Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 25 Nov 2015, 8:40 am

As much as I believe the Black Lives Matter movement is flawed, who can deny the continued overreaction and disproportionate use of lethal force against African Americans?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/30/us/police-videos-race.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=image&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

This pattern simply continues unabated. I don't get it. Is there some kind of siege mentality on the part of white policemen that motivates them to be so blazon?

Take the case of the shooting in Chicago posted here....isn't it at least possible that the suspect be shot in his legs should he refuse to obey police directives to cease and desist? Why at presumably point blank range are we shooting to kill?

My guess is that ultimately these types of police are overcome with adrenaline and fear which absolutely clouds their judgement and training (assuming of course that police are trained to shoot to kill only as a last resort?)

And it's easy for me to say since I'm not a policeman and I've never been placed in these types of situations but if this had been me, I would not have shot the kid. And even if I were inclined to shoot him I would have targeted his legs in order to immobilize him.

Why shoot to kill?

I'm told by a friend and former officer that shooting to kill is part of their training. He assured me that there is no room for nuanced decisions once weapons are engaged. Once the decision to shoot is made, police are trained to shoot to kill. I struggle to believe this. Aren't US Special Forces trained to shoot to wound in some cases? Couldn't that training become part of police training?

The protests in Chicaco have been tame so far. This comes as a shock to me.

Whatever the training these guys receive, it needs an overhaul.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 25 Nov 2015, 9:24 am

Dag,
Although not a special forces member, I was involved in military/drug interdiction operations with fatalities of suspects. I have been trained on weapons from small arms to large caliber weaponry.

Your friend is correct. There is NO room for "shooting to wound" in a hostile situation. People are moving/running and waving arms. We are trained to shoot the "center of body mass".

This officer who shot the suspect on the ground was in the wrong. He should have stopped shooting after the assailant dropped to the ground, got in guard position and proceeded with apprehension of suspect.

This young man (17 y.o.) was in the wrong for waving a knife, stabbing car tires and not following police instructions. He turned with a weapon toward police officers with a hostile action and was shot.

I was not trained to shoot in the last resort, I was trained to shoot when the criteria for threat was met, and to stop when threat was removed.

We agree on the officer doing wrong. Do you think the man was in the wrong also?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 25 Nov 2015, 10:06 am

dag hammarsjkold wrote:As much as I believe the Black Lives Matter movement is flawed, who can deny the continued overreaction and disproportionate use of lethal force against African Americans?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/07/30/us/police-videos-race.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=image&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

This pattern simply continues unabated. I don't get it. Is there some kind of siege mentality on the part of white policemen that motivates them to be so blazon?


"Brazen" is what you mean.

I think looking at some videos from all over the country over many months and calling it a "pattern" is a fundamentally flawed premise.

Take the case of the shooting in Chicago posted here....isn't it at least possible that the suspect be shot in his legs should he refuse to obey police directives to cease and desist? Why at presumably point blank range are we shooting to kill?


No, not how officers are trained. Even so, the officer is being charged with murder. Do you suppose other officers want to follow his example?

The bigger question in this case: why did it take a year and a court order to release the recording? Why did it take a year to charge the officer?

My guess is that ultimately these types of police are overcome with adrenaline and fear which absolutely clouds their judgement and training (assuming of course that police are trained to shoot to kill only as a last resort?)


We are trained to shoot to stop the suspect IF he/she presents a danger to ourselves or someone else.

And it's easy for me to say since I'm not a policeman and I've never been placed in these types of situations but if this had been me, I would not have shot the kid. And even if I were inclined to shoot him I would have targeted his legs in order to immobilize him.


He should not have been shot, hence the charge of murder.

I'm told by a friend and former officer that shooting to kill is part of their training. He assured me that there is no room for nuanced decisions once weapons are engaged. Once the decision to shoot is made, police are trained to shoot to kill. I struggle to believe this. Aren't US Special Forces trained to shoot to wound in some cases? Couldn't that training become part of police training?


