Here we go again
- Thread starter Crazyhole
- Start date
I am curious how many people of other rqces have been killed by the police since the first match was struck?
There was another OIS in Kenosha, Wis. No video yet but destructive protests have commenced.
Kenosha police shoot man; video of incident appears to show officer firing several shots into his back at close range
Jacob Blake was airlifted to Froedtert Hospital in Milwaukee, where he is in serious condition. The officers have been placed on leave.
www.jsonline.com
But when Indiana Jones shot the knife-wielding bad guy, he wasn't running away from him.
It’s his industry, so yeah, I guess you’re right. The thing is, most of the cases that blow up nationally do so because he’s working his formula. Also, he’s behind the false narratives that take hold in the public and never get corrected. Because he disappears once the civil settlement is cashed and doesn’t really care about what is true or right. It’s a hell of a business model for him right now.
Financial and emotional closure for the family. It's the way most lawyers work. Morgan and Morgan does the same thing.
I mean, I guess they could just let the guy with the knife stab people or they could let the guy who was previously violent and ignoring their orders, with whom the taser deployment was unsuccessful, go into his car and grab whatever it is he was reaching for and just hope it isn’t a gun. After all, no one riots when police are killed nor do they riot when criminals kill unarmed and innocent bystanders.It's like the police can't help themselves. SMH.
Using fear of riots to bully governments into paying out taxpayer money for protection. Sounds like a different organization to me.
You're right. Even though the guy was already tased, was wielding a knife and swiping at officers, had already evaded arrest, and was just involved in a domestic violence dispute, the officers should have just waited for him to stab them and chance it.
I find it interesting how many Black men in the process of running away from the scene are shot dead. Seems like any officer who was highly-trained in gun marksmanship could stop a suspect without resorting to a lethal shot, don't you think?
There was a time where officers might have just overwhelmed him with force and restrained him until he stopped being aggressive and they could put him in handcuffs while they sorted out the situation. Unfortunately, that and a lot of other techniques have been deemed unacceptable by some very vocal people bravely crusading from the comfort of their living rooms. Of course, almost none of it would happen (Philando Castile withstanding) if the suspect would just be compliant. But those same keyboard warriors have convinced people that they need to be combative and so here we are. Combative suspects and police that have few real options when they can't get people to comply by their command presence alone.
Does being a black man have any relevance to the fact that he just came from a domestic violence dispute, was armed, evaded arrest, had to be tased, and was attempting to enter a car, likely to use it to strike and kill responding officers?
Is any of this behavior specific to black people, and that's why you included that, or are you just throwing around race-based tropes because that's what you hear all day as the wise thing to do?
I dont think we want to train cops that when they discharge their weapon to go for the kneecaps.
I think the problem stems from prejudicial perceptions of black people before the incident happened. Typically, a white lady would be treated differently. We all have our biases but cops are bringing those biases into work with them.
There was no threat to the cops. The man in question was breaking up the fight, not one of the instigators. And to be clear, the man was moving away from them and trying to get into his car. Did he ignore their commands? I'm sure he was. But the follow-up response is..seven shots in the back???
Whatever crime may or may not have been committed, the police response was way over the line.
Unless you can qualify that a white woman would have been treated differently, who emerged from a domestic violence situation, was armed and threatening officers, resisted arrest, was tased, and then still tried to enter and utilize a vehicle while still armed, you are just spouting baseless assumptions that can't be supported.
You quantify it by taking the number of interactions by the police, breaking them down by race/gender and then looking at the outcomes.
Oh, that is not even close to true. You should go look up the numbers on solved murder cases. It's less that 50% and places like Chicago have years where it's down in the 10% range.
The Fryer report did that earlier this year and found that there wasn't a discrepancy towards black men. It actually found that police were more reticent to use deadly force against a black man.
This isn't true either. You're on a roll today with your false assumptions.
The way police interactions go is almost entirely affected by the behavior of the suspect/civilian. People who are respectful and compliant almost never have any issues. People who are combative, disrespectful, argumentative, etc. have escalated encounters.
Now, in my wife's experience as a patrol officer, want to guess which demographic leads all others by far in being initially argumentative, disrespectful, and/or combative without provocation in encounters with police?
We had a perfect example of this in a Wendy's parking lot just a couple of months ago. Everything was fine and cordial until the perp became combative.
Even if you look at the Floyd encounter, if Floyd had simply sat down in the back of the police vehicle and taken the trip to jail, he might still be alive today. Not that he deserved to die because he resisted, but the encounter wouldn't have escalated either.
There is a big difference though, considering the cop's initial encounter included a drawn weapon.
That's just it. The perception is that they are being these things. The provocation is the officers presence. The closer an officer physically (by the foot) becomes to a person the worst things will become. If the officer is 30 feet from you, you are not going to jail. If the officer is 2 feet from you, the chances of you going to jail increase exponentially. People know that and it increases their anxiety. It's a negative feedback loop.
