Of course they don't leave guns in car when going to a call. Can't do that in states due to love of guns.
But also say there has to be a better way than to give mentally unstable person access to the gun.
And "he reached for my gun" seems to be a common theme.
Resisting arrest and fighting with police is a common theme too.
How is the cop supposed to be aware of medical condition of suspect? Acting strangely can be attributed to several things... not to mention drugs that can make a person highly unpredictable and volatile.
How about actually talking to the person? And I'm not meaning "Arms up, drop your weapons…" I'm talking human relation skills. You know actually conversing, finding out the issue, talking the person down, relating as an empathetic person. How many cops even do that anymore? Or do they try with taser in hand and gun nearby, ready to strike rather than help?
I know we don't share a lot of common ground on this topic, but will agree with you here. In fact, the DoJ put our Seattle PD under a mandatory reform plan due to many civil rights violations that were occurring in the dept. One thing that is changing is that the SPD is being trained to do just as you suggest above. They are even spending less time at the academy teaching fighting techniques, and more time teaching them how to talk to people, be empathetic, and deal with individuals. Here's a link to the specific outline of the change at SPD: http://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/doj-and-city-hail-federal-judge-s-approval-new-seattle-police-department-crisis
One of the most egregious shootings in the past few years was an SPD cop who jumped out of his car yelling at a Native American man who was a known street person, had some hearing impairment, alcoholism, and some mental issues. He was a woodcarver, and would sit on the streets of Seattle carving little totems, so he always was carrying his carving knife. He had no time to comprehend what the officer was yelling at him, no time to comply, and was gunned down. Even SPD ruled the shooting unjustified. I thought the cop should fry for the shooting, but he was dismissed from the dept, and not prosecuted. Anyway, that is one example of why the DoJ stepped in and we had wholesale changes in leadership in the SPD.
I think empathy, and understanding can go a long way toward deescalation, and avoiding many tragic shootings. At the same time, I completely justify the shooting of criminals who will not comply, and pose a serious risk to the safety and lives of the cops and public. So while you think many of us are blood-thirsty, blindly pro-cop, racists who like to see minorities get killed, what I think most of us are can be summed up as pragmatic realists.
Wow, good for the Seattle PD. Reform that is working. But where did it go wrong, when did police overall, actually stop talking to people to have things escalate to where things are now? There are too many stories of the mistakes, of brutality. Like I said earlier, we didn't used to see the police in a bad light because they overall treated people with respect, not on edge with a finger on the trigger. Yeah, there are instances where a dangerous person is taken down, there always have been these legit circumstances, I never said that there wasn't. I am merely addressing what the problem has become, and again, I will say that there are a lot of good cops out there. But there is a serious problem overall with police and especially minorities in this country right now. And to not address this problem is a denial problem. Not all cops are bad. Not all cops are properly trained. Not all cops become cops to protect, there are plenty that love the power trip that goes with the territory. Not all cops should be carrying a gun if they can't talk to the people they are paid to protect.
All you guys do is flat out support with no justification for KILLING another human, when it is supposed to be a last resort. For the sake of humanity, where is your conscience? Do you honestly feel we should obey or else death becomes us, because we dare to question the police?
I don't support cops killing people for arguing. I do justify cops shooting people who are putting others in imminent danger. Cops shoot to STOP not shoot to kill. The way you shoot to stop is to aim for center mass. Death is often the unfortunate outcome. But it is an outcome directly caused by the suspect escalating it to that point. You want to excuse criminals for their unlawful behavior and handcuff cops who are trying to protect themselves and others.
And to explicitly answer you latest query, I don't value all life the same, and I think that a scumbag, anti-social, criminals life is less valuable than mine or than the people protecting mine.
Cops aiming for the center mass is NOT shooting to stop, and you know it. Shooting for center mass is aiming for the heart. You're doing nothing but making excuses for murder. I can see what that says about your conscience.
And sometimes that scumbag, anti-social criminal grows up to enter the police academy to become a cop.
I don't know any such thing. Cops (and anyone who has trained in self defense) are always taught to shoot at center mass. It is simply the largest target area, and an effective area to hit to stop a threat. In a situation where one has to act quickly under enormous pressure, accuracy is nowhere near what it is in a controlled situation on a range, or plinking at cans in a field. If you are not aiming at the largest part of your target, you'll likely miss in a high-stress situation. The training is absolutely about stopping a threat. It isn't about shooting to kill.
I don't disagree with your last statement, and just like in the general population, there will always be a few assholes with no regard for others' safety and lives. But that doesn't really have anything to do with my answer to your question, so I'll turn it around on you - do you place equal value on all human life?
So you're saying that proper police training is shooting for the heart (center mass). Then police depts are deliberately training that shooting to kill is acceptable. Another insight that adds to the gun culture: that cops are trained to kill rather than disarm and allow the person to live. Now you may continue to say that "shooting at center mass" is an effective area to hit to stop a threat. But everyone knows that when you shoot for the chest, you're shooting to kill. It's so comforting to know that police forces feel that killing is an acceptable punishment rather than letting a person live or worse, a person getting away. Again, where's the humanity in all of this??
ETA: After finding the next 3 links, it is police training techniques that they actually use semantics to lead trainees to believe that they're shooting to disarm or stop and NOT kill. But don't be stupid, we all know what shooting in the chest means…death.
Shooting center mass: The dangers of denial In the third and final part of this three-part series, PoliceOne Contributor Roy Bedard looks at police deadly force training in the United States Apr 22, 2011
Even with about three-quarters of a million police officers working the streets of America — 24 hours a day, seven days a week — few will ever actually exercise their highest level of authority. With all of the deadly threats presented to police officers, America can typically expect only between 300-400 incidents of law enforcement officers firing their weapons at persons annually. Incredibly, it is estimated that in America, less than 12 percent of police officers will ever draw and fire their weapons at another person — in the entire course of their career!
If this number seems extraordinarily low to you, consider that in most western European countries, the career totals for shots fired at people hover around one to five percent. In Latin America, the number is higher, but still is remarkably low in comparison to the United States. In Asia, police use of deadly force is virtually non-existent. Certainly these numbers do not mean that most police officials never face deadly threats — indeed, nearly every police official who makes a career in law enforcement will face multiple incidents where the use of deadly force would have been justified and appropriate. Recent research indicates that a full 92 percent of police officers can recount a situation were they could have used deadly force and yet chose not to do so.
Still, when law enforcement recruits enter the profession they immediately begin preparing for the possibility that one day they may be confronted with the need to kill — or be killed. Nearly all blocks of instruction are laced with this common theme. There are many internal and external variables which must be addressed in order to give clarity during that critical moment; how to control stress, how to react to changing circumstances, how to push on and finish the fight even if you are the first to receive a wound.
When officers recite the “we don’t shoot to kill” mantra — and believe it — we may reasonably conclude that they are not properly prepared to take a human life. Deluding officers into actually believing that police are not supposed to kill — or are even allowed to kill — creates a deadly mental block that will most likely surface in that critical moment of truth — when ending a life for the sake of the greater good may be necessary.
Further, the mantra sends the wrong message to the community. That message indicates that whenever a subject is killed at the hands of a law enforcement officer, then something must have been done wrong, for surely law enforcement does not shoot to kill — they only shoot to stop.
For most informed citizens it is an academic certainty that shooting to kill is not something police do (talk about ammunition for civil rights attorneys and fuel for media persecution!). Should law enforcement officers actually expect to be held to a standard lower than the very one which THEY have created?
Recall the last time that a shooting occurred in your hometown — or in a town within your local TV station’s broadcast area. Is it any wonder that someone asked — and they ALWAYS ask — “Why didn’t the police shoot the subject in the leg or arm — why did they have to shoot him in chest? Why didn’t they try to stop him instead of killing him?”
Last week I wrote about a conversation I’d had with a police trainer in the Czech Republic. I tried to imagine a circumstance where an officer would intentionally leg shoot someone in police work. I thought about subject/officer factors whereby an aggressive subject who is unarmed but is so much larger than the police official that shooting them may be a justified response.
The hurdle to get over is whether this subject is SO large that the officer could justify killing them because their size and apparent strength would be considered in and of itself — deadly. Regardless of this factor, the paper would probably report, ‘Officer Shoots Unarmed Citizen,’ and the agency would struggle to explain the ambiguous variable.
In training we grab students out of their seats and pair them off, a really big one and a really small one. We kind of shrug our shoulders and say, “OK — I guess with these two students this one would be justified in killing that one, you know it’s a grey area.”
Someone almost always shouts out, “I’d rather be tried by twelve then carried by six!” What can you say to that? Our training has been reduced to a flip of the coin.
I thought about short-range weapons that only pose an imminent deadly threat in the close quarters. Not firearms but sticks, knives, bottles, rocks. The standard US response to a subject approaching with one of these weapons is to shoot center mass. We not only stop the threat, we usually kill the threat. But a leg shot…that can stop a subject from advancing and mitigate the threat of the close range weapon. We already teach officers how to move and shoot. Move forward, move backwards, move and shoot.
Keep the distance, fire at the legs, drop the bad-guy — is it possible? Is it reasonable?
After Thoughts The purpose of sharing this experience is not to push an agenda but rather to present an opportunity to think once again about our policing methodologies. By thinking about it again we will either see a need to change, or gain stronger resolve in our current commitment. There are so many things that we have stopped thinking about in police work because we have grown comfortable in our methods and manners. But like everything in history, yesterday’s certainties usually become tomorrow’s superstitions.
The argument has been made that we don’t shoot to kill, because if we did, we would continue firing even after the threat has stopped. Time and again officers empty their magazines into suspects, firing until the weapon runs dry. It’s common where suspects are filled with dozens of bullets when the smoke clears. We are aware that “over-shoot” is a survival instinct bought on by high arousal and extreme stress — it is something that we can explain but also something that invariably casts doubt on our training methods.
