I'm not sure what the argument is, other than white dude is alive and black dude is dead.... Is the argument here that the pizza-dude should have been shot, or the knife-dude should not have been and instead allowed to keep stabbing people? In your view, where did the cops go wrong? Shooting someone stabbing people, or not shooting someone with a gun?
These discussions go sideways often because people have a hard time talking about race and racism.
These discussions also go sideways when one tries to interject race when it likely wasn't the relevant or deciding factor in the outcome as CM did on the previous page.
Wow, a lot of police apologists in here. Black man gets shot & killed by police, no problems there - he had it coming. White man walks out of a similar situation alive, time and time again, suddenly we need to examine every detail and try to justify it. Race is part of it, yes. So is our militarized police force. And excessive gun culture. There's a lot of factors that go into every one of these incidents that contributes to the outcome, which somehow inevitably leads to the reoccurring headline: "black man shot by police officer, again".
One question might be: why are the police killing so many black men? A better question might be: why are we letting the police kill so many people at all?
When we live in a world where the rules of engagement are more strict for a Marine in Afghanistan, then they are for a cop in here in America, that's a big problem.
Sure, I'm an apologist. I'm an apologist for a cop who properly did his job and likely saved lives. You made an indefensible comparison between to very dissimilar events and got called on it. The cop who shot the mass attacker in Ohio did his job, and saved lives. In the process he had to kill a deranged dude. The community is better off, and the cop should be praised for his quick action. That doesn't mean all shootings by cops should be rewarded, and cops should be held to a very high standard. But you picked the wrong cart to hitch your horse to with this one. Just like the Michael Brown BLM apologists did. It doesn't help your case. There are far better examples of police abuse out there that would be relevant and important to discuss. By lumping this situation into your big bucket of evil white cops killing poor defenseless black men you devalue your position.
If the job description is 'shoot first, ask questions later', then yes the cop did his job and apologists like you will continue to see that police will continue to kill with impunity. Something like 1/10 police interactions are with someone who is mentally unstable or ill. Here are 2 examples of potentially mentally ill people being dealt with very differently by the police. Police kill a disproportionate number of US Citizens compared to other countries. And they kill a disproportionate number of black people.
Could they have taken Abdul Razak Ali Artan alive? I guess we'll never know. Edgar Welch on the other hand, will live to see the inside of a court room and his family again. I firmly believe if the roles were reversed, Abdul will still be dead and Edgar would still be alive.
You might think I'm out to lunch on this one, but once we start to normalize and accept this brutal militarization by saying things like: "F**king useless prick is dead. Good." that devalues the life of the person who was just executed without judge or jury. When you see white people getting killed by police at the same rate as black people, it won't be because the black rate decreased.
I'm not sure what the argument is, other than white dude is alive and black dude is dead.... Is the argument here that the pizza-dude should have been shot, or the knife-dude should not have been and instead allowed to keep stabbing people? In your view, where did the cops go wrong? Shooting someone stabbing people, or not shooting someone with a gun?
These discussions go sideways often because people have a hard time talking about race and racism.
These discussions also go sideways when one tries to interject race when it likely wasn't the relevant or deciding factor in the outcome as CM did on the previous page.
Wow, a lot of police apologists in here. Black man gets shot & killed by police, no problems there - he had it coming. White man walks out of a similar situation alive, time and time again, suddenly we need to examine every detail and try to justify it. Race is part of it, yes. So is our militarized police force. And excessive gun culture. There's a lot of factors that go into every one of these incidents that contributes to the outcome, which somehow inevitably leads to the reoccurring headline: "black man shot by police officer, again".
One question might be: why are the police killing so many black men? A better question might be: why are we letting the police kill so many people at all?
When we live in a world where the rules of engagement are more strict for a Marine in Afghanistan, then they are for a cop in here in America, that's a big problem.
Sure, I'm an apologist. I'm an apologist for a cop who properly did his job and likely saved lives. You made an indefensible comparison between to very dissimilar events and got called on it. The cop who shot the mass attacker in Ohio did his job, and saved lives. In the process he had to kill a deranged dude. The community is better off, and the cop should be praised for his quick action. That doesn't mean all shootings by cops should be rewarded, and cops should be held to a very high standard. But you picked the wrong cart to hitch your horse to with this one. Just like the Michael Brown BLM apologists did. It doesn't help your case. There are far better examples of police abuse out there that would be relevant and important to discuss. By lumping this situation into your big bucket of evil white cops killing poor defenseless black men you devalue your position.
If the job description is 'shoot first, ask questions later', then yes the cop did his job and apologists like you will continue to see that police will continue to kill with impunity. Something like 1/10 police interactions are with someone who is mentally unstable or ill. Here are 2 examples of potentially mentally ill people being dealt with very differently by the police. Police kill a disproportionate number of US Citizens compared to other countries. And they kill a disproportionate number of black people.