Whatever the threat is, it has to be stopped. If the threat is armed, wounding him/her won't do any good--they will still harm the other individual.

Whatever the training these guys receive, it needs an overhaul.


Maybe. Sometimes they just hire the wrong guys. Some guys get overwhelmed.

I think it's tough to look at a few incidents (relatively speaking) and make broad generalizations.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 26 Nov 2015, 7:38 am

How Police Training Contributes to Avoidable Deaths

The article below goes into the training of officers and why it should change.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/arc ... on/383681/

In most police shootings, officers don’t shoot out of anger or frustration or hatred. They shoot because they are afraid. And they are afraid because they are constantly barraged with the message that that they should be afraid, that their survival depends on it. Not only do officers hear it in formal training, they also hear it informally from supervisors and older officers. They talk about it with their peers. They see it on police forums and law enforcement publications. For example, three of the four stories mentioned on the cover of this month’s Police Magazine are about dealing with threats to officer safet
y.

Police reform requires more than changes to training, of course. The policing mission needs to be focused on keeping communities safe and free from fear—including from fear of officers themselves. There are deep racial tensions in law enforcement that will only be healed through a long-term, sustained commitment to cooperative policing and community engagement. We need to rethink the many legal, structural, and social impediments to investigating officer-involved violence and the institutional reluctance to accept independent oversight, particularly civilian review. The path to real and lasting change is daunting, and it will involve many years and many steps. One of those steps must be changing the way police officers are trained


Fate
No, not how officers are trained. Even so, the officer is being charged with murder. Do you suppose other officers want to follow his example

Until video fro citizens and then police cars became common, few officers were ever charged or convicted. The history in Chicago is particularly dismal. And without the release of the video, it seems that the shooting of Laquan McDonald might also have gone without charges.
Now, perhaps with a few charged and even convicted, policing behaviors might change. Training might change.

Fate
I think looking at some videos from all over the country over many months and calling it a "pattern" is a fundamentally flawed premise.

I think what others see is a pattern of resort to deadly force before the situation being recorded seems to warrant the force.
I would guess that a product of police training sees it differently because of the training.
Is the training right? Or is the training wrong?
“I was trained to fight the war on crime, and we were measured by the number of arrests we made and our speed in answering 911 calls,” said Kathleen O’Toole, the Seattle police chief, who is overseeing the department’s changes as part of a consent decree with the Justice Department.
“But over time,” she continued, “I realized that policing went well beyond that, and we are really making an effort here to engage with people, not just enforce the law
.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/us/lo ... alate.html
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 26 Nov 2015, 8:59 am

You are still a liar.

You are still an arrogant coward.

Happy Thanksgiving!

The article you posted. The guy did 5 years as an officer. Read this and tell me how credible it is:

Seth served as an officer with the Tallahassee Police Department for five years. In that time, he trained other officers in report writing, helped create policies to govern the use of new technologies, earned multiple instructor and operator certifications, and taught personal safety and self-defense courses in the community. In 2004, he received a Formal Achievement Award for his role as a founding member of the Special Response Team.


Now, I'm sure it's "true." However, there's something not said here. What is it? I don't know. What I do know is to go from zero to hero in 5 years is about as likely as winning the lottery on purpose--unless there was a political boost from the beginning. That's just not what happens. It takes a year before you even have a clue what you're doing in terms of doing more than answering calls, etc. Even the most capable person could not get that far, that fast without something external moving the process forward.

rickyp wrote:In most police shootings, officers don’t shoot out of anger or frustration or hatred. They shoot because they are afraid. And they are afraid because they are constantly barraged with the message that that they should be afraid, that their survival depends on it. Not only do officers hear it in formal training, they also hear it informally from supervisors and older officers. They talk about it with their peers. They see it on police forums and law enforcement publications. For example, three of the four stories mentioned on the cover of this month’s Police Magazine are about dealing with threats to officer safety . . .