America is a strange place. Police officers and their agencies are constantly under the threat of lawsuits and this is different than in most other parts of the world. Adopting more difficult policies raises the level of responsibility and ultimately the officer’s accountability. Where the civil courts allow failed responsibilities to be paid out in monetary premiums, no one is eager to lay down their own minefield. Damned if you do — damned if you don’t as the saying goes.
This is probably why American police are reluctant to adopt policies that suggest that shooting in certain scenarios might be intended only to wound, for fear that a wounding shot might accidentally kill. No, it is better for a killing shot to accidentally wound. American police routinely adopt policies that plan for the worst, and hope for the best.
Center mass shots will likely remain the only target area taught and supported by training in the United States. If we don’t have a justification to kill, then we simply teach to not shoot. We prefer a model where we aren’t forced to account so much for accuracy, rather our mission is to describe the elements of using deadly force. We prefer that our accountability virtually end at the squeeze of the trigger.
If the bullet hits and kills, that’s OK — if it doesn’t kill, perhaps that’s better?
Shooting center mass: I'm told we kill everyone... In part two of this three-part series, PoliceOne Contributor Roy Bedard recalls a discussion he’d had with a police trainer in the Czech Republic
Apr 15, 2011 The Czech Republic is one of the most modern countries in the former communist block, and is quickly becoming a recognized leader in the global law enforcement profession. They are considered quite modern and up to date on western theory, technology, and applications. They produce one of the world’s finest firearms, and are great contributors to the advancement of law enforcement methodologies. Not long ago, while I was giving presentations in the Czech Republic, I was confronted by an unusual perspective that has comparative value to our system of policing here in the United States.
A group of police officers had invited me to visit their police firing range, a modern indoor facility on academy property. The firing range was beautiful — well constructed with proper protective devices in place. Full body silhouette targets could be easily changed behind the hot line, and mechanically sent to various distances. There were men and women in-service who were qualifying with their Czech pistols.
When the signal was given to fire a large plume of smoke arose from the line. During the first volley each officer shot about four or five rounds. I squinted my eyes and looked downrange. Though born with poor vision, my eyes were good enough to see that not one single target had a bullet hole in center mass. Then, scanning the targets more closely I saw what appeared to be holes — lots of holes — in the legs of the target.
“My God,” I thought to myself, “this cannot be coincidence.”
I looked over my shoulder to the range master, who was preparing for the next sequence. “Why are they shooting in the legs?” I said, half smiling, trying to approach the question casually.
“This was a non-lethal drill,” he said without hesitation.
I felt like a fish out of water. I was startled by his answer. It no sense to me. “But if you are shooting at them, how is it a non-lethal drill?”
Looking at me as strangely as I was looking at him, he replied, “We shoot in the extremities, to wound them.”
We’d a reached an impasse on the issue, so we dropped it and the drills continued.
During lunch, I sat with the trainer and reopened the conversation.
“So tell me again about shooting in the legs?”
“Oh, I forgot, you are an American. You kill everyone!”
I thought to myself, “Whoa, hold on there Skippy, you’ve got to be kidding me — we kill everyone?!”
I guess he could read the incredulous look on my face because he said, “Look, I’ve been to the U.S. I’ve trained there. You teach all shots go to center mass followed by a head shot.”
“Yeah, but…” I said, my mind racing for an intelligent response. “There are reasons why we shoot at those locations.”
I began by telling him about deadly force in the United States. I was sure he had missed this part of his classroom instruction — perhaps it was the language barrier, I didn’t know — so I was going defend our method of using deadly force and outline the reasons why we only shot center mass.
I spoke rapidly, trying to outline our entire concept of police use of force. I told him that it was the largest target area of the body and the easiest to hit. I felt like I needed a chalkboard, some chalk. I wanted to draw pictures and graphs, use arrows and lines, and write smart-sounding definitions. I wanted to ‘wow’ him with my deep understanding of this issue and make him take back that last statement. I was, after all, the ‘expert’ they’d invited in from a foreign country. Besides, I couldn’t just let it go.
“We don’t shoot to kill,” I said. “We shoot to stop.”
He nodded and said, “Yeah, but that’s where your vitals are and a shot there would likely kill you.”
His arrogance was remarkable. I told him that it was our job to stop a subject, and the chest was the best area for doing that.
“Have you ever been shot in the leg?” He asked.
“Um, No.”
“Well, that will stop you — it is very painful.”
Now he was really getting under my skin.
“OK,” I said, “but surely your officers under stress are not going to demonstrate the marksmanship qualities they have on the range.” How in the world do you expect them to hit a skinny leg in motion?”
I had him this time.
“Here in the Czech Republic, most of our shootings occur in very close distance, two to three meters?” he retorted.
“Yeah,” I said without thinking, “It’s pretty much the same for us.”
Wrinkling his face, he replied, “You don’t think you can hit a leg at a distance of three to six feet?”
I reeled back — this guy was pissing me off.
“Okay,” I said, “but what if the round passes through? What about the round striking an innocent person who happened to be on the other side of the target?” Now I had him against the ropes, surely these cops are mindful of the dynamic environment in which law enforcement plays out.
Again, he responded without hesitation. “That’s another reason why we aim to the legs. At the distance we usually fire — remember, two to three meters — the bullet has a trajectory towards the ground of only a few feet. A pass through is rare — we use hollow point bullets — but if it does occur, it is not likely to travel much farther.”
He paused, and continued, “You see Roy, here in the Czech Republic we don’t always shoot to kill. Sometimes we shoot to stop — it’s our non lethal shooting.”
I countered, “Non-lethal shots… huh? C’mon, You know, there is probably not a single square inch on the body that is not packed with veins, arteries, or major group of blood rich capillaries that once shot will cause the subject to bleed out.”
As soon as I spoke I realized was now becoming indignant and desperate.
“Yes sir, there is always that possibility, but with medical technology today it is rare that a non-vital shot will ever result in death.”
I thought back to something I heard in the academy years ago. It was meant to be inspirational, but had also become a statistical fact in countries with modern emergency services.
“If you are shot, and you know you are shot, you will probably survive the wound.”
I’ve repeated this many times in the classroom but never had I considered it from the other guy’s perspective. It would be true that if a bad guy was shot and he knew he was shot, he too would likely survive the wound. I guessed that most cops — if forced to take a round in a gunfight — would also rather be shot in the leg than in the heart or head, based solely on the probability of survival. It was intuitive and didn’t require a survey. But I wasn’t done yet. I was representing decades of solid professional American law enforcement philosophy. This whole, “we don’t shoot to kill” concept was a cornerstone of modern police training.
I came back with a fastball. “Well, what if the guy is shooting at you? Dropping him to the ground with a leg shot may stop the forward attack but it is not likely to stop the threat?” he can still fire at you — and you wont have time to assess the continued threat to see if he stopped!
He grinned at me, “If he is shooting at you? Well, then we use lethal shots — two to the chest, one to the head.”
He smacked it out of the park. If you are being shot at, well, then you use lethal shots — two to the chest and one on the head. Of course you do!
I couldn’t believe it. I had never heard anyone do that before, but this guy had given a reasonable explanation for non-lethal shots. My thoughts on the issue had clearly been on autopilot for years. After years of linear thinking my view of deadly force had actually come to a fork in the road.
WASHINGTON -- The fatal shooting of a man by police on Tuesday near St. Louis kept the spotlight on law enforcement's use of deadly force, as protests continue in nearby Ferguson over the police shooting death of teenager Michael Brown.
The two shootings bear little resemblance to one another. Brown was an unarmed teen who, according to eyewitnesses, was trying to surrender when a police officer shot him at least six times. The man killed on Tuesday, whose name hasn't been released, was wielding a knife, according to police. When he refused officers' orders to put down his weapon and walked toward them, they shot him to death, police said.
As tensions continue to flare over Brown's death, many question the circumstances under which the law justifies a police officer's use of deadly force. When faced with a perceived threat, why is it that many officers shoot to kill, rather than simply to wound?
Members of law enforcement are legally permitted to use deadly force when they have probable cause to believe that a suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm either to the officer or to others. In such cases, most officers are trained to shoot at a target's center mass, where there is a higher concentration of vital areas and major blood vessels, according to a report by the Force Science Institute, a research center that examines deadly force encounters.
John Firman, director of research, programs, and professional services at the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said that shooting at a limb is impractical. Aiming at an arms or legs, which move fast, could result in a misfire that fails to neutralize the threat and may even hit the wrong person, he said. "The likelihood of success is low."
"That's a Hollywood myth," Firman told The Huffington Post when asked why police officers don't tend to shoot people in the limbs. "In all policy everywhere on force in any law enforcement agency in America, the bottom line statement should read: If you feel sufficiently threatened or if lives are threatened and you feel the need that you must use lethal force, then you must take out the suspect."
Officers are trained to assess the risk before firing, Firman said, but often a situation escalates quickly. A guide from his association on officer-involved shootings states that deadly force is legally justified "to protect the officer or others from what is reasonably believed to be a threat of death or serious bodily harm; and to prevent the escape of a fleeing violent felon who the officer has probable cause to believe will pose a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
The legal justification for deadly force by police is informed by the 1985 Supreme Court ruling in Tennessee v. Garner, in which a pair of police officers fatally shot a 15-year-old boy after he fled from a burglary. It turned out the boy had stolen a purse and just $10 from a house, and the Court ruled that a police officer may only use deadly force to prevent the escape of a violent felon.
Some law enforcement officials said the question of whether officers should shoot to wound or kill misses the point. Officers are often forced to make a split-second decision and are trained to try and deescalate the situation before firing.
Troy Church, a former police chief in Maiden, North Carolina, said officers are trained to shoot to stop a suspect who poses an imminent threat. "Can death result? Certainly it can," Church wrote in an email. "But you are not trained to kill."
Peter Jirasek, a retired police sergeant and criminal justice educator from Illinois, explained that the concept of shooting to wound would not hold up under Tennessee v. Garner. Jirasek said it's unfair to simply state that officers are trained to kill when lethal force is justified in some cases and discouraged in others by law.