Could they have taken Abdul Razak Ali Artan alive? I guess we'll never know. Edgar Welch on the other hand, will live to see the inside of a court room and his family again. I firmly believe if the roles were reversed, Abdul will still be dead and Edgar would still be alive.
You might think I'm out to lunch on this one, but once we start to normalize and accept this brutal militarization by saying things like: "F**king useless prick is dead. Good." that devalues the life of the person who was just executed without judge or jury. When you see white people getting killed by police at the same rate as black people, it won't be because the black rate decreased.
I agree with most of your first paragraph except for your initial premise that their description is to shoot first and ask questions later. Police do deal with the mentally ill frequently, and need to change the way they deal with them. I know that Seattle PD ended up being subjected to DOJ oversight and a plan to change the behavior of the organization and over the last couple of years have been retrained to deal with the mentally ill. The result is fewer encounters that result in arrest, fewer encounters that result in escalation of violence, etc... The police need to be better trained to deal with the mentally ill for sure. I also agree that police militarization needs to decrease, and more community policing needs to happen. Walk beats, talk to citizens, don't walk around like thugs in body armor intimidating citizens.
But again, you go back to these current examples, and lose me. Could they have taken Abdul Razak Ali Artan alive? I agree, we'll never know. We'll never know because instead of dropping his weapon and surrendering/complying, he continued his rampage, and left the cop no alternative but to use deadly force to save the lives of innocents. I don't actually value all life equally, and certainly value the life of a violent offender far less than I do the lives of innocents - yes, regardless of color, so don't play that game. Edgar Welch will live to see the inside of the court room and his family again because he dropped his weapon and complied. I absolutely do not believe that if the roles were reversed Abdul would still be dead and Edgar would still be alive. Different behaviors led to different outcomes. And the shooting of Abdul had no relation to police militarization. This was a campus cop who arrived on scene quickly and took necessary action to save lives. If you had a son/daughter/brother/sister on that campus you'd be glad for what the cop did. Second guess all you want. You've got the luxury of time, hindsight, and the safety of your desk. The cop didn't have that luxury, and acted appropriately given the circumstances.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
I agree with most of your first paragraph except for your initial premise that their description is to shoot first and ask questions later. Police do deal with the mentally ill frequently, and need to change the way they deal with them. I know that Seattle PD ended up being subjected to DOJ oversight and a plan to change the behavior of the organization and over the last couple of years have been retrained to deal with the mentally ill. The result is fewer encounters that result in arrest, fewer encounters that result in escalation of violence, etc... The police need to be better trained to deal with the mentally ill for sure. I also agree that police militarization needs to decrease, and more community policing needs to happen. Walk beats, talk to citizens, don't walk around like thugs in body armor intimidating citizens.
But again, you go back to these current examples, and lose me. Could they have taken Abdul Razak Ali Artan alive? I agree, we'll never know. We'll never know because instead of dropping his weapon and surrendering/complying, he continued his rampage, and left the cop no alternative but to use deadly force to save the lives of innocents. I don't actually value all life equally, and certainly value the life of a violent offender far less than I do the lives of innocents - yes, regardless of color, so don't play that game. Edgar Welch will live to see the inside of the court room and his family again because he dropped his weapon and complied. I absolutely do not believe that if the roles were reversed Abdul would still be dead and Edgar would still be alive. Different behaviors led to different outcomes. And the shooting of Abdul had no relation to police militarization. This was a campus cop who arrived on scene quickly and took necessary action to save lives. If you had a son/daughter/brother/sister on that campus you'd be glad for what the cop did. Second guess all you want. You've got the luxury of time, hindsight, and the safety of your desk. The cop didn't have that luxury, and acted appropriately given the circumstances.
“In some cases, the deceased may have committed acts of violence against others before they were killed. Perhaps they were domestic abusers, perhaps they threatened or killed others. This possibility is not something to shy away from. The protest against police brutality extends to the innocent and the guilty alike, because we know that no matter the crime, justice and due process don’t come from a cop’s bullet,” Abidi said while reading the eulogy.
I'd be inclined to agree with you, if I didn't see the same pattern over and over again. What happens after these incidents? After an interaction with a police officer leaves a citizen dead. Charges are rarely filed. If charges are filed, they are rarely convicted. Then the survivors of the deceased sue for wrongful death, the state/city/county settles out of court so there's no judgement against them. These settlements are costing taxpayers millions of dollars.
How do you reconcile those outcomes? No criminal conviction, but cash settlement to make it all go away?
I agree with most of your first paragraph except for your initial premise that their description is to shoot first and ask questions later. Police do deal with the mentally ill frequently, and need to change the way they deal with them. I know that Seattle PD ended up being subjected to DOJ oversight and a plan to change the behavior of the organization and over the last couple of years have been retrained to deal with the mentally ill. The result is fewer encounters that result in arrest, fewer encounters that result in escalation of violence, etc... The police need to be better trained to deal with the mentally ill for sure. I also agree that police militarization needs to decrease, and more community policing needs to happen. Walk beats, talk to citizens, don't walk around like thugs in body armor intimidating citizens.