It's not a perception thing. You are trying to fit it into your worldview because you believe the narrative. In the case of calls for service, the provocation was the original reason for the call, not the officer's presence. Similarly with traffic stops and observed criminal activity, the provocation is the violation not the officer's presence. While officers do enter into consensual encounters where you could say that their presence is the initial provocation, these are almost always non-combative and not-disrespectful. In almost all occasions where a consensual encounter does not result in probable cause for something, everyone goes their separate ways without any issues.
For the most part, officers try to maintain a certain distance for officer safety and expressly to not escalate encounters unless there is a reason to close the distance. Frequently, it is the civilian closing the distance and the officer will either retreat or warn the civilian to stay back or both. Especially now in COVID times.
The officers do this for a living, 40+ hours per week, for years. They aren't just arbitrarily interacting with people; they are following a set of procedures and best practices for how to handle encounters. They have to justify all of their actions to their departments and to the court of law. Some officers are quicker to go through those procedures than others, but the vast majority of them aren't just arbitrarily deciding to go out and use deadly force.
Now, I have seen some officers that don't respond to anger directed at them well and get heated in return. Which is probably the opposite of what should happen in a lot of those situations. But standing there yelling at each other is a far cry from using deadly force just because someone is yelling at you.
Try not to be involved in domestic violence disputes and emerge armed with a knife and you probably won't have cops up in your space attempting to make an arrest.
Wow, isn't that easy?
Here is an interesting read about less lethals. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/233280.pdf
The current mob mentality that is decrying the use of current less lethals is ignorant and dangerous. From the report: "Although both pepper spray and CEDs (tasers, stun guns, etc.) cause pain, they reduce injuries; and, according to current medical research, death or serious harm associated with their use is rare."
What you seem to want is magic, where police officers can wave a wand and a suspect is stupefied without any chance of injury. In real life, things are messy and can be violent.
For argument's sake, let's list the "less lethals", their characteristics, and the recent public opinion of them:
Tasers: use is unreliable because you need both prongs to make and keep contact in just the right place. The public sentiment is mixed on tasers. On one hand, the public thinks tasers cause fatal heart attacks so they are lethal weapons. On the other hand, the public thinks they are perfect weapons and deploy correctly every time.
OC Spray: irritant that degrades that ability of some people to function but is completely ineffective against a few. Can and does incapacitate the person deploying the OC spray, meaning that it is not an option for a number of officers. Since the park service used OC agents (among other agents), the public thinks it is a chemical weapon of war and is loudly against it.
Rubber bullets: Not carried by police unless in a special situation (riot control). Now viewed as evil because federal police hit some rioters in soft locations. Not incapacitating and people on drugs like PCP may walk right through them.
Bean bag rounds: Fired from a shotgun which not every officer has, is impractical to carry regularly, and bringing a shotgun to most situations would be provocative. In addition, not incapacitating and people on drugs like PCP may walk right through them.
Batons: strikes from batons cause injury and require close contact with officers. Cell phone videos of officers striking someone with a baton evoke all kinds of pictures from prior to 1970, so the public is obviously against the use of batons. Not only that, going "hands-on" greatly increases the risk to both suspect and officer alike, so that should be avoided if at all possible.
I'll point out one more excerpt from this that many will find surprising: "Increasing levels of suspect resistance were associated with an increased risk of injury to officers and suspects. The increased injury risk was especially acute for officers. These findings suggest that officers, rather than suspects, face the most increased injury risk when suspects resist more vigorously. "
Adding more non-lethal means probably just gives criminals more confidence in resisting arrest. If a person goes into a confrontation knowing that step 2 is a bullet to the chest, they might think twice about it.
Or that might think that every encounter is a life or death situation and the only recourse is to fight for their lives.
Honestly, I think the problem lies in the courts and how the public reacts to arrests rather than with police. If people felt they got a fair shake in court, they'd be far more likely to be compliant and go through the process. If they didn't get fired because they got arrested, whether guilty or not, then they would also be more likely to be compliant through the arrest process.
Agreed. An officer confrontation is NOT the time to make your case or explain the facts as you see them.
This is the biggest reason that I've been on board with the criminal justice reforms that Rand Paul and Ron Wyden have been working towards.
I guess it's easy to say that from your perspective. Nearly every one of these killings involved an officer engaging the victim while they were just living their lives not bothering anyone. Not everyone makes good decisions and many people choose the wrong decision every time when under pressure. We all know people like this. Just the presence of law enforcement creates a pressure situation.
Welcome to the real world. Nobody wants to go to or pay for court/jail/lawyers. If you can convince the cop to let you go, you can avoid that nightmare.