"If you only seek to wound someone by shooting, you do not have justification to shoot at all," Jirasek said. "An attempt to shoot to wound all too often can end up in death. It does no good if a police officer says, 'I was just trying to wound and ended up killing somebody,' because that officer now faces criminal prosecution, not to mention a civil lawsuit. And the law will say the officer better be justified in using deadly force."
Jirasek added that tasers and bean bag rounds have been instituted as lesser forms of force if an officer needs to bring a suspect into compliance but has no reason to use deadly force.
Some have argued that law enforcement protocol and training should be re-examined in the wake of Brown's death, since he was unarmed and, according to eyewitnesses, wasn't posing a significant threat to the police officer who shot him. Studies have found that police officers are more likely to use excessive force toward black men than toward whites.
Wow. Look at that... Law enforcement professionals blowing apart the ridiculous excuses for shooting to kill with the same answers some of us train riders get ridiculed for giving. Common sense lives in the Czech Republic now I guess.
Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
0
Options
hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
I know we don't share a lot of common ground on this topic, but will agree with you here. In fact, the DoJ put our Seattle PD under a mandatory reform plan due to many civil rights violations that were occurring in the dept. One thing that is changing is that the SPD is being trained to do just as you suggest above. They are even spending less time at the academy teaching fighting techniques, and more time teaching them how to talk to people, be empathetic, and deal with individuals. Here's a link to the specific outline of the change at SPD: http://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/doj-and-city-hail-federal-judge-s-approval-new-seattle-police-department-crisis
One of the most egregious shootings in the past few years was an SPD cop who jumped out of his car yelling at a Native American man who was a known street person, had some hearing impairment, alcoholism, and some mental issues. He was a woodcarver, and would sit on the streets of Seattle carving little totems, so he always was carrying his carving knife. He had no time to comprehend what the officer was yelling at him, no time to comply, and was gunned down. Even SPD ruled the shooting unjustified. I thought the cop should fry for the shooting, but he was dismissed from the dept, and not prosecuted. Anyway, that is one example of why the DoJ stepped in and we had wholesale changes in leadership in the SPD.
I think empathy, and understanding can go a long way toward deescalation, and avoiding many tragic shootings. At the same time, I completely justify the shooting of criminals who will not comply, and pose a serious risk to the safety and lives of the cops and public. So while you think many of us are blood-thirsty, blindly pro-cop, racists who like to see minorities get killed, what I think most of us are can be summed up as pragmatic realists.
Talk about a voice of reason! I inherited (or learned) this myself from my father - although both of us admittedly had/have a nice measure of idealism/romanticism mixed in.
Here in West Hollywood, there's a fair population of homeless / mentally ill. Without fail, every incident to which I've been privy has involved kind, gentle officers/sheriffs who treated each of these people with respect. That kind of training/instinct?/character goes a long, long way.
I know we don't share a lot of common ground on this topic, but will agree with you here. In fact, the DoJ put our Seattle PD under a mandatory reform plan due to many civil rights violations that were occurring in the dept. One thing that is changing is that the SPD is being trained to do just as you suggest above. They are even spending less time at the academy teaching fighting techniques, and more time teaching them how to talk to people, be empathetic, and deal with individuals. Here's a link to the specific outline of the change at SPD: http://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/doj-and-city-hail-federal-judge-s-approval-new-seattle-police-department-crisis
One of the most egregious shootings in the past few years was an SPD cop who jumped out of his car yelling at a Native American man who was a known street person, had some hearing impairment, alcoholism, and some mental issues. He was a woodcarver, and would sit on the streets of Seattle carving little totems, so he always was carrying his carving knife. He had no time to comprehend what the officer was yelling at him, no time to comply, and was gunned down. Even SPD ruled the shooting unjustified. I thought the cop should fry for the shooting, but he was dismissed from the dept, and not prosecuted. Anyway, that is one example of why the DoJ stepped in and we had wholesale changes in leadership in the SPD.
I think empathy, and understanding can go a long way toward deescalation, and avoiding many tragic shootings. At the same time, I completely justify the shooting of criminals who will not comply, and pose a serious risk to the safety and lives of the cops and public. So while you think many of us are blood-thirsty, blindly pro-cop, racists who like to see minorities get killed, what I think most of us are can be summed up as pragmatic realists.
Talk about a voice of reason! I inherited (or learned) this myself from my father - although both of us admittedly had/have a nice measure of idealism/romanticism mixed in.
Here in West Hollywood, there's a fair population of homeless / mentally ill. Without fail, every incident to which I've been privy has involved kind, gentle officers/sheriffs who treated each of these people with respect. That kind of training/instinct?/character goes a long, long way.
And not only that, but it seems as if the anti-cop contingent refuses to acknowledge the truth to the matter which is as follows: we are debating the rare exception to the rule. Without question, the majority of police work is exemplary, done with very little fanfare, and employing so much of what is being demanded.
For as often as some posters cite statistics to back up... say... pitbull attacks (only to use a recent thread for example)... they haven't done a great job keeping nation wide law enforcement in perspective when presented with international newsworthy items periodically when citizens become unruly in the policing process.
It amazes me to hear some of you defend the criminals of this country. Once again, some of you throw blame in the wrong direction. Poor training, over zealous police, and racism is is the reason in your eyes. Forget about the fact that these guys ARE BREAKING THE LAW. The argument of "assault shouldn't result in the death penalty" is tiresome. No, it shouldnt. If the ass holes had just bothered to have his day in court.
Since when is the life of a cop more important than the life of the criminal? When the criminal decided he wanted to reach for the cops gun, or assault the officer. That's when. And that's not a choice made by the cop. It was made by the CRIMINAL. Most of you guys want to hang the cop before the evidence is publicly known. (See Darren Wilson). Hell, even when the evidence is out there, most of you will find a way to make excuses for the criminal.
America's police force doesn't need better training. They need the support of the people they protect. Here's the bottom line: if you just listen to them, they won't shoot you. Why can't some of you understand this concept? There is no excuse for what Michael Brown did. Or this guy in Wisconsin. They deserved what they got. Not because they were black, or poor, or mentally ill. Because they were stupid. Because they didn't listen. Because they HIT A POLICE OFFICER. When has that ever been acceptable?
I know we don't share a lot of common ground on this topic, but will agree with you here. In fact, the DoJ put our Seattle PD under a mandatory reform plan due to many civil rights violations that were occurring in the dept. One thing that is changing is that the SPD is being trained to do just as you suggest above. They are even spending less time at the academy teaching fighting techniques, and more time teaching them how to talk to people, be empathetic, and deal with individuals. Here's a link to the specific outline of the change at SPD: http://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/doj-and-city-hail-federal-judge-s-approval-new-seattle-police-department-crisis
One of the most egregious shootings in the past few years was an SPD cop who jumped out of his car yelling at a Native American man who was a known street person, had some hearing impairment, alcoholism, and some mental issues. He was a woodcarver, and would sit on the streets of Seattle carving little totems, so he always was carrying his carving knife. He had no time to comprehend what the officer was yelling at him, no time to comply, and was gunned down. Even SPD ruled the shooting unjustified. I thought the cop should fry for the shooting, but he was dismissed from the dept, and not prosecuted. Anyway, that is one example of why the DoJ stepped in and we had wholesale changes in leadership in the SPD.
I think empathy, and understanding can go a long way toward deescalation, and avoiding many tragic shootings. At the same time, I completely justify the shooting of criminals who will not comply, and pose a serious risk to the safety and lives of the cops and public. So while you think many of us are blood-thirsty, blindly pro-cop, racists who like to see minorities get killed, what I think most of us are can be summed up as pragmatic realists.
Talk about a voice of reason! I inherited (or learned) this myself from my father - although both of us admittedly had/have a nice measure of idealism/romanticism mixed in.
Here in West Hollywood, there's a fair population of homeless / mentally ill. Without fail, every incident to which I've been privy has involved kind, gentle officers/sheriffs who treated each of these people with respect. That kind of training/instinct?/character goes a long, long way.
And not only that, but it seems as if the anti-cop contingent refuses to acknowledge the truth to the matter which is as follows: we are debating the rare exception to the rule. Without question, the majority of police work is exemplary, done with very little fanfare, and employing so much of what is being demanded.
For as often as some posters cite statistics to back up... say... pitbull attacks (only to use a recent thread for example)... they haven't done a great job keeping nation wide law enforcement in perspective when presented with international newsworthy items periodically when citizens become unruly in the policing process.
Those of us in the "anti-cop contingent", as you have so flippantly labeled us, have all acknowledged that the majority of police work is acceptable. You call it the "rare exception" while people related to Mr Rice and Mr Thomas and countless others call it a senseless tragedy and a serious problem. Your continuous ridicule of those who shine light on police brutality issues is immature. You post with an air of childish arrogance because we annoy you and you can't handle that apparently. Just because you want us to end every statement in the debate with a caveat about most cops being good, that doesn't mean we should have to bother to do so. If we did then you would have to end every post with a caveat about how police brutality does exist and is a problem and we would all be wasting our time.
It amazes me to hear some of you defend the criminals of this country. Once again, some of you throw blame in the wrong direction. Poor training, over zealous police, and racism is is the reason in your eyes. Forget about the fact that these guys ARE BREAKING THE LAW. The argument of "assault shouldn't result in the death penalty" is tiresome. No, it shouldnt. If the ass holes had just bothered to have his day in court.
Since when is the life of a cop more important than the life of the criminal? When the criminal decided he wanted to reach for the cops gun, or assault the officer. That's when. And that's not a choice made by the cop. It was made by the CRIMINAL. Most of you guys want to hang the cop before the evidence is publicly known. (See Darren Wilson). Hell, even when the evidence is out there, most of you will find a way to make excuses for the criminal.