Police reform requires more than changes to training, of course. The policing mission needs to be focused on keeping communities safe and free from fear—including from fear of officers themselves. There are deep racial tensions in law enforcement that will only be healed through a long-term, sustained commitment to cooperative policing and community engagement. We need to rethink the many legal, structural, and social impediments to investigating officer-involved violence and the institutional reluctance to accept independent oversight, particularly civilian review. The path to real and lasting change is daunting, and it will involve many years and many steps. One of those steps must be changing the way police officers are trained


I'm open to examining training. However, the notion that officers need not work with the idea that each contact is potentially dangerous is just foolhardy and will result in more officers being seriously injured or killed. Should I start posting videos of dashcam vids of officers being beaten and shot? There are plenty of them. In fact, some might call it "a pattern."

When I see these videos, I see the mistakes they make--getting too close, taking a poor position, positioning their weapon near the contact, etc. That's poor officer safety--generally the result of being too relaxed, not too nervous or frightened.

Fate
No, not how officers are trained. Even so, the officer is being charged with murder. Do you suppose other officers want to follow his example

Until video fro citizens and then police cars became common, few officers were ever charged or convicted.


Even so, this is not a common occurrence. And, in many instances, so-called "excessive force" was justified. This is not a systemic problem--except that the system demands we hire human beings. They cannot be perfectly screened and bad ones sometimes get through.

Furthermore, I understand the officer in Chicago had a rather checkered record. You know what makes it difficult to get rid of bad cops? Unions and civil service protections. Who fights the hardest to keep those in place? Democrats because they are bought and paid for by union money.

The history in Chicago is particularly dismal. And without the release of the video, it seems that the shooting of Laquan McDonald might also have gone without charges.


Do you have any evidence that the liberal Democrats in Chicago were not going to charge the officer? Any evidence at all? Or, are you just making it up?

DO NOT SKIP THAT QUESTION!!!! You like to do that when I put my finger on a particularly weak point of yours. If you skip it, it will again underscore your complete lack of integrity.

Now, perhaps with a few charged and even convicted, policing behaviors might change. Training might change.


That situation has NOTHING to do with training.

The officer is not trained to shoot suspects in the back 16 times. Ever. No department does that.

Fate
I think looking at some videos from all over the country over many months and calling it a "pattern" is a fundamentally flawed premise.

I think what others see is a pattern of resort to deadly force before the situation being recorded seems to warrant the force.


Right, based on a handful of videos taken over a couple of years, covering the whole country???

I would guess that a product of police training sees it differently because of the training.
Is the training right? Or is the training wrong?


Thanks for asking. The training officers receive is fine. That a handful of officers don't respond well is not the fault of training. Shoot/don't shoot situations cannot be fully trained. You can't put people in situations where their lives are on the line in order to know how they will respond.

That said, have you ever seen videos of journalists and social activists going through simulated police training? I love those videos. Why? Because idiot skeptics learn real fast how hard the job is--even though it is impossible for the skeptics to get hurt!

“I was trained to fight the war on crime, and we were measured by the number of arrests we made and our speed in answering 911 calls,” said Kathleen O’Toole, the Seattle police chief, who is overseeing the department’s changes as part of a consent decree with the Justice Department.
“But over time,” she continued, “I realized that policing went well beyond that, and we are really making an effort here to engage with people, not just enforce the law
.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/us/lo ... alate.html
[/quote]

She's a politician. Read her wiki.

While serving as Commissioner of the Boston Police, O'Toole was a central figure in the controversy surrounding the fatal shooting of Victoria Snelgrove during the celebrations of the Boston Red Sox victory over the rival New York Yankees in the 2004 American League Championship Series, in which riot police fired a "less lethal" FN 303 round, which missed its intended target and struck Ms Snelgrove in the eye, entering her brain and killing her. Ambulances were unable to provide timely treatment to Snelgrove due to the still unruly crowd. While Commissioner O'Toole demoted Superintendent James Claiborne, who was not in the vicinity of the shooting and suspended two officers involved in the incident, no prosecution or dismissal was brought against any officer in the case. Investigations by U.S. Attorney Donald K. Stern and Suffolk County District Attorney Daniel F. Conley concluded that criminal charges would not be appropriate.