But again, you go back to these current examples, and lose me. Could they have taken Abdul Razak Ali Artan alive? I agree, we'll never know. We'll never know because instead of dropping his weapon and surrendering/complying, he continued his rampage, and left the cop no alternative but to use deadly force to save the lives of innocents. I don't actually value all life equally, and certainly value the life of a violent offender far less than I do the lives of innocents - yes, regardless of color, so don't play that game. Edgar Welch will live to see the inside of the court room and his family again because he dropped his weapon and complied. I absolutely do not believe that if the roles were reversed Abdul would still be dead and Edgar would still be alive. Different behaviors led to different outcomes. And the shooting of Abdul had no relation to police militarization. This was a campus cop who arrived on scene quickly and took necessary action to save lives. If you had a son/daughter/brother/sister on that campus you'd be glad for what the cop did. Second guess all you want. You've got the luxury of time, hindsight, and the safety of your desk. The cop didn't have that luxury, and acted appropriately given the circumstances.
“In some cases, the deceased may have committed acts of violence against others before they were killed. Perhaps they were domestic abusers, perhaps they threatened or killed others. This possibility is not something to shy away from. The protest against police brutality extends to the innocent and the guilty alike, because we know that no matter the crime, justice and due process don’t come from a cop’s bullet,” Abidi said while reading the eulogy.
I'd be inclined to agree with you, if I didn't see the same pattern over and over again. What happens after these incidents? After an interaction with a police officer leaves a citizen dead. Charges are rarely filed. If charges are filed, they are rarely convicted. Then the survivors of the deceased sue for wrongful death, the state/city/county settles out of court so there's no judgement against them. These settlements are costing taxpayers millions of dollars.
How do you reconcile those outcomes? No criminal conviction, but cash settlement to make it all go away?
That eulogy doesn't move me. If the dead dude was a violent asshole, then we're all better off. But anyway, back to your post, I also have a big problem when it appears charges should be filed but aren't. I think cops and prosecutors protect their own. But I don't believe charges should be filed in many cases that cause BLM to protest. I accept that there are times when lethal force is necessary to save potential loss of innocent life. I also understand that when a family doesn't see justice on the criminal side, they file civilly since the bar is lower. And it many cases it makes sense for the case to be settled so that even more money isn't spent on the defense against the suit. It is often times cheaper to settle than to defend, unfortunately. But in general I would love to see more police accountability. i'd love to see police departments held to higher standards. They need to be retrained to get back to community policing. They need to be retrained to be able to deal effectively with the mentally ill. They need to be demilitarized, since that show of force often aggravates and escalates situations. It can be expensive and it can shake up the rank and file, but I know that it has done wonders for the Seattle PD. That article you linked to about the settlements in Chicago was an interesting and frustrating read. There is certainly injustice that needs to have more focus and attention.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Comments
Could they have taken Abdul Razak Ali Artan alive? I guess we'll never know.
Edgar Welch on the other hand, will live to see the inside of a court room and his family again.
I firmly believe if the roles were reversed, Abdul will still be dead and Edgar would still be alive.
You might think I'm out to lunch on this one, but once we start to normalize and accept this brutal militarization by saying things like: "F**king useless prick is dead. Good." that devalues the life of the person who was just executed without judge or jury. When you see white people getting killed by police at the same rate as black people, it won't be because the black rate decreased.
But again, you go back to these current examples, and lose me. Could they have taken Abdul Razak Ali Artan alive? I agree, we'll never know. We'll never know because instead of dropping his weapon and surrendering/complying, he continued his rampage, and left the cop no alternative but to use deadly force to save the lives of innocents. I don't actually value all life equally, and certainly value the life of a violent offender far less than I do the lives of innocents - yes, regardless of color, so don't play that game. Edgar Welch will live to see the inside of the court room and his family again because he dropped his weapon and complied. I absolutely do not believe that if the roles were reversed Abdul would still be dead and Edgar would still be alive. Different behaviors led to different outcomes. And the shooting of Abdul had no relation to police militarization. This was a campus cop who arrived on scene quickly and took necessary action to save lives. If you had a son/daughter/brother/sister on that campus you'd be glad for what the cop did. Second guess all you want. You've got the luxury of time, hindsight, and the safety of your desk. The cop didn't have that luxury, and acted appropriately given the circumstances.
I'd be inclined to agree with you, if I didn't see the same pattern over and over again. What happens after these incidents? After an interaction with a police officer leaves a citizen dead.
Charges are rarely filed.
If charges are filed, they are rarely convicted.
Then the survivors of the deceased sue for wrongful death, the state/city/county settles out of court so there's no judgement against them.
These settlements are costing taxpayers millions of dollars.
How do you reconcile those outcomes? No criminal conviction, but cash settlement to make it all go away?