America's police force doesn't need better training. They need the support of the people they protect. Here's the bottom line: if you just listen to them, they won't shoot you. Why can't some of you understand this concept? There is no excuse for what Michael Brown did. Or this guy in Wisconsin. They deserved what they got. Not because they were black, or poor, or mentally ill. Because they were stupid. Because they didn't listen. Because they HIT A POLICE OFFICER. When has that ever been acceptable?
Yeah because just listening worked out so well for Tamir Rice and John Crawford and countless others. You can rant and rave about CRIMINALS all you want, people who aren't breaking the law will continue to be shot and killed because of the unconditional support people like you give to police.
I know we don't share a lot of common ground on this topic, but will agree with you here. In fact, the DoJ put our Seattle PD under a mandatory reform plan due to many civil rights violations that were occurring in the dept. One thing that is changing is that the SPD is being trained to do just as you suggest above. They are even spending less time at the academy teaching fighting techniques, and more time teaching them how to talk to people, be empathetic, and deal with individuals. Here's a link to the specific outline of the change at SPD: http://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/doj-and-city-hail-federal-judge-s-approval-new-seattle-police-department-crisis
One of the most egregious shootings in the past few years was an SPD cop who jumped out of his car yelling at a Native American man who was a known street person, had some hearing impairment, alcoholism, and some mental issues. He was a woodcarver, and would sit on the streets of Seattle carving little totems, so he always was carrying his carving knife. He had no time to comprehend what the officer was yelling at him, no time to comply, and was gunned down. Even SPD ruled the shooting unjustified. I thought the cop should fry for the shooting, but he was dismissed from the dept, and not prosecuted. Anyway, that is one example of why the DoJ stepped in and we had wholesale changes in leadership in the SPD.
I think empathy, and understanding can go a long way toward deescalation, and avoiding many tragic shootings. At the same time, I completely justify the shooting of criminals who will not comply, and pose a serious risk to the safety and lives of the cops and public. So while you think many of us are blood-thirsty, blindly pro-cop, racists who like to see minorities get killed, what I think most of us are can be summed up as pragmatic realists.
Talk about a voice of reason! I inherited (or learned) this myself from my father - although both of us admittedly had/have a nice measure of idealism/romanticism mixed in.
Here in West Hollywood, there's a fair population of homeless / mentally ill. Without fail, every incident to which I've been privy has involved kind, gentle officers/sheriffs who treated each of these people with respect. That kind of training/instinct?/character goes a long, long way.
And not only that, but it seems as if the anti-cop contingent refuses to acknowledge the truth to the matter which is as follows: we are debating the rare exception to the rule. Without question, the majority of police work is exemplary, done with very little fanfare, and employing so much of what is being demanded.
For as often as some posters cite statistics to back up... say... pitbull attacks (only to use a recent thread for example)... they haven't done a great job keeping nation wide law enforcement in perspective when presented with international newsworthy items periodically when citizens become unruly in the policing process.
Those of us in the "anti-cop contingent", as you have so flippantly labeled us, have all acknowledged that the majority of police work is acceptable. You call it the "rare exception" while people related to Mr Rice and Mr Thomas and countless others call it a senseless tragedy and a serious problem. Your continuous ridicule of those who shine light on police brutality issues is immature. You post with an air of childish arrogance because we annoy you and you can't handle that apparently. Just because you want us to end every statement in the debate with a caveat about most cops being good, that doesn't mean we should have to bother to do so. If we did then you would have to end every post with a caveat about how police brutality does exist and is a problem and we would all be wasting our time.
Firstly... I stand in the same corner as you with regards to Thomas and Rice (I said so in a post a short while back). These cases were brutal and justice for them has hardly been served. Unfortunately, some are not able to discern between incidents where police brutality is legitimate and when they are not though.
Your comment that suggested my 'continuous ridicule of those who shine light on police brutality issues is immature' seems to have betrayed your sensitivity somewhat. If you feel ridiculed by what I have expressed, then perhaps I've touched a nerve that might make you want to examine some of your perspectives instead of lash out at me for speaking my mind.
For the record... I'm really not sure where I made a deliberate attempt to 'ridicule' anyone. If you can point me to such a moment, I might take a moment or two to rephrase or perhaps even apologize if necessary.
It amazes me to hear some of you defend the criminals of this country. Once again, some of you throw blame in the wrong direction. Poor training, over zealous police, and racism is is the reason in your eyes. Forget about the fact that these guys ARE BREAKING THE LAW. The argument of "assault shouldn't result in the death penalty" is tiresome. No, it shouldnt. If the ass holes had just bothered to have his day in court.
Since when is the life of a cop more important than the life of the criminal? When the criminal decided he wanted to reach for the cops gun, or assault the officer. That's when. And that's not a choice made by the cop. It was made by the CRIMINAL. Most of you guys want to hang the cop before the evidence is publicly known. (See Darren Wilson). Hell, even when the evidence is out there, most of you will find a way to make excuses for the criminal.
America's police force doesn't need better training. They need the support of the people they protect. Here's the bottom line: if you just listen to them, they won't shoot you. Why can't some of you understand this concept? There is no excuse for what Michael Brown did. Or this guy in Wisconsin. They deserved what they got. Not because they were black, or poor, or mentally ill. Because they were stupid. Because they didn't listen. Because they HIT A POLICE OFFICER. When has that ever been acceptable?
Yeah because just listening worked out so well for Tamir Rice and John Crawford and countless others. You can rant and rave about CRIMINALS all you want, people who aren't breaking the law will continue to be shot and killed because of the unconditional support people like you give to police.
Should we stop all surgical procedures or rewrite current practices because doctors have screwed up in the line of work?
Should we imprison doctors for malpractice that results in death?
It amazes me to hear some of you defend the criminals of this country. Once again, some of you throw blame in the wrong direction. Poor training, over zealous police, and racism is is the reason in your eyes. Forget about the fact that these guys ARE BREAKING THE LAW. The argument of "assault shouldn't result in the death penalty" is tiresome. No, it shouldnt. If the ass holes had just bothered to have his day in court.
Since when is the life of a cop more important than the life of the criminal? When the criminal decided he wanted to reach for the cops gun, or assault the officer. That's when. And that's not a choice made by the cop. It was made by the CRIMINAL. Most of you guys want to hang the cop before the evidence is publicly known. (See Darren Wilson). Hell, even when the evidence is out there, most of you will find a way to make excuses for the criminal.
America's police force doesn't need better training. They need the support of the people they protect. Here's the bottom line: if you just listen to them, they won't shoot you. Why can't some of you understand this concept? There is no excuse for what Michael Brown did. Or this guy in Wisconsin. They deserved what they got. Not because they were black, or poor, or mentally ill. Because they were stupid. Because they didn't listen. Because they HIT A POLICE OFFICER. When has that ever been acceptable?
Yeah because just listening worked out so well for Tamir Rice and John Crawford and countless others. You can rant and rave about CRIMINALS all you want, people who aren't breaking the law will continue to be shot and killed because of the unconditional support people like you give to police.
I do not give unconditional support to police. Unjustified shootings should be prosecuted. The problem is that you guys find wrong doing in the justified shootings. The Tamir rice shooting will probably go down as justified. I believe where they (the cops) screwed up is falsifying the report not knowing it was on tape.
Publicly bashing every cop that shoots somebody is not the answer. Yes, there have been unjustified killings by police over the years. But not every one is unjustified. Most of them are 100% justified.
I know we don't share a lot of common ground on this topic, but will agree with you here. In fact, the DoJ put our Seattle PD under a mandatory reform plan due to many civil rights violations that were occurring in the dept. One thing that is changing is that the SPD is being trained to do just as you suggest above. They are even spending less time at the academy teaching fighting techniques, and more time teaching them how to talk to people, be empathetic, and deal with individuals. Here's a link to the specific outline of the change at SPD: http://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/doj-and-city-hail-federal-judge-s-approval-new-seattle-police-department-crisis
One of the most egregious shootings in the past few years was an SPD cop who jumped out of his car yelling at a Native American man who was a known street person, had some hearing impairment, alcoholism, and some mental issues. He was a woodcarver, and would sit on the streets of Seattle carving little totems, so he always was carrying his carving knife. He had no time to comprehend what the officer was yelling at him, no time to comply, and was gunned down. Even SPD ruled the shooting unjustified. I thought the cop should fry for the shooting, but he was dismissed from the dept, and not prosecuted. Anyway, that is one example of why the DoJ stepped in and we had wholesale changes in leadership in the SPD.
I think empathy, and understanding can go a long way toward deescalation, and avoiding many tragic shootings. At the same time, I completely justify the shooting of criminals who will not comply, and pose a serious risk to the safety and lives of the cops and public. So while you think many of us are blood-thirsty, blindly pro-cop, racists who like to see minorities get killed, what I think most of us are can be summed up as pragmatic realists.
Talk about a voice of reason! I inherited (or learned) this myself from my father - although both of us admittedly had/have a nice measure of idealism/romanticism mixed in.
Here in West Hollywood, there's a fair population of homeless / mentally ill. Without fail, every incident to which I've been privy has involved kind, gentle officers/sheriffs who treated each of these people with respect. That kind of training/instinct?/character goes a long, long way.
You agree with 30, talking about empathy, yet you defend death upon one man, on the ground, against 4 cops, hedonist. This is so contradictive, it begs explanation.
I know we don't share a lot of common ground on this topic, but will agree with you here. In fact, the DoJ put our Seattle PD under a mandatory reform plan due to many civil rights violations that were occurring in the dept. One thing that is changing is that the SPD is being trained to do just as you suggest above. They are even spending less time at the academy teaching fighting techniques, and more time teaching them how to talk to people, be empathetic, and deal with individuals. Here's a link to the specific outline of the change at SPD: http://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/doj-and-city-hail-federal-judge-s-approval-new-seattle-police-department-crisis
One of the most egregious shootings in the past few years was an SPD cop who jumped out of his car yelling at a Native American man who was a known street person, had some hearing impairment, alcoholism, and some mental issues. He was a woodcarver, and would sit on the streets of Seattle carving little totems, so he always was carrying his carving knife. He had no time to comprehend what the officer was yelling at him, no time to comply, and was gunned down. Even SPD ruled the shooting unjustified. I thought the cop should fry for the shooting, but he was dismissed from the dept, and not prosecuted. Anyway, that is one example of why the DoJ stepped in and we had wholesale changes in leadership in the SPD.
