There is always going to be a large gray area where a police officer could plausibly justify using lethal force. And in that gray area where a police officer makes that decision issues like how much of a connection the police officer feels to the person he uses deadly force against is important. That is where race comes into play, that is where the human brain comes into play. Most of us I think try to treat people based on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin

But our brain is set to classify potential threats. If we did not pay attention to who or what could pose a threat to us then human beings would have never made it. And we know that in our culture there are ingrained stereotypes that blacks are violent and criminal and these are not subject to conscious control.
http://fairandimpartialpolicing.com/docs/pob5.pdf

Here is a discussion of studies showing that blacks are viewed negatively in our culture.
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/04/10_ways ... e_partner/

And police decisions happen in real-time where the amygdala is an autonomic, fast part of our brain that detects threats.https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/i- ... ear-center

The amygdala is more activated in people when they see black faces. Interestingly enough, this does not occur in childhood but emerges over adolescence.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15880106/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23 ... 06/related

An interesting brief discussion about the amygdala and the possible effect on police shootings.
https://books.google.com/books?id=zU8bA ... la&f=false

Putting this all together it would be shocking if police were not shooting blacks in higher numbers in similar encounters. On the other hand how is an individual police officer responsible for decisions that are due to cultural indoctrination and for the most part beyond his conscious control. The police are not responsible for our culture; we all are.

We want to change our police, we need to change our culture first.

freeman3 wrote:There is always going to be a large gray area where a police officer could plausibly justify using lethal force. And in that gray area where a police officer makes that decision issues like how much of a connection the police officer feels to the person he uses deadly force against is important. That is where race comes into play, that is where the human brain comes into play. Most of us I think try to treat people based on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin

But our brain is set to classify potential threats. If we did not pay attention to who or what could pose a threat to us then human beings would have never made it. And we know that in our culture there are ingrained stereotypes that blacks are violent and criminal and these are not subject to conscious control.
http://fairandimpartialpolicing.com/docs/pob5.pdf

Here is a discussion of studies showing that blacks are viewed negatively in our culture.
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/04/10_ways ... e_partner/

And police decisions happen in real-time where the amygdala is an autonomic, fast part of our brain that detects threats.https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/i- ... ear-center

The amygdala is more activated in people when they see black faces. Interestingly enough, this does not occur in childhood but emerges over adolescence.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15880106/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23 ... 06/related

An interesting brief discussion about the amygdala and the possible effect on police shootings.
https://books.google.com/books?id=zU8bA ... la&f=false

Putting this all together it would be shocking if police were not shooting blacks in higher numbers in similar encounters. On the other hand how is an individual police officer responsible for decisions that are due to cultural indoctrination and for the most part beyond his conscious control. The police are not responsible for our culture; we all are.

We want to change our police, we need to change our culture first.

Based on plausibility and inferences?

Sure.

Or, maybe, like a send-up I saw recently, we should only dispatch people of the "right" color to calls? So, if it's a Latino suspect, we send Latino officers, etc.

Of course, that would not help with traffic stops . . .

This from Tom....

Soldiers are not scared when they go door to door in an urban setting?

This from me....

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

Tom, either your mind is moving so fast that you're only picking up on %50 of what is written or you're just not taking the time to actually read what I write. Either way, you're way off.

I re-quoted myself above. If you read what I wrote you'll see I accounted for soldiers dealing with their fear. If you can't pick up on that there's nothing I can do to help you.

Check out the good doctor's response on how soldiers deal with their fear in combat. It makes sense to me and I agree with him that there is no exact equivalent stateside.

And Let me make myself perfectly clear on another important point..if a cop is threatened by someone who has a gun, that person goes bye bye. I would expect nothing less from the cop.

By the way Tom, I'm offering a possible solution. What's yours exactly? Anyone can criticize and tear down an idea. It's another thing entirely to offer possible fixes.

The problem is society who think they can ignore police commands. And even attavk police oficers...hey., if unarmed they cant be touched. That is the feeling. We could have more activists take these police training courses and have them share what they learned instead of urging more of the same.

I completely agree with you. I did a "ride around" in St. Louis on two occasions and it was a major eye opener for me.

I remember being with a young cop, 30 years old, college graduate. He was assigned to District 6 or 8 (I can't remember which but these two districts are our worst). He shared that he was paid $32,000 a year.

At one point we got a call on the radio, "officer down."

We then took off like a bat out of hell to the scene of the downed officer only to find that it was a hoax.

When I asked about it, he shared that this happens all the time when thieves are targeting a store or shop. They know that the "officer down" line will redirect all the heat to the opposite side of town giving them ample time to complete their robbery.

On another night a young cop shared that no one gets bent out of shape when drug dealers kill each other. When you're constantly in triage mode, you could care less when "bad guys" eliminate each other. In fact he said, "As most of us see it, these killers are doing the community a favor by eliminating each other."

What these men and women go through given the pay is an outrage. But if we follow the money we see that fear of property values going down due to blacks in the neighborhood fuels white flight. White flight leaves a depleted tax base. With fewer taxes the city goes broke and consequently can no longer afford to pay their cops a just wage. All of this is due to racism which at one time post 1960s slipped under the radar screen becoming mainly a subtle reality....at least until the Ferguson fiasco unfolded. Thanks George Soros.

GMTom wrote:The problem is society who think they can ignore police commands. And even attavk police oficers...hey., if unarmed they cant be touched. That is the feeling. We could have more activists take these police training courses and have them share what they learned instead of urging more of the same.

If you lived in a totalitarian police state, your first sentence would be on point.