Now, answer my question or show yourself (again) to be a liar: Do you have any evidence that the liberal Democrats in Chicago were not going to charge the officer?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 26 Nov 2015, 9:45 am

evidence that chicago might not have charged the officer...(Before the video was released under FOI)

http://chicagoreporter.com/how-chicago- ... execution/

and there's a long history of corruption...including the use of torture to get confessions from black men.The history of corruption has to make one suspect a continuing climate of expected impunity.

http://pols.uic.edu/docs/default-source ... f?sfvrsn=2


fate

However, the notion that officers need not work with the idea that each contact is potentially dangerous is just foolhardy and will result in more officers being seriously injured or killed


You understand that what black lives matter is about...
That right now, and for some time, any young black man has to worry that any interaction with police is potentially dangerous....
And its police training and officer selection that contributes to their danger?
19 weeks and a high school education seems to be pretty low bar to getting a position where life and death decisions are made... And when the officers are trained to treat each encounter as potentially deadly for them .... it ratchets up the probability of resort to deadly force...

The video of Laquan being shot doesn't show him to be threatening anyone at the time he was killed.
It took 14 months for the video to be released, on the same day that charges were finally laid... Coincidence?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 26 Nov 2015, 10:17 am

rickyp wrote:evidence that chicago might not have charged the officer...(Before the video was released under FOI)

http://chicagoreporter.com/how-chicago- ... execution/


Hey hypocrite, that story has an UNNAMED source!

and there's a long history of corruption...including the use of torture to get confessions from black men.The history of corruption has to make one suspect a continuing climate of expected impunity.

http://pols.uic.edu/docs/default-source ... f?sfvrsn=2


This is just evidence of what I said: liberal Democrats covering wrongdoing by union members.


fate

However, the notion that officers need not work with the idea that each contact is potentially dangerous is just foolhardy and will result in more officers being seriously injured or killed


You understand that what black lives matter is about...


I understand it's built on lies and myths, plus ignoring that young black men are more likely to be slain by other young black men than by anyone else BY FAR.

That right now, and for some time, any young black man has to worry that any interaction with police is potentially dangerous....


False.If they want to be safe they should run from each other, meaning other young black men. Oh, and not attack officers (see Ferguson).

And its police training and officer selection that contributes to their danger?


No evidence.

19 weeks and a high school education seems to be pretty low bar to getting a position where life and death decisions are made... And when the officers are trained to treat each encounter as potentially deadly for them .... it ratchets up the probability of resort to deadly force...


False. 19 weeks is the Academy. There is then hands on with an experienced officer, generally for 3 to 6 months, sometimes longer.

And, you know what? If you want "smarter" cops, make a degree mandatory. Here's what you will find: you will have a massive shortage of police until/unless you offer about $100K a year to start.

The video of Laquan being shot doesn't show him to be threatening anyone at the time he was killed.


Who suggested it did? Who? Really WHO???? No one here.

It took 14 months for the video to be released, on the same day that charges were finally laid... Coincidence?


No, political chicanery from Rahm Emmanuel and his team, corrupt Democrats of Chicago.

In fact, in most situations you can point to, who is in charge? Democrats and unions.

And, you're still a liar. That won't change until you have the humility to admit you lied.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 26 Nov 2015, 2:05 pm

fate
I understand it's built on lies and myths
,

Sure

http://www.mintpressnews.com/776-people ... ed/209127/

http://gawker.com/unarmed-people-of-col ... 1666672349
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 26 Nov 2015, 6:07 pm



Liar. Hypocrite.

The fact that Gawker cites Michael Brown destroys its credibility.

The other piece is so broad as to lack meaning re "black lives matter."