I think empathy, and understanding can go a long way toward deescalation, and avoiding many tragic shootings. At the same time, I completely justify the shooting of criminals who will not comply, and pose a serious risk to the safety and lives of the cops and public. So while you think many of us are blood-thirsty, blindly pro-cop, racists who like to see minorities get killed, what I think most of us are can be summed up as pragmatic realists.
Talk about a voice of reason! I inherited (or learned) this myself from my father - although both of us admittedly had/have a nice measure of idealism/romanticism mixed in.
Here in West Hollywood, there's a fair population of homeless / mentally ill. Without fail, every incident to which I've been privy has involved kind, gentle officers/sheriffs who treated each of these people with respect. That kind of training/instinct?/character goes a long, long way.
And not only that, but it seems as if the anti-cop contingent refuses to acknowledge the truth to the matter which is as follows: we are debating the rare exception to the rule. Without question, the majority of police work is exemplary, done with very little fanfare, and employing so much of what is being demanded.
For as often as some posters cite statistics to back up... say... pitbull attacks (only to use a recent thread for example)... they haven't done a great job keeping nation wide law enforcement in perspective when presented with international newsworthy items periodically when citizens become unruly in the policing process.
The Fuck? Did I Not explain myself several times here or are you people refusing to read what I write? THE NATIONAL PROBLEM OF POLICE AND MINORITIES. It is not an exception to the rule, it is REALITY of society in the United States. Besides 30, who has given a good debate here, no one else has. I'll say it one. more. time. There are good cops out there, but the bad ones are giving the entire police force suddenly, a bad name.
No, scratch that. The law allows for the police to use deadly force to protect cops from civil suits if they shoot to injure an area other than the chest and not kill who they're going after. Seriously, I'm going to refuse to debate here if you're not reading the links to back my point up. The proof is there, from a cop. Because there are two sides to this argument yet, all I'm hearing is an undying allegiance to support the police force regardless of wrongdoing to the public.
It amazes me to hear some of you defend the criminals of this country. Once again, some of you throw blame in the wrong direction. Poor training, over zealous police, and racism is is the reason in your eyes. Forget about the fact that these guys ARE BREAKING THE LAW. The argument of "assault shouldn't result in the death penalty" is tiresome. No, it shouldnt. If the ass holes had just bothered to have his day in court.
Since when is the life of a cop more important than the life of the criminal? When the criminal decided he wanted to reach for the cops gun, or assault the officer. That's when. And that's not a choice made by the cop. It was made by the CRIMINAL. Most of you guys want to hang the cop before the evidence is publicly known. (See Darren Wilson). Hell, even when the evidence is out there, most of you will find a way to make excuses for the criminal.
America's police force doesn't need better training. They need the support of the people they protect. Here's the bottom line: if you just listen to them, they won't shoot you. Why can't some of you understand this concept? There is no excuse for what Michael Brown did. Or this guy in Wisconsin. They deserved what they got. Not because they were black, or poor, or mentally ill. Because they were stupid. Because they didn't listen. Because they HIT A POLICE OFFICER. When has that ever been acceptable?
Yeah because just listening worked out so well for Tamir Rice and John Crawford and countless others. You can rant and rave about CRIMINALS all you want, people who aren't breaking the law will continue to be shot and killed because of the unconditional support people like you give to police.
Should we stop all surgical procedures or rewrite current practices because doctors have screwed up in the line of work?
Should we imprison doctors for malpractice that results in death?
When a surgical procedure results in death that isn't expected, the cause is investigated. When it is due to physician error or even malpractice, you can bet that there are consequences. If the harm is deliberate or due to reckless behaviour, then yes, the physician can go to jail, although that situation is rare. And of course "current practices" in surgery are constantly being researched and improved upon to improve results - is that the same for policing? Surgery has very strict protocols and checklists to ensure that proper procedures are followed. And I think someone mentioned education and training as well. Surgeons are required to have quite a lot of that, continuing every year that they practice. 400 hundred hours of continuing education every 5 years, in fact. That's part of why surgical practice continues to improve.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
And not only that, but it seems as if the anti-cop contingent refuses to acknowledge the truth to the matter which is as follows: we are debating the rare exception to the rule. Without question, the majority of police work is exemplary, done with very little fanfare, and employing so much of what is being demanded.
For as often as some posters cite statistics to back up... say... pitbull attacks (only to use a recent thread for example)... they haven't done a great job keeping nation wide law enforcement in perspective when presented with international newsworthy items periodically when citizens become unruly in the policing process.
Those of us in the "anti-cop contingent", as you have so flippantly labeled us, have all acknowledged that the majority of police work is acceptable. You call it the "rare exception" while people related to Mr Rice and Mr Thomas and countless others call it a senseless tragedy and a serious problem. Your continuous ridicule of those who shine light on police brutality issues is immature. You post with an air of childish arrogance because we annoy you and you can't handle that apparently. Just because you want us to end every statement in the debate with a caveat about most cops being good, that doesn't mean we should have to bother to do so. If we did then you would have to end every post with a caveat about how police brutality does exist and is a problem and we would all be wasting our time.
You know what's happening, is that 30 is willing to see both sides when replying to you or me or anyone else looking at things realistically, but in response to hedonist, who is "on the other side", he's throwing labels like we're not here. What do you think we are 30, stupid? Your true colors are shining through, dude.
guys, guys, guys.... U ain't gonna convice or change anyone's mind on this subject no matter how hard you try. I know it's maddening but it is what it is. I assure you Liberal society will be getting the Type of policing they are demanding ....it's already happening and Turning out to be a lot safer for officers, Unless assassinations of police continue, then you will see the real militarization of the Police. Tax payers will suffer Unfortionately in that the bad guys will no longer fear the police and will continue to do what they are bred to do. And a couple of years from now the same kuckleheads will be on here posting non sence about why the Police didn't do anything. Protect yourself and your family any which way you can and when the police do the report for you, they will be sympathetic and understanding from all the wonderful sensitivity training required.
It amazes me to hear some of you defend the criminals of this country. Once again, some of you throw blame in the wrong direction. Poor training, over zealous police, and racism is is the reason in your eyes. Forget about the fact that these guys ARE BREAKING THE LAW. The argument of "assault shouldn't result in the death penalty" is tiresome. No, it shouldnt. If the ass holes had just bothered to have his day in court.
Since when is the life of a cop more important than the life of the criminal? When the criminal decided he wanted to reach for the cops gun, or assault the officer. That's when. And that's not a choice made by the cop. It was made by the CRIMINAL. Most of you guys want to hang the cop before the evidence is publicly known. (See Darren Wilson). Hell, even when the evidence is out there, most of you will find a way to make excuses for the criminal.
America's police force doesn't need better training. They need the support of the people they protect. Here's the bottom line: if you just listen to them, they won't shoot you. Why can't some of you understand this concept? There is no excuse for what Michael Brown did. Or this guy in Wisconsin. They deserved what they got. Not because they were black, or poor, or mentally ill. Because they were stupid. Because they didn't listen. Because they HIT A POLICE OFFICER. When has that ever been acceptable?
Yeah because just listening worked out so well for Tamir Rice and John Crawford and countless others. You can rant and rave about CRIMINALS all you want, people who aren't breaking the law will continue to be shot and killed because of the unconditional support people like you give to police.
Should we stop all surgical procedures or rewrite current practices because doctors have screwed up in the line of work?
Should we imprison doctors for malpractice that results in death?
When a surgical procedure results in death that isn't expected, the cause is investigated. When it is due to physician error or even malpractice, you can bet that there are consequences. If the harm is deliberate or due to reckless behaviour, then yes, the physician can go to jail, although that situation is rare. And of course "current practices" in surgery are constantly being researched and improved upon to improve results - is that the same for policing? Surgery has very strict protocols and checklists to ensure that proper procedures are followed. And I think someone mentioned education and training as well. Surgeons are required to have quite a lot of that, continuing every year that they practice. 400 hundred hours of continuing education every 5 years, in fact. That's part of why surgical practice continues to improve.
I'd bet you more cops go to jail for 'malpractice' than doctors do. I've heard of doctors losing their license after multiple botched surgeries, but that's about it to be honest.
If we were to persist with this line of discussion... it would be important to note that as delicate as a surgeon's work might be... it's rather static versus the fluidity of a cop's work- not to mention the fact that 'clientele' factors in as well. Dealing with potentially dangerous people heightens the senses more than a prepped and drugged patient would. I guess I'm trying to say that I can understand cop error more than a surgeon's given the variables.
If I was brash, I'd question how many times people have died from complications in surgery that were more error on the part of the attending surgeon than what may have been revealed. If one was to doubt the 'he went for my gun' excuse... it seems only natural they would doubt 'he wasn't strong enough' or 'there was nothing we could do' as well.
* Education is significant. I would be completely in favor of recertification models where cops needed to recertify every 2-3 years: fitness, aptitude, performance considerations, etc. I'd also like to see more professional development opportunities (without knowing exactly what currently exists). Whatever we do... let's not pretend a cop needs as much education as a surgeon though
And not only that, but it seems as if the anti-cop contingent refuses to acknowledge the truth to the matter which is as follows: we are debating the rare exception to the rule. Without question, the majority of police work is exemplary, done with very little fanfare, and employing so much of what is being demanded.
For as often as some posters cite statistics to back up... say... pitbull attacks (only to use a recent thread for example)... they haven't done a great job keeping nation wide law enforcement in perspective when presented with international newsworthy items periodically when citizens become unruly in the policing process.