I saw a video where a guy was in a car and was being told what to do by two cops, but did not comply. So they used pepper spray on him and dragged him out of the car where he collapsed.

The guy had just had a stroke, and was trying to tell them he was ill.

Then another where a young man was in his car on a private drive. Cops come up, as his name. He hesitates a bit but gives his name. They say they have a warrant for his arrest (they have a warrant, but not for him, but another named individual). He asks what the warrant is for, and to see it. They do not say what it is for, or produce it, but (after he refuses to stand up to be cuffed and tries to get his ID) is grabbed. He resists and they control him. Even when they see his ID, they do not immediately show that they now know they have the wrong guy. They then lie repeatedly to onlookers about having asked him for ID. And arrest him anyway for resisting.

Both were from bodycam so on the one hand it shows how cops can still cross lines when fitted with them, but maybe it also was enough to check use of lethal force.

...and?

The police can absolutely make "Commands" and you absolutely better follow them. If they go overboard you can sue them but to do as you wish is foolish and deserving of whatever outcome may happen because of it.
You have no idea why the police are making a command, it could be some armed man fitting your description is on the loose. The police see you and demand you drop to the ground even though you did nothing wrong. You better do it or who knows if you end up getting shot.

Do as they say, be courteous and no doubt all will be fixed in very short order.
Do as you wish and ignore them (or attack them) and you get what you deserve!

Sorry, Tom, but that is what a Police State means. If a cop "commands" you to let them search your property without a warrant, you are allowed to challenge them. You have rights under several of the amendments to the US Constitution.

And suing after the effect is both limited and just shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Besides. How is a guy having a stroke supposed to follow commands? What about the deaf? If they fail to comply and are pepper sprayed did they "deserve" it?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

a few years ago I was woken in the middle of a Summer night by a lot of yelling not far from my window. Turns out some thug stole a car and was pulled over on a nearby street. He ran from the car and the police officer gave chase. In the run down the cop lost his radio so other police knew he was near but not exactly where. The cop tracked the thug down in my back yard.

At first I didn't know what was going on
Drop to your knees
...No!
I don't want to hurt you, on your knees
...No!
(my wife was now calling 911 ...they got to our house in under 30 seconds)

WHACK, he got cracked on the head with his flash light (just before the rest of the police got there and yes I heard the thwack against his skull)
The thug got what he deserved and the courts agreed, he refused the command of the police officer who has no idea if this guy is armed, if help is on the way, he's in the dark facing a dangerous situation with no cooperation. I would have been upset if it turned out differently. If he only had listed that tug would not have to be taken to the hospital before his trip to jail!

So your example is of a guy who you are clear did deserve it.

What about the guy having a stroke?

sorry you are wrong.
Police most certainly do have the authority to make commands of you. They better have good reason or you can sue them. They can not simply make commands that are not warranted (THAT would be a police state) but they certainly can make demands that you are expected to follow!

You drive down the road, a cop pulls you over
Do you need to pull over or can you simply continue on your way? Ignore him pulling you over and you are in a heap of trouble. That isn't a "police state" and it isn't any different.

go ahead and get stupid.
Someone having a stroke is not attacking an officer and is offering no resistance, he is simply going to drop to his knees anyways! A deaf person will unfortunately face a bit of physical brusqueness no doubt, if the police are found to have used TOO much force they can be sued.

If you are commanded to do something by a cop, you simply DO it.
AFTER doing so you can determine the right or wrongness of that command and sue if warranted. But you can't make that decision up on your own! It's not a police state because they can order you to do things when required is it? This is like the police closing a street because a standoff is happening and you deciding you can continue to use the road, this aint no police state, I can use the public road and they can't tell me what to do?

Police State

a totalitarian state controlled by a political police force that secretly supervises the citizens' activities.

Quite a far cry from what you want us to believe!?
Your police state comment was 100% wrong!

That is but one definition (and unsourced).

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

Police state is a term denoting a government that exercises power arbitrarily through the power of the police force. Originally the term designated a state regulated by a civil administration, but since the beginning of the 20th century, the term has "taken on an emotional and derogatory meaning" by describing an undesirable state of living characterized by the overbearing presence of the civil authorities.[1]

Because there are different political perspectives as to what an appropriate balance is between individual freedom and national security, there are no objective standards defining a police state. This concept can be viewed as a balance or scale. Along this spectrum, any law which has the effect of removing liberty is seen as moving towards a police state, while any law that limits government oversight is seen as moving towards a free state.[6]

When you say that citizens should always follow police commands, or "deserve" the consequences, when the police are almost universally armed, meaning that their authority is not based on respect so much as on fear, when many more people die at the hands of the police than vice versa, when even well evidenced situations of police overuse of violence are treated leniently, then that looks to me like agents of the state are able to reduce the liberty of citizens.

I thought Americans loved individual liberty and distrusted government.

GMTom wrote:go ahead and get stupid.
Someone having a stroke is not attacking an officer and is offering no resistance, he is simply going to drop to his knees anyways! A deaf person will unfortunately face a bit of physical brusqueness no doubt, if the police are found to have used TOO much force they can be sued.

The video I saw is linked here. https://youtu.be/EEXjfACemmA

He did not simply drop to his knees. He was tased, pepper sprayed amd dragged out of the car.

You are apologising for thuggery. You would not apologise for a criminal gang using violence or the threat of it to get their way? Why would you apologise for the government (local, state or whatever) doing so?

As I said before, suing afterwards is a poor solution. As is what happens in this case - the cop resigned (and so presumably can't be disciplined).

What about prevention of injustice?