It would impress me if BLM actually protested all the young blacks killing other young blacks, which far, far, far outnumber anything the police have ever done.

And, you remain a liar and a hypocrite.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 27 Nov 2015, 9:46 am

Doctor Fate wrote:


Liar. Hypocrite.

The fact that Gawker cites Michael Brown destroys its credibility.
Are you saying Brown was armed? Because all that list is of is unarmed non-whites. Only if he was armed would it be non credible.

So what weapon was he carrying?

The other piece is so broad as to lack meaning re "black lives matter."

It would impress me if BLM actually protested all the young blacks killing other young blacks, which far, far, far outnumber anything the police have ever done.
But as the police are government agents paid from public funds, it is a different matter.

Your Whataboutery is noted.

And, you remain a liar and a hypocrite.
Getting very tired of the name calling here.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 27 Nov 2015, 10:24 am

danivon wrote:Are you saying Brown was armed?


No. And, if you think I am, please feel free to quote me.

Because all that list is of is unarmed non-whites. Only if he was armed would it be non credible.


False.

So what weapon was he carrying?


300 lbs. of felonious fury.

It is a falsehood that the only way deadly force is justified is if the suspect is armed. That's not the standard. So, when I say BLM is founded on myths and lies, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

No officer is required to be beaten to death.

But as the police are government agents paid from public funds, it is a different matter.


To you maybe, but how about to the mothers of the departed? Are they any less dead? Which is more

Your Whataboutery is noted.


It depends. If black lives ONLY matter when officers shoot them, you're quite right. If ALL black lives matter, then you're wrong.

And, you remain a liar and a hypocrite.
Getting very tired of the name calling here.


Sue me. Rickyp has been dishonest and a hypocrite. He's never acknowledged either one, let alone apologized for mashing my quotes together.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 29 Nov 2015, 7:51 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:Are you saying Brown was armed?


No. And, if you think I am, please feel free to quote me.
I am asking because the link Ricky provided was to a list of unarmed people and you said including Brown shot down the "credibility" of the list. He was unarmed. So, umm, no.

Because all that list is of is unarmed non-whites. Only if he was armed would it be non credible.


False.[/quote]Umm, no. True. Unarmed is unarmed. Does not mean "not a danger".

So what weapon was he carrying?


300 lbs. of felonious fury.
Which is not a carried weapon. Any person could in theory use their body. If only police officers were able to be trained to handle themselves without resorting to deadly force.

It is a falsehood that the only way deadly force is justified is if the suspect is armed. That's not the standard. So, when I say BLM is founded on myths and lies, this is exactly what I'm talking about.
Except that one example you don't like does not in any way mitigate the rest of the examples. let alone the nationwide data.

And I don't see Gawker making that falsehood in their list.

No officer is required to be beaten to death.
Indeed. So was it wise to take on more than one suspect on his own?

But as the police are government agents paid from public funds, it is a different matter.


To you maybe, but how about to the mothers of the departed? Are they any less dead? Which is more
Enough with the attempt at emotional blackmail. The difference is that we can't control criminals as ordinary people, but we should have some control over the police. The difference is that (as you are quite keen to point out in Chicago), the local government can be complicit, as well as the police in trying to cover up malpractice by officers. Over a year to get a charge, lost video evidence, and it's quite clear that 16 shots (and pausing to reload during that) is overkill.

If you want to create a moral equivalence between drug gangs and the police, that's for you to do. Yes, their victims are equally dead, but the police are supposed to act on our behalf as citizens.

Your Whataboutery is noted.


It depends. If black lives ONLY matter when officers shoot them, you're quite right. If ALL black lives matter, then you're wrong.
There is a specific context to this. The contrast is with non-blacks and interactions with the agents of the state. And then the subsequent treatment of the incidents, which seem to be a rush to blame the dead black guy rather than whoever killed him.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 29 Nov 2015, 11:16 am

danivon wrote:Which is not a carried weapon. Any person could in theory use their body. If only police officers were able to be trained to handle themselves without resorting to deadly force.