Those of us in the "anti-cop contingent", as you have so flippantly labeled us, have all acknowledged that the majority of police work is acceptable. You call it the "rare exception" while people related to Mr Rice and Mr Thomas and countless others call it a senseless tragedy and a serious problem. Your continuous ridicule of those who shine light on police brutality issues is immature. You post with an air of childish arrogance because we annoy you and you can't handle that apparently. Just because you want us to end every statement in the debate with a caveat about most cops being good, that doesn't mean we should have to bother to do so. If we did then you would have to end every post with a caveat about how police brutality does exist and is a problem and we would all be wasting our time.
You know what's happening, is that 30 is willing to see both sides when replying to you or me or anyone else looking at things realistically, but in response to hedonist, who is "on the other side", he's throwing labels like we're not here. What do you think we are 30, stupid? Your true colors are shining through, dude.
That's right Musky, because you refuse to acknowledge the problem going on, you'll continue to live in flat out denial that there's a huge problem staring straight at YOU.
It is absolutely deplorable that you can sleep at night knowing that people are getting killed unjustly, yet police get away with it especially lately, with the law behind them supporting the continual racism and brutality. Continue to blindly live in denial.
Everyone, welcome to the Police state, now everyone... OBEY!
It amazes me to hear some of you defend the criminals of this country. Once again, some of you throw blame in the wrong direction. Poor training, over zealous police, and racism is is the reason in your eyes. Forget about the fact that these guys ARE BREAKING THE LAW. The argument of "assault shouldn't result in the death penalty" is tiresome. No, it shouldnt. If the ass holes had just bothered to have his day in court.
Since when is the life of a cop more important than the life of the criminal? When the criminal decided he wanted to reach for the cops gun, or assault the officer. That's when. And that's not a choice made by the cop. It was made by the CRIMINAL. Most of you guys want to hang the cop before the evidence is publicly known. (See Darren Wilson). Hell, even when the evidence is out there, most of you will find a way to make excuses for the criminal.
America's police force doesn't need better training. They need the support of the people they protect. Here's the bottom line: if you just listen to them, they won't shoot you. Why can't some of you understand this concept? There is no excuse for what Michael Brown did. Or this guy in Wisconsin. They deserved what they got. Not because they were black, or poor, or mentally ill. Because they were stupid. Because they didn't listen. Because they HIT A POLICE OFFICER. When has that ever been acceptable?
Yeah because just listening worked out so well for Tamir Rice and John Crawford and countless others. You can rant and rave about CRIMINALS all you want, people who aren't breaking the law will continue to be shot and killed because of the unconditional support people like you give to police.
Should we stop all surgical procedures or rewrite current practices because doctors have screwed up in the line of work?
Should we imprison doctors for malpractice that results in death?
When a surgical procedure results in death that isn't expected, the cause is investigated. When it is due to physician error or even malpractice, you can bet that there are consequences. If the harm is deliberate or due to reckless behaviour, then yes, the physician can go to jail, although that situation is rare. And of course "current practices" in surgery are constantly being researched and improved upon to improve results - is that the same for policing? Surgery has very strict protocols and checklists to ensure that proper procedures are followed. And I think someone mentioned education and training as well. Surgeons are required to have quite a lot of that, continuing every year that they practice. 400 hundred hours of continuing education every 5 years, in fact. That's part of why surgical practice continues to improve.
I'd bet you more cops go to jail for 'malpractice' than doctors do. I've heard of doctors losing their license after multiple botched surgeries, but that's about it to be honest.
If we were to persist with this line of discussion... it would be important to note that as delicate as a surgeon's work might be... it's rather static versus the fluidity of a cop's work- not to mention the fact that 'clientele' factors in as well. Dealing with potentially dangerous people heightens the senses more than a prepped and drugged patient would. I guess I'm trying to say that I can understand cop error more than a surgeon's given the variables.
If I was brash, I'd question how many times people have died from complications in surgery that were more error on the part of the attending surgeon than what may have been revealed. If one was to doubt the 'he went for my gun' excuse... it seems only natural they would doubt 'he wasn't strong enough' or 'there was nothing we could do' as well.
* Education is significant. I would be completely in favor of recertification models where cops needed to recertify every 2-3 years: fitness, aptitude, performance considerations, etc. I'd also like to see more professional development opportunities (without knowing exactly what currently exists). Whatever we do... let's not pretend a cop needs as much education as a surgeon though
Rather static? Actually no; the situation changes frequently during surgery.
Education? I'm not pretending an officer needs as much education as a surgeon, but ongoing education throughout the career would probably be helpful for policing, as with any career.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
And not only that, but it seems as if the anti-cop contingent refuses to acknowledge the truth to the matter which is as follows: we are debating the rare exception to the rule. Without question, the majority of police work is exemplary, done with very little fanfare, and employing so much of what is being demanded.
For as often as some posters cite statistics to back up... say... pitbull attacks (only to use a recent thread for example)... they haven't done a great job keeping nation wide law enforcement in perspective when presented with international newsworthy items periodically when citizens become unruly in the policing process.
Those of us in the "anti-cop contingent", as you have so flippantly labeled us, have all acknowledged that the majority of police work is acceptable. You call it the "rare exception" while people related to Mr Rice and Mr Thomas and countless others call it a senseless tragedy and a serious problem. Your continuous ridicule of those who shine light on police brutality issues is immature. You post with an air of childish arrogance because we annoy you and you can't handle that apparently. Just because you want us to end every statement in the debate with a caveat about most cops being good, that doesn't mean we should have to bother to do so. If we did then you would have to end every post with a caveat about how police brutality does exist and is a problem and we would all be wasting our time.
You know what's happening, is that 30 is willing to see both sides when replying to you or me or anyone else looking at things realistically, but in response to hedonist, who is "on the other side", he's throwing labels like we're not here. What do you think we are 30, stupid? Your true colors are shining through, dude.
Huh?
I had trouble quoting. The first 2 paragraphs are you, of course, how do you forget calling us anti-cop continents? Don't play dumb.
It amazes me to hear some of you defend the criminals of this country. Once again, some of you throw blame in the wrong direction. Poor training, over zealous police, and racism is is the reason in your eyes. Forget about the fact that these guys ARE BREAKING THE LAW. The argument of "assault shouldn't result in the death penalty" is tiresome. No, it shouldnt. If the ass holes had just bothered to have his day in court.
Since when is the life of a cop more important than the life of the criminal? When the criminal decided he wanted to reach for the cops gun, or assault the officer. That's when. And that's not a choice made by the cop. It was made by the CRIMINAL. Most of you guys want to hang the cop before the evidence is publicly known. (See Darren Wilson). Hell, even when the evidence is out there, most of you will find a way to make excuses for the criminal.
America's police force doesn't need better training. They need the support of the people they protect. Here's the bottom line: if you just listen to them, they won't shoot you. Why can't some of you understand this concept? There is no excuse for what Michael Brown did. Or this guy in Wisconsin. They deserved what they got. Not because they were black, or poor, or mentally ill. Because they were stupid. Because they didn't listen. Because they HIT A POLICE OFFICER. When has that ever been acceptable?
Yeah because just listening worked out so well for Tamir Rice and John Crawford and countless others. You can rant and rave about CRIMINALS all you want, people who aren't breaking the law will continue to be shot and killed because of the unconditional support people like you give to police.
Should we stop all surgical procedures or rewrite current practices because doctors have screwed up in the line of work?
Should we imprison doctors for malpractice that results in death?
When a surgical procedure results in death that isn't expected, the cause is investigated. When it is due to physician error or even malpractice, you can bet that there are consequences. If the harm is deliberate or due to reckless behaviour, then yes, the physician can go to jail, although that situation is rare. And of course "current practices" in surgery are constantly being researched and improved upon to improve results - is that the same for policing? Surgery has very strict protocols and checklists to ensure that proper procedures are followed. And I think someone mentioned education and training as well. Surgeons are required to have quite a lot of that, continuing every year that they practice. 400 hundred hours of continuing education every 5 years, in fact. That's part of why surgical practice continues to improve.
I'd bet you more cops go to jail for 'malpractice' than doctors do. I've heard of doctors losing their license after multiple botched surgeries, but that's about it to be honest.
If we were to persist with this line of discussion... it would be important to note that as delicate as a surgeon's work might be... it's rather static versus the fluidity of a cop's work- not to mention the fact that 'clientele' factors in as well. Dealing with potentially dangerous people heightens the senses more than a prepped and drugged patient would. I guess I'm trying to say that I can understand cop error more than a surgeon's given the variables.
If I was brash, I'd question how many times people have died from complications in surgery that were more error on the part of the attending surgeon than what may have been revealed. If one was to doubt the 'he went for my gun' excuse... it seems only natural they would doubt 'he wasn't strong enough' or 'there was nothing we could do' as well.
* Education is significant. I would be completely in favor of recertification models where cops needed to recertify every 2-3 years: fitness, aptitude, performance considerations, etc. I'd also like to see more professional development opportunities (without knowing exactly what currently exists). Whatever we do... let's not pretend a cop needs as much education as a surgeon though
How about backing it up with statistic links for cop and doctors going to jail then, if you're so sure...
0
Options
hedonist
standing on the edge of forever Posts: 24,524
And do me a favor and actually read the three links I posted, especially the one about the Czech Republic and the one after with a lot of bolding. Unless, you're not going to debate...
That's right Musky, because you refuse to acknowledge the problem going on, you'll continue to live in flat out denial that there's a huge problem staring straight at YOU.
It is absolutely deplorable that you can sleep at night knowing that people are getting killed unjustly, yet police get away with it especially lately, with the law behind them supporting the continual racism and brutality. Continue to blindly live in denial.
Everyone, welcome to the Police state, now everyone... OBEY!
I assure you I sleep like a baby... Thumb in my mouth w/ cows jumping over white pickets fences and all that Jazz.
