how did they achieve their goals? They took part in the Government around them. So when are the next anti police politicians running?
Rioting for the sake of looting and destroying property is just crime.
Don't get me wrong, a responsible and effective media can be a very effective protector against the abuses of government agents - but....what they do is about more than that, and some of it is not good.
We need to empower officials to make Principled decisions on the spot guided by concepts like rights rather than regulations. In this instance, a sergeant would have just suggested that the team stay in their vehicles as he calmly discussed with the individual or something.
Training is not all that helpful outside of principles and ones being allowed to employ bill if rights based principles on the spot without fear of reprimand.
Too often we discuss "the police" as if they were one entity and we compare police shooting that occur across various jurisdictions, states, departments, etc...You need to look at all those factors when considering incidents, shootings and the overall narrative. A particular department could be racist, have bias or a lack of training, but the reasoning behind why an officer did or didn't shoot will vary depending on a lot of factors that often aren't considered.
A better analysis would be to consider how that department typically reacts. For example, instead of comparing the Charlotte shooting to Tulsa or any other recent death, compare it to other police interactions in Charlotte, or compare Tulsa to Tulsa. The Dallas PD has been praised on multiple threads, does that mean if a police shooting happens in Dallas in the next few months, they should now be lumped in with what happened in Tulsa?
If each and every citizen has his bill of rights rights as an individual , than he does not need them as a group member. But as soon as we seek to promote one group over another, we have destroyed that.
Individual liberties does get us to where civil rights promises to get us, but fails.
Regulations,some of which were a backdoor attempt to trade agreed upon bill of rights rights in for a group rights concept not in the Constitution, have left us with neither.
Seriously this sounds like a hiring and training problem more than anything else. The race aspect may or may not be an added factor.
Some things are BRIGHT RED FLAGS - (i.e., involvement in domestic disturbances, instability, poor employment record especially w/previous law enforcement agency.)
1) So, if eating animals was an essential part of the journey from Lucy or her cousins to homo sapiens, where along that journey did we lose the right to include animal protein in our diet?
2) For those of you who think we did lose that right somewhere during the trip, would you prefer to still be eating walnuts and bugs?
3) Or are bugs off limits, too?