Uh-huh. So, tell me, would you restrict the job to only those who could take down a 300 lb. young man with no weapons?

It is a falsehood that the only way deadly force is justified is if the suspect is armed. That's not the standard. So, when I say BLM is founded on myths and lies, this is exactly what I'm talking about.
Except that one example you don't like does not in any way mitigate the rest of the examples. let alone the nationwide data.


Sure it does. If you want to go through every single case and prove it helps build the BLM case, feel free. I took one and showed it does not. In court, that might well be considered "reasonable doubt."

Again, if you think Michael Brown should have been taken down without deadly force, you don't know much about American police training. Let me ask you:

1. Do you know what the area surrounding the officer and Mr. Brown was?

2. Do you know what Mr. Brown's companion was doing?

3. Do you know Mr. Brown tried to take the officer's gun before the incident escalated?

No officer is required to be beaten to death.
Indeed. So was it wise to take on more than one suspect on his own?


I have and am perfectly willing to critique the officer's technique. I think he was foolhardy from beginning to end. However, the standard for using deadly force is a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm. I don't know how anyone can reasonably say he should not have been in fear.

But as the police are government agents paid from public funds, it is a different matter.


To you maybe, but how about to the mothers of the departed? Are they any less dead? Which is more
Enough with the attempt at emotional blackmail.


It's a statement of fact. Dead is dead.

You don't want to discuss the vastly larger problem of black on black violence. Neither does the BLM movement. So, you have that in common with them.

The difference is that we can't control criminals as ordinary people, but we should have some control over the police. The difference is that (as you are quite keen to point out in Chicago), the local government can be complicit, as well as the police in trying to cover up malpractice by officers. Over a year to get a charge, lost video evidence, and it's quite clear that 16 shots (and pausing to reload during that) is overkill.


Gang violence is a greater threat to black lives than police officers. Further, as with Mr. Brown, if young black men don't attack officers, they're far less likely to die as a result of contacting police.

The Chicago matter was bad. However, we should not leave out that the young man was on PCP. Does that mean he should have been shot repeatedly? No, but if he was not on PCP and acting irrationally, he would not have been shot. Don't break the law. It's fairly simple.

As to the larger problem, look at who runs the cities. It is liberal Democrats. Baltimore, New York, Chicago . . .everywhere you look it is the Democrats and their union allies failing to do the right thing. End the corruption. Get rid of the bad officers. Problem solved.

If you want to create a moral equivalence between drug gangs and the police, that's for you to do. Yes, their victims are equally dead, but the police are supposed to act on our behalf as citizens.


It's not a "moral equivalence." It is a matter of measuring the threat. Gangs are a much greater threat to young black men than police are. It's not even close.

I understand the Chicago officer had a rather checkered past. Why was he still on the job?

I think we probably can hazard a guess: the union/Democratic Party connection. They take care of their "own." That's why they pay the union dues, which the union then "donates" to the Party. One hand washes the other.

Your Whataboutery is noted.


It depends. If black lives ONLY matter when officers shoot them, you're quite right. If ALL black lives matter, then you're wrong.
There is a specific context to this. The contrast is with non-blacks and interactions with the agents of the state. And then the subsequent treatment of the incidents, which seem to be a rush to blame the dead black guy rather than whoever killed him.


Laquan McDonald is dead because he was chemically incapable of heeding the officer's commands and the officer was . . . someone who should not have been on the job. In that sense, it is the "system" that killed Laquan. However, better training would not have saved his life. Only terminating a bad cop would have done that. You'll have to ask the corrupt Chicago machine why they thought a bad white cop was worth keeping on the job.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 30 Nov 2015, 2:14 pm

bbauska asked:

We agree on the officer doing wrong. Do you think the man was in the wrong also?


Absolutely. The man was an idiot. A complete idiot.

(By the way, I wrote a rather lengthy response to both you and Fate but visited another page and came back to find it was gone. Aaaaggghhh!)