Comments
ETA: After finding the next 3 links, it is police training techniques that they actually use semantics to lead trainees to believe that they're shooting to disarm or stop and NOT kill. But don't be stupid, we all know what shooting in the chest means…death.
http://www.policeone.com/use-of-force/articles/3468102-Shooting-center-mass-The-dangers-of-denial/
Shooting center mass: The dangers of denial
In the third and final part of this three-part series, PoliceOne Contributor Roy Bedard looks at police deadly force training in the United States
Apr 22, 2011
Even with about three-quarters of a million police officers working the streets of America — 24 hours a day, seven days a week — few will ever actually exercise their highest level of authority. With all of the deadly threats presented to police officers, America can typically expect only between 300-400 incidents of law enforcement officers firing their weapons at persons annually. Incredibly, it is estimated that in America, less than 12 percent of police officers will ever draw and fire their weapons at another person — in the entire course of their career!
If this number seems extraordinarily low to you, consider that in most western European countries, the career totals for shots fired at people hover around one to five percent. In Latin America, the number is higher, but still is remarkably low in comparison to the United States. In Asia, police use of deadly force is virtually non-existent. Certainly these numbers do not mean that most police officials never face deadly threats — indeed, nearly every police official who makes a career in law enforcement will face multiple incidents where the use of deadly force would have been justified and appropriate. Recent research indicates that a full 92 percent of police officers can recount a situation were they could have used deadly force and yet chose not to do so.
Still, when law enforcement recruits enter the profession they immediately begin preparing for the possibility that one day they may be confronted with the need to kill — or be killed. Nearly all blocks of instruction are laced with this common theme. There are many internal and external variables which must be addressed in order to give clarity during that critical moment; how to control stress, how to react to changing circumstances, how to push on and finish the fight even if you are the first to receive a wound.
When officers recite the “we don’t shoot to kill” mantra — and believe it — we may reasonably conclude that they are not properly prepared to take a human life. Deluding officers into actually believing that police are not supposed to kill — or are even allowed to kill — creates a deadly mental block that will most likely surface in that critical moment of truth — when ending a life for the sake of the greater good may be necessary.
Further, the mantra sends the wrong message to the community. That message indicates that whenever a subject is killed at the hands of a law enforcement officer, then something must have been done wrong, for surely law enforcement does not shoot to kill — they only shoot to stop.
For most informed citizens it is an academic certainty that shooting to kill is not something police do (talk about ammunition for civil rights attorneys and fuel for media persecution!). Should law enforcement officers actually expect to be held to a standard lower than the very one which THEY have created?
Recall the last time that a shooting occurred in your hometown — or in a town within your local TV station’s broadcast area. Is it any wonder that someone asked — and they ALWAYS ask — “Why didn’t the police shoot the subject in the leg or arm — why did they have to shoot him in chest? Why didn’t they try to stop him instead of killing him?”
Last week I wrote about a conversation I’d had with a police trainer in the Czech Republic. I tried to imagine a circumstance where an officer would intentionally leg shoot someone in police work. I thought about subject/officer factors whereby an aggressive subject who is unarmed but is so much larger than the police official that shooting them may be a justified response.
The hurdle to get over is whether this subject is SO large that the officer could justify killing them because their size and apparent strength would be considered in and of itself — deadly. Regardless of this factor, the paper would probably report, ‘Officer Shoots Unarmed Citizen,’ and the agency would struggle to explain the ambiguous variable.
In training we grab students out of their seats and pair them off, a really big one and a really small one. We kind of shrug our shoulders and say, “OK — I guess with these two students this one would be justified in killing that one, you know it’s a grey area.”
Someone almost always shouts out, “I’d rather be tried by twelve then carried by six!” What can you say to that? Our training has been reduced to a flip of the coin.
I thought about short-range weapons that only pose an imminent deadly threat in the close quarters. Not firearms but sticks, knives, bottles, rocks. The standard US response to a subject approaching with one of these weapons is to shoot center mass. We not only stop the threat, we usually kill the threat. But a leg shot…that can stop a subject from advancing and mitigate the threat of the close range weapon. We already teach officers how to move and shoot. Move forward, move backwards, move and shoot.
Keep the distance, fire at the legs, drop the bad-guy — is it possible? Is it reasonable?
After Thoughts
The purpose of sharing this experience is not to push an agenda but rather to present an opportunity to think once again about our policing methodologies. By thinking about it again we will either see a need to change, or gain stronger resolve in our current commitment. There are so many things that we have stopped thinking about in police work because we have grown comfortable in our methods and manners. But like everything in history, yesterday’s certainties usually become tomorrow’s superstitions.
The argument has been made that we don’t shoot to kill, because if we did, we would continue firing even after the threat has stopped. Time and again officers empty their magazines into suspects, firing until the weapon runs dry. It’s common where suspects are filled with dozens of bullets when the smoke clears. We are aware that “over-shoot” is a survival instinct bought on by high arousal and extreme stress — it is something that we can explain but also something that invariably casts doubt on our training methods.
America is a strange place. Police officers and their agencies are constantly under the threat of lawsuits and this is different than in most other parts of the world. Adopting more difficult policies raises the level of responsibility and ultimately the officer’s accountability. Where the civil courts allow failed responsibilities to be paid out in monetary premiums, no one is eager to lay down their own minefield. Damned if you do — damned if you don’t as the saying goes.
This is probably why American police are reluctant to adopt policies that suggest that shooting in certain scenarios might be intended only to wound, for fear that a wounding shot might accidentally kill. No, it is better for a killing shot to accidentally wound. American police routinely adopt policies that plan for the worst, and hope for the best.
Center mass shots will likely remain the only target area taught and supported by training in the United States. If we don’t have a justification to kill, then we simply teach to not shoot. We prefer a model where we aren’t forced to account so much for accuracy, rather our mission is to describe the elements of using deadly force. We prefer that our accountability virtually end at the squeeze of the trigger.
If the bullet hits and kills, that’s OK — if it doesn’t kill, perhaps that’s better?
http://www.policeone.com/use-of-force/articles/3468104-Shooting-center-mass-Im-told-we-kill-everyone/
Shooting center mass: I'm told we kill everyone...
In part two of this three-part series, PoliceOne Contributor Roy Bedard recalls a discussion he’d had with a police trainer in the Czech Republic
Apr 15, 2011
The Czech Republic is one of the most modern countries in the former communist block, and is quickly becoming a recognized leader in the global law enforcement profession. They are considered quite modern and up to date on western theory, technology, and applications. They produce one of the world’s finest firearms, and are great contributors to the advancement of law enforcement methodologies. Not long ago, while I was giving presentations in the Czech Republic, I was confronted by an unusual perspective that has comparative value to our system of policing here in the United States.
A group of police officers had invited me to visit their police firing range, a modern indoor facility on academy property. The firing range was beautiful — well constructed with proper protective devices in place. Full body silhouette targets could be easily changed behind the hot line, and mechanically sent to various distances. There were men and women in-service who were qualifying with their Czech pistols.
When the signal was given to fire a large plume of smoke arose from the line. During the first volley each officer shot about four or five rounds. I squinted my eyes and looked downrange. Though born with poor vision, my eyes were good enough to see that not one single target had a bullet hole in center mass. Then, scanning the targets more closely I saw what appeared to be holes — lots of holes — in the legs of the target.
“My God,” I thought to myself, “this cannot be coincidence.”
I looked over my shoulder to the range master, who was preparing for the next sequence. “Why are they shooting in the legs?” I said, half smiling, trying to approach the question casually.
“This was a non-lethal drill,” he said without hesitation.
I felt like a fish out of water. I was startled by his answer. It no sense to me. “But if you are shooting at them, how is it a non-lethal drill?”
Looking at me as strangely as I was looking at him, he replied, “We shoot in the extremities, to wound them.”
We’d a reached an impasse on the issue, so we dropped it and the drills continued.
During lunch, I sat with the trainer and reopened the conversation.
“So tell me again about shooting in the legs?”
“Oh, I forgot, you are an American. You kill everyone!”
I thought to myself, “Whoa, hold on there Skippy, you’ve got to be kidding me — we kill everyone?!”
I guess he could read the incredulous look on my face because he said, “Look, I’ve been to the U.S. I’ve trained there. You teach all shots go to center mass followed by a head shot.”
“Yeah, but…” I said, my mind racing for an intelligent response. “There are reasons why we shoot at those locations.”
I began by telling him about deadly force in the United States. I was sure he had missed this part of his classroom instruction — perhaps it was the language barrier, I didn’t know — so I was going defend our method of using deadly force and outline the reasons why we only shot center mass.
I spoke rapidly, trying to outline our entire concept of police use of force. I told him that it was the largest target area of the body and the easiest to hit. I felt like I needed a chalkboard, some chalk. I wanted to draw pictures and graphs, use arrows and lines, and write smart-sounding definitions. I wanted to ‘wow’ him with my deep understanding of this issue and make him take back that last statement. I was, after all, the ‘expert’ they’d invited in from a foreign country. Besides, I couldn’t just let it go.
“We don’t shoot to kill,” I said. “We shoot to stop.”
He nodded and said, “Yeah, but that’s where your vitals are and a shot there would likely kill you.”
His arrogance was remarkable. I told him that it was our job to stop a subject, and the chest was the best area for doing that.
“Have you ever been shot in the leg?” He asked.
“Um, No.”
“Well, that will stop you — it is very painful.”
Now he was really getting under my skin.
“OK,” I said, “but surely your officers under stress are not going to demonstrate the marksmanship qualities they have on the range.” How in the world do you expect them to hit a skinny leg in motion?”
I had him this time.
“Here in the Czech Republic, most of our shootings occur in very close distance, two to three meters?” he retorted.
“Yeah,” I said without thinking, “It’s pretty much the same for us.”
Wrinkling his face, he replied, “You don’t think you can hit a leg at a distance of three to six feet?”
I reeled back — this guy was pissing me off.
“Okay,” I said, “but what if the round passes through? What about the round striking an innocent person who happened to be on the other side of the target?” Now I had him against the ropes, surely these cops are mindful of the dynamic environment in which law enforcement plays out.
