Cross posted with Freeman there. Yeah, those figures from the cause of death line do not look definitive, unless there has been a big uptick recently.

More police assassinated by black gunmen today in Baton Rouge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/18/us/baton-rouge-shooting.html?_r=0

dag hammarsjkold wrote:More police assassinated by black gunmen today in Baton Rouge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/18/us/baton-rouge-shooting.html?_r=0

Again. So far only one (now dead) suspect. It's a terrible act, and will only make things worse.

Article on the usefulness of official stats: https://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/201 ... ed-police/

Danivon,

This is the sentiment that has been emerging from the Black Lives Matter protesters, especially amongst younger black men who have had enough waiting around for protests to make an impact or bring about change.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/17/baton-rouge-shooter-gavin-eugene-long-was-nation-of-islam-member-railed-against-crackers-on-youtube-channel-video/

Yes, there are parallels. But a guy who once was in the NoI (and has been linked to all kinds of kooky anti-government movements) is not Black Lives Matter.

No more than the IRA were all Nationalist Irish in Ulster. That was more organised violence that was inspired by (and used the cover of) protests against civil rights violations by a partial Stormont government, including police brutality.

What is a problem is that US society is polarising, across many issues, and this is one where we already have a group feeling that the "other" has no problems killing.

Ok Danivon, you got me, these are not card carrying members of Black Lives Matter who wear tattooes of the movement on their foreheads but those who have either ambushed or successfully killed cops in the last week since Dallas are taking up arms in light of and because of the Black Lives Matter Movement. And its not stopping. True that these individuals are not necessarily organized in the same way the IRA or Real IRA are organized but make no mistake, the link is there and it continues unabated.

Would you say it was similar to people who bomb abortion clinics or shoot people associated with abortion, and linking them with the anti-abortion movement?

I do think that the rhetoric does need to be dialed down. On both sides of each argument (and hey, why not let the excluded middle get a voice?).

But who is trying to help dial it down? Who in positions of power or leadership or exposure is trying to calm things, and who is trying to exploit it by whipping it up and assigning blame?

Much more recent than his links with the Nation of Islam, Long associated himself with this group last year, in his "legal declarations" which included the name change to Cosmo Ausar Setepenra.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washitaw_Nation

This is a weird black nativist group (in that they assert they are an indigenous tribe and so not subjects of the USA).

But they are one of many "sovereign citizen" movements in the US, who draw from all kinds of cant from Posse Comitatus to imagined Common Law. And others have killed cops:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soverei ... n_movement

In May 2010, two police officers in West Memphis, Arkansas were shot and killed by Joseph T. Kane after Kane and his father were the subject of a traffic stop. Kane and his father were later identified as members of the sovereign citizen movement.[48][49]

On August 16, 2012, two sheriff's deputies were shot to death and two others seriously wounded after having been ambushed near LaPlace, Louisiana. Authorities arrested seven suspects, two of whom have been identified by law enforcement as members of a sovereign citizen's group.[82]

On August 22, 2013, David Allen Brutsche and Devon Campbell Newman were arrested for plotting to abduct, torture and kill Las Vegas police officers in order to attract attention to the sovereign citizens movement. They reportedly attended sovereign citizen philosophy training sessions, bought guns, and found a vacant house for their activities. The two allegedly planned to torture and kill police officers[117] and are alleged to have created videos explaining their actions and why officers had to die.[118]

On June 6, 2014, Dennis Marx, who was later identified as being a member of the sovereign citizens movement, opened fire on a Forsyth County, Georgia courthouse, injuring one deputy before being shot and killed himself.[140]

Some of the people involved with Cliven Bundy's situation and the later stand-off in Oregon were in sovereign rights groups as well.

Indeed - is there not a case that hysterical anti-government rhetoric, combined with hatred for those who enforce the laws, helps fuel and (in their minds) legitimise violence against the police?

And are sociopaths attracted to ideologies that they see legitimise their own predilection? I wonder at the cross-over with Nice. That was a guy who already was a violent criminal, who had apparently a history of mental health issues, recently divorced and angry at the people around him, and only very recently seems to have taken up extremist Islamicist content. Was he just looking for an excuse or cause for his homicidal intent?

Is something similar the case for Long/Setepenra - a gadfly of odd ideology and individualistic mumbo-jumbo.