Fate, in this post and others you have resorted to outright name calling. It's obvious Ricky drives you to drink but you're a good debater and I read what you write and I think about what you write. You don't need to resort to this in order to bolster your points. Ricky is a good debater as well. In fact, I rather enjoy reading the back and forth between the two of you. I got so frustrated with a redscaper in an argument once that I called him a name and rightly, he took me to task. So please stick to your passionate, well thought out arguments. That approach is far more convincing and enjoyable to read.

Ricky, for the love of Christ on a bike, can you please avoid twisting someone's quotes? It's not fair to put words in someone's mouth. That's beneath you and you know it. Just answer the guy's questions and respond to his points. Cherry picking is beneath the redscapers of this world. Plus, I'm sure you'll think of some good points to throw back at Fate even when your arguments aren't necessarily as refined as usual.

Back to the thread, it seems as though there is some measure of agreement here that the training could be looked at and perhaps changed for the better.

My own greatest concern is the lack of training made available to police on the topic of mental illness. I know a few folks folks who have been off their meds at times and in the middle of the street screaming at traffic who are the sweetest people you would ever want to meet.

Going off the deep end because you are intoxicated or on drugs is one thing, losing it because you're experiencing a mental illness is another matter entirely and not one deserving of bullets.

Fate, your point about black on black crime is of course true and supported by libraries of stats. That the Black Lives Matter Movement doesn't take on this issue is a shame but understandable. They are zooming in on a very specific issue that is race related and needs changing and can change with applied pressure. Quite honestly, I don't think the black community (or any other community for that matter) would know where to begin in tacking the issue of black on black crime. That issue deserves a separate thread for sure.

What my friend told me about police training has now been confirmed by bbauska, yourself and others. I am dumbfounded by this. I can't believe it. The training must change. It must improve.

Somewhere Fate you made the point that if we wanted to more training we would need to pay police more. This is true. I did a ride around with the police a few years back as part of class I was taking. It opened my eyes. The young man I was assigned to was 27, had a college degree and was doing police work (and I'll add social work) for starting pay at $30K. This young man had a wife and baby at home. During the shift we were called to a situation where an "officer down" call had been placed. It turns out it was just a ruse in order to collect the police in one end of the city so that a convenient store could be robbed more efficiently, but still, I thought to myself, this man is out here putting up with this bullshite for $30K. Craziness!

I am pro-police. They see the ugly side of who we are as a community every day. This must wear on a person. And then they're not paid well on top of that.

Still, we can not have a society whereby our police are trained to shoot to kill. We need a more nuanced approach. I don't know what that approach should be but I know it's possible. As a community responsible to one another we are capable of at least that.

And so that there is no mistaking me, if an officer is attacked or threatened with a gun, s/he has every right to shoot to kill. But as a last resort only.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Nov 2015, 3:13 pm

dag hammarsjkold wrote:bbauska asked:

We agree on the officer doing wrong. Do you think the man was in the wrong also?


Absolutely. The man was an idiot. A complete idiot.

(By the way, I wrote a rather lengthy response to both you and Fate but visited another page and came back to find it was gone. Aaaaggghhh!)

Fate, in this post and others you have resorted to outright name calling. It's obvious Ricky drives you to drink but you're a good debater and I read what you write and I think about what you write. You don't need to resort to this in order to bolster your points. Ricky is a good debater as well. In fact, I rather enjoy reading the back and forth between the two of you. I got so frustrated with a redscaper in an argument once that I called him a name and rightly, he took me to task. So please stick to your passionate, well thought out arguments. That approach is far more convincing and enjoyable to read.


All he had to do was acknowledge what he did. That's it.

I think several of us here have done "wrong" things in the past. Most of us will, over time, acknowledge it. I've even apologized on occasion. Rickyp, in this matter, has done nothing but carry on.

The hypocrisy thing was funny. One day "unnamed sources" were of the devil. The very next day (might have been two days) he posts this article which is all based on an anonymous source. Now, that's comedy--unintentional, but comedy nonetheless.