Again, he responded without hesitation. “That’s another reason why we aim to the legs. At the distance we usually fire — remember, two to three meters — the bullet has a trajectory towards the ground of only a few feet. A pass through is rare — we use hollow point bullets — but if it does occur, it is not likely to travel much farther.”
He paused, and continued, “You see Roy, here in the Czech Republic we don’t always shoot to kill. Sometimes we shoot to stop — it’s our non lethal shooting.”
I countered, “Non-lethal shots… huh? C’mon, You know, there is probably not a single square inch on the body that is not packed with veins, arteries, or major group of blood rich capillaries that once shot will cause the subject to bleed out.”
As soon as I spoke I realized was now becoming indignant and desperate.
“Yes sir, there is always that possibility, but with medical technology today it is rare that a non-vital shot will ever result in death.”
I thought back to something I heard in the academy years ago. It was meant to be inspirational, but had also become a statistical fact in countries with modern emergency services.
“If you are shot, and you know you are shot, you will probably survive the wound.”
I’ve repeated this many times in the classroom but never had I considered it from the other guy’s perspective. It would be true that if a bad guy was shot and he knew he was shot, he too would likely survive the wound. I guessed that most cops — if forced to take a round in a gunfight — would also rather be shot in the leg than in the heart or head, based solely on the probability of survival. It was intuitive and didn’t require a survey. But I wasn’t done yet. I was representing decades of solid professional American law enforcement philosophy. This whole, “we don’t shoot to kill” concept was a cornerstone of modern police training.
I came back with a fastball. “Well, what if the guy is shooting at you? Dropping him to the ground with a leg shot may stop the forward attack but it is not likely to stop the threat?” he can still fire at you — and you wont have time to assess the continued threat to see if he stopped!
He grinned at me, “If he is shooting at you? Well, then we use lethal shots — two to the chest, one to the head.”
He smacked it out of the park. If you are being shot at, well, then you use lethal shots — two to the chest and one on the head. Of course you do!
I couldn’t believe it. I had never heard anyone do that before, but this guy had given a reasonable explanation for non-lethal shots. My thoughts on the issue had clearly been on autopilot for years. After years of linear thinking my view of deadly force had actually come to a fork in the road.
WASHINGTON -- The fatal shooting of a man by police on Tuesday near St. Louis kept the spotlight on law enforcement's use of deadly force, as protests continue in nearby Ferguson over the police shooting death of teenager Michael Brown.
The two shootings bear little resemblance to one another. Brown was an unarmed teen who, according to eyewitnesses, was trying to surrender when a police officer shot him at least six times. The man killed on Tuesday, whose name hasn't been released, was wielding a knife, according to police. When he refused officers' orders to put down his weapon and walked toward them, they shot him to death, police said.
As tensions continue to flare over Brown's death, many question the circumstances under which the law justifies a police officer's use of deadly force. When faced with a perceived threat, why is it that many officers shoot to kill, rather than simply to wound?
Members of law enforcement are legally permitted to use deadly force when they have probable cause to believe that a suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm either to the officer or to others. In such cases, most officers are trained to shoot at a target's center mass, where there is a higher concentration of vital areas and major blood vessels, according to a report by the Force Science Institute, a research center that examines deadly force encounters.
John Firman, director of research, programs, and professional services at the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said that shooting at a limb is impractical. Aiming at an arms or legs, which move fast, could result in a misfire that fails to neutralize the threat and may even hit the wrong person, he said. "The likelihood of success is low."
"That's a Hollywood myth," Firman told The Huffington Post when asked why police officers don't tend to shoot people in the limbs. "In all policy everywhere on force in any law enforcement agency in America, the bottom line statement should read: If you feel sufficiently threatened or if lives are threatened and you feel the need that you must use lethal force, then you must take out the suspect."
Officers are trained to assess the risk before firing, Firman said, but often a situation escalates quickly. A guide from his association on officer-involved shootings states that deadly force is legally justified "to protect the officer or others from what is reasonably believed to be a threat of death or serious bodily harm; and to prevent the escape of a fleeing violent felon who the officer has probable cause to believe will pose a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
The legal justification for deadly force by police is informed by the 1985 Supreme Court ruling in Tennessee v. Garner, in which a pair of police officers fatally shot a 15-year-old boy after he fled from a burglary. It turned out the boy had stolen a purse and just $10 from a house, and the Court ruled that a police officer may only use deadly force to prevent the escape of a violent felon.
Some law enforcement officials said the question of whether officers should shoot to wound or kill misses the point. Officers are often forced to make a split-second decision and are trained to try and deescalate the situation before firing.
Troy Church, a former police chief in Maiden, North Carolina, said officers are trained to shoot to stop a suspect who poses an imminent threat. "Can death result? Certainly it can," Church wrote in an email. "But you are not trained to kill."
Peter Jirasek, a retired police sergeant and criminal justice educator from Illinois, explained that the concept of shooting to wound would not hold up under Tennessee v. Garner. Jirasek said it's unfair to simply state that officers are trained to kill when lethal force is justified in some cases and discouraged in others by law.
"If you only seek to wound someone by shooting, you do not have justification to shoot at all," Jirasek said. "An attempt to shoot to wound all too often can end up in death. It does no good if a police officer says, 'I was just trying to wound and ended up killing somebody,' because that officer now faces criminal prosecution, not to mention a civil lawsuit. And the law will say the officer better be justified in using deadly force."
Jirasek added that tasers and bean bag rounds have been instituted as lesser forms of force if an officer needs to bring a suspect into compliance but has no reason to use deadly force.
Some have argued that law enforcement protocol and training should be re-examined in the wake of Brown's death, since he was unarmed and, according to eyewitnesses, wasn't posing a significant threat to the police officer who shot him. Studies have found that police officers are more likely to use excessive force toward black men than toward whites.
Those that can be trusted can change their mind.
Here in West Hollywood, there's a fair population of homeless / mentally ill. Without fail, every incident to which I've been privy has involved kind, gentle officers/sheriffs who treated each of these people with respect. That kind of training/instinct?/character goes a long, long way.
For as often as some posters cite statistics to back up... say... pitbull attacks (only to use a recent thread for example)... they haven't done a great job keeping nation wide law enforcement in perspective when presented with international newsworthy items periodically when citizens become unruly in the policing process.
Since when is the life of a cop more important than the life of the criminal? When the criminal decided he wanted to reach for the cops gun, or assault the officer. That's when. And that's not a choice made by the cop. It was made by the CRIMINAL. Most of you guys want to hang the cop before the evidence is publicly known. (See Darren Wilson). Hell, even when the evidence is out there, most of you will find a way to make excuses for the criminal.
America's police force doesn't need better training. They need the support of the people they protect. Here's the bottom line: if you just listen to them, they won't shoot you. Why can't some of you understand this concept? There is no excuse for what Michael Brown did. Or this guy in Wisconsin. They deserved what they got. Not because they were black, or poor, or mentally ill. Because they were stupid. Because they didn't listen. Because they HIT A POLICE OFFICER. When has that ever been acceptable?
Just because you want us to end every statement in the debate with a caveat about most cops being good, that doesn't mean we should have to bother to do so. If we did then you would have to end every post with a caveat about how police brutality does exist and is a problem and we would all be wasting our time.
Your comment that suggested my 'continuous ridicule of those who shine light on police brutality issues is immature' seems to have betrayed your sensitivity somewhat. If you feel ridiculed by what I have expressed, then perhaps I've touched a nerve that might make you want to examine some of your perspectives instead of lash out at me for speaking my mind.
For the record... I'm really not sure where I made a deliberate attempt to 'ridicule' anyone. If you can point me to such a moment, I might take a moment or two to rephrase or perhaps even apologize if necessary.
Should we imprison doctors for malpractice that results in death?
Publicly bashing every cop that shoots somebody is not the answer. Yes, there have been unjustified killings by police over the years. But not every one is unjustified. Most of them are 100% justified.
No, scratch that. The law allows for the police to use deadly force to protect cops from civil suits if they shoot to injure an area other than the chest and not kill who they're going after. Seriously, I'm going to refuse to debate here if you're not reading the links to back my point up. The proof is there, from a cop. Because there are two sides to this argument yet, all I'm hearing is an undying allegiance to support the police force regardless of wrongdoing to the public.
If we were to persist with this line of discussion... it would be important to note that as delicate as a surgeon's work might be... it's rather static versus the fluidity of a cop's work- not to mention the fact that 'clientele' factors in as well. Dealing with potentially dangerous people heightens the senses more than a prepped and drugged patient would. I guess I'm trying to say that I can understand cop error more than a surgeon's given the variables.
If I was brash, I'd question how many times people have died from complications in surgery that were more error on the part of the attending surgeon than what may have been revealed. If one was to doubt the 'he went for my gun' excuse... it seems only natural they would doubt 'he wasn't strong enough' or 'there was nothing we could do' as well.
* Education is significant. I would be completely in favor of recertification models where cops needed to recertify every 2-3 years: fitness, aptitude, performance considerations, etc. I'd also like to see more professional development opportunities (without knowing exactly what currently exists). Whatever we do... let's not pretend a cop needs as much education as a surgeon though
Huh?
It is absolutely deplorable that you can sleep at night knowing that people are getting killed unjustly, yet police get away with it especially lately, with the law behind them supporting the continual racism and brutality. Continue to blindly live in denial.
Everyone, welcome to the Police state, now everyone... OBEY!
Education? I'm not pretending an officer needs as much education as a surgeon, but ongoing education throughout the career would probably be helpful for policing, as with any career.
Huh?
I had trouble quoting. The first 2 paragraphs are you, of course, how do you forget calling us anti-cop continents? Don't play dumb.
Rgambs, the 2nd two.
bsL - you beg explanation (which has been provided on my part before). It doesn't.
Have you actually read about what went down in this constantly mentioned 4-on-1 situation?
Also, this "side" shit...is bullshit. Maybe that too is part of the problem.
Anyway...