The difference is that ISIS welcome anyone who uses them as an excuse for murder. BLM as far as I can see do not.

The other link to Dallas is that both shooters were apparently ex-military.

Is there a wider issue of people coming out of the military with mental issues and not being picked up?

I read about his odd connections to various fringe groups and you raise good questions here. Somewhere I think you asked if these were folks who were mentally unstable attaching their actions to ideology. I can buy that for sure but my point is this, no matter one's state of mental capacity, the Black Lives Matter movement is responsible for pushing an agenda that has influenced and encouraged violence. This is in no way to say that the idiotic decisions of idiot police officers is justified. Their behavior has been inexcusable in many cases for many years.

If you could read some of the vitriol coming out of black american newspapers in the US you would not be able to miss the battle lines being drawn. Either by incendiary language, inference or flat out calls to "defend" the community are common place. On the other side, the police have already concluded that the kind of action we've seen this summer is now the new norm. It's as if everyone is digging in. Neither side wants to budge.

The Black Lives Matter movement refuses to tone down its language and the police continue to justify their policy of "shoot to kill."

And in my opinion, that policy is what's at the crux of the controversy.

A cop need not shoot to kill. I've said it before here but police training is terrible. Friends who have served have described to me the limited training they receive. It's simple really....if you feel threatened in anyway, it's got to be him, not you, that goes.

Our police need better training, military grade training in my view. The kind that makes it possible for a soldier to go into an apartment complex in Fallujah and within mili-seconds decide who is friendly and who is not.

Such training should be federally funded and not passed on to local departments.

Said training would NOT be cultural sensitivity training. Most cops will tell you that this type of training (that does exist and is pushed by the way) is a waste of time and results in nothing. I'm talking about training that allows someone under tremendous, potentially life threatening stress remain cool and collected.

What we have today is a fear based approach to dealing with black american males. And with more and more incidents like the ones taking place this summer, that fear will become more and more legitimized.

dag hammarsjkold wrote:IA cop need not shoot to kill. I've said it before here but police training is terrible. Friends who have served have described to me the limited training they receive. It's simple really....if you feel threatened in anyway, it's got to be him, not you, that goes.

Interesting. Having been there and having not shot the suspect (even though I could have justified it), I'm not sure I agree. But, different departments have different standards of training.

One thing to keep in mind: because officers are armed, if they get knocked out, they have to figure they will be killed (weapon taken and they will be shot with it). Therefore, in scenarios wherein they face GBI (great bodily injury), deadly force is authorized.

That said, "threatened in any way" is not a legitimate legal standard for using deadly force.

Also, not shooting to kill--it's pretty difficult to foresee a situation in which deadly force would be appropriate, but an officer should not shoot to kill. Perhaps you'd like to invent one?

Our police need better training, military grade training in my view. The kind that makes it possible for a soldier to go into an apartment complex in Fallujah and within mili-seconds decide who is friendly and who is not.

An interesting idea. I'm not sure how it would help in traffic stops, bar checks, etc. But, I'd be willing to read more about it.

Such training should be federally funded and not passed on to local departments.

Not gonna happen. Municipalities really like controlling their own departments. When I hear Hillary talking about Federal standards and training, she's making it up. That would not get 25% support in Congress. Trust me. The unions would be lining up against it--and the lobbyists and the local elected officials. It has zero chance.

Said training would NOT be cultural sensitivity training. Most cops will tell you that this type of training (that does exist and is pushed by the way) is a waste of time and results in nothing.

100% true, which is why liberal politicians push it.

I'm talking about training that allows someone under tremendous, potentially life threatening stress remain cool and collected.

I think it is really tough to know how someone will respond under stress. In fact, I know it is. I would not know unless I had been in life/death situations. I don't know if it can be simulated. I will tell you that it would result in a lot of folks not making the cut, which would result in officer shortages and/or the need to raise salaries.

What we have today is a fear based approach to dealing with black american males. And with more and more incidents like the ones taking place this summer, that fear will become more and more legitimized.

This is somewhat crap.

Black (and Hispanic) males are far more likely to be in street gangs. They are far more likely to have violent rap sheets and they are far more likely to take an antagonistic approach with the cops. Those factors all come into play. If you don't believe it, take a trip to CA and ride-along with Beverly Hills PD and then with a Department working the inner city. The difference in traffic stops alone will make you re-think your presuppositions.