My own greatest concern is the lack of training made available to police on the topic of mental illness. I know a few folks folks who have been off their meds at times and in the middle of the street screaming at traffic who are the sweetest people you would ever want to meet.

Going off the deep end because you are intoxicated or on drugs is one thing, losing it because you're experiencing a mental illness is another matter entirely and not one deserving of bullets.


With Laquan, it was definitely the drugs in control. With respect to mental illness, it is a challenge. There are many fewer facilities than there were when I was on the streets. Even then, it was not always easy to find space. More could definitely be done--and should be (see recent Colorado shooting).

Fate, your point about black on black crime is of course true and supported by libraries of stats. That the Black Lives Matter Movement doesn't take on this issue is a shame but understandable. They are zooming in on a very specific issue that is race related and needs changing and can change with applied pressure. Quite honestly, I don't think the black community (or any other community for that matter) would know where to begin in tacking the issue of black on black crime. That issue deserves a separate thread for sure.


If there is a social problem that deserves Federal scrutiny, it is gangs. In many minority neighborhoods, they are the real government. That should not be allowed to stand.

What my friend told me about police training has now been confirmed by bbauska, yourself and others. I am dumbfounded by this. I can't believe it. The training must change. It must improve.


It needs less politics and more emphasis on ability to get the job done.

Somewhere Fate you made the point that if we wanted to more training we would need to pay police more. This is true. I did a ride around with the police a few years back as part of class I was taking. It opened my eyes. The young man I was assigned to was 27, had a college degree and was doing police work (and I'll add social work) for starting pay at $30K. This young man had a wife and baby at home. During the shift we were called to a situation where an "officer down" call had been placed. It turns out it was just a ruse in order to collect the police in one end of the city so that a convenient store could be robbed more efficiently, but still, I thought to myself, this man is out here putting up with this bullshite for $30K. Craziness!


To me, it's like teachers. Everyone wants great teachers. No one wants to pay for "great."

They want cops who are Sherlock Holmes, Captain America, and Martin Luther King all rolled into one. Good luck finding that on those starting salaries. Now, if you look at larger PDs, some pay quite well. So, if you want to be a cop, where do you start? The departments that pay well.

I am pro-police. They see the ugly side of who we are as a community every day. This must wear on a person. And then they're not paid well on top of that.


I recently joined a FB group from my old Department--active and retired officers, no civilians. Recounting some of the guys we watched in custody--from the Manson family, to OJ, to characters you never heard of but sound like they are out of B movies (like the doctor who cut a male prostitute into pieces with a rented chain saw. He returned the saw with body parts still on it). If you saw what it is like to interact with these folks, you'd realize most people would not take that job for any amount of money.

I believe everyone going into the academy should read Wambaugh's The Onion Field. That book tells you everything you need to know about being a cop--the loyalty one must have for one's partner, the determination to survive, and the willpower to do the right thing no matter the cost. It's a frightening account that has the benefit of being true.

Until someone has had the experience of fighting for his/her life, you can only imagine what it is like. How much is that worth? I don't know. I do know a lot of departments across the country don't pay enough.

Still, we can not have a society whereby our police are trained to shoot to kill. We need a more nuanced approach. I don't know what that approach should be but I know it's possible. As a community responsible to one another we are capable of at least that.


You should look at the FBI statistics for officer-involved shootings. Cops miss too often as it is. You start telling them to shoot the guns out of people's hands, you're going to have a lot more dead cops. There is no way to practice stress. Shooting at the range is one thing; shooting with your life on the line is something else altogether. Thankfully, I never had to shoot anyone--but I came *-* that close.

And so that there is no mistaking me, if an officer is attacked or threatened with a gun, s/he has every right to shoot to kill. But as a last resort only.


That's pretty close to the standard. And, anyone who WANTS to shoot another human being should not be a cop. However, anyone who is not WILLING to do so should not be a cop either.