Of course those factors come into play. Every situation has its own context. What I was attempting to explain is that in many situations where a white cop stops a young black male or black male and shoots him dead, fear has played a major role in that cop's decision. I'm not saying that this fear isn't justified, only that it's fear and the desire for self preservation.

I want training for police that resembles that of our military who seem to deal with their fear under duress a lot better than our police. I'm generalizing here but you get the point, trained soldiers seem to keep the fear in check somehow. How? I don't know. I'm assuming it has something to do with better training. And by keeping their cool, they seem to make more effective judgement calls. For example, soldiers enter a building in [pick a country]. They are attempting to clear the building of enemy combatants. They barge through a door and see two women with four children, two of whom are nearly teenagers. Somehow, they hold their fire, size up all of those involved, look for any sign of weapons, shout instructions to them to do this or that and move on to the next apartment or room. In other words, their first instinct is NOT to shoot to kill. Their first instinct seems to be more nuanced. Remember, I'm generalizing. There are certainly numerous examples of mistakes being made by military personnel but that's not the point.

I think you have your assumptions all wrong. Soldiers are not scared when they go door to door in an urban setting? They make fewer mistakes? Those mistakes that ARE made are chalked up as either casualties of war, or as enemy combatants (that were not) or possibly even not "chalked up" at all. Plus you are comparing a situation where a freaking ARMY storms your building and anyone that moves will be shot dead to a cop in a one on one confrontation. Apples and Oranges my friend!

And what of the many examples where these protest leaders go through police training and end up shooting innocent people and/or getting killed in these training scenarios?
here is just one (I have seen many)
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01 ... with-cops/

It seems you want the police to do nothing when faced with possible death themselves and that is not acceptable, it is not going to happen.

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Of course those factors come into play. Every situation has its own context. What I was attempting to explain is that in many situations where a white cop stops a young black male or black male and shoots him dead, fear has played a major role in that cop's decision. I'm not saying that this fear isn't justified, only that it's fear and the desire for self preservation.

Again, crap.

The standard for using deadly force is a reasonable fear that you or someone else is in danger of great bodily injury or death.

I want training for police that resembles that of our military who seem to deal with their fear under duress a lot better than our police.

My initial training was more than 30 years ago. I'd just gotten out of the Army. During the first 72 hours of Army basic training, I really thought there was a chance they might kill me. Needless to say, the Sheriff's Academy was not as stressful for me. After all, I went home every night and I was never face to face with a First Sergeant who had a picture of him holding a severed Vietnamese head on his wall.

Even so, many of my classmates were stressed out. And, quite frankly, they were not pleased that I was not stressed out. Well, first of all, I never wanted to be a cop. Secondly, this was like going from the major leagues to single A in terms of stress.

If they raised the stress levels of training, I promise you: 1) they would have to pay a LOT more to attract candidates who could make it; 2) they would lose a lot of females. Sorry, but that's a fact. Women are a lot more sensible when it comes to dying.

I'm generalizing here but you get the point, trained soldiers seem to keep the fear in check somehow. How? I don't know.

I do.

When I was in the Army, I happened to be in the barracks on a Friday night. I was one of the few who was sober. The Lieutenant knocked on my door and told me to pack my gear. We went up to an airfield in PA. A refueling tanker had blown up in the air. There were body parts mixed with the stench of fuel for miles. We set up a perimeter to keep the press out. The Red Cross set up a tent and gave us food all the time.

Honestly, if you weren't eating, you felt sick, so you kept eating even though you knew you shouldn't want to. We were on boring 12 hour shifts and eating all the time. All we did was eat, stand, and sleep.

After a while, we hardly noticed the random body parts hanging from the trees and the smell of death mixed with that airplane fuel.

In other words, when you are immersed in some circumstances, you become accustomed to them. In combat, stress is ever-present. There is no way to replicate that in the USA.

Your error is assuming soldiers don't make mistakes and that cops necessarily do. I think it is fair to say both do. I don't know that one makes more mistakes than another.

Over and over when I see tapes of "police brutality" and "excessive force" one thing stands out: the person upon whom the force is exercised does not comply with the instructions of the police. To me, it's pretty simple: do what you're told and nothing happens.

(No, I'm not justifying every use of force in the history of mankind, nor am I saying every command is reasonable or even lawful. However, in almost every instance I've seen wherein the force was questionable, the subject(s) failed to comply with instructions)