No It was a lot of Hyperbole. The Police force has more freedom to use deadly force or aggressive tactics then I saw In the service. I have people I served with that are Police officers now who are astonished with the fact they have access to military style equipment with half the training.
I just can't believe how many People are OK with how the police act.
They are Humans but they definitely should be help to a higher standard or stop calling them the Cities finest.
I am not generally ok with how American police act (and give great thanks I live in Calgary and deal with/work with Calgary police).
But, unlike most folks, I understand WHY a lot of American Police are like they are...and I don't see it changing short of a major mental shift of the entire populace of the States.
I am not generally ok with how American police act (and give great thanks I live in Calgary and deal with/work with Calgary police).
But, unlike most folks, I understand WHY a lot of American Police are like they are...and I don't see it changing short of a major mental shift of the entire populace of the States.
I understand . Its not a shot specifically at you . Like I mentioned before over and over that my time in the service saw less lethal force in the service than I have in American Police services.
I think that this is where the disconnect lies, though. They generally are following their training (like it or not)but the problem is they start at the top and work backwards as things are proven. Don't know if the suspect has a gun? Assume he does until you know otherwise. Don't know if there's a knife? Assume there could be, until proven otherwise. Don't know if the guy is a black belt in 5 different forms of martial arts? Assume he is until otherwise proven. No gun? Great, step down a response level. No melee weapons? Great, step down another response level. Keep proceeding until the situation is resolved.
But folks seem to be thinking that they should start at the bottom, and work their way up. Assume the person can't do anything or has anything on them until it's proven that they do. Sadly, given how fast most weapons work, this really is 'backwards', unsafe thinking that, if the suspect has a weapon they intend to use, will more likely than not get the officer killed.
So while every situation IS different, it's approached as if the people involved have guns, knives and black belts and are willing to use them until proven otherwise. To do otherwise is unsafe and unwise for all involved.
(This part got cut off, for some reason)
But this is the issue. Officers are going into situations as if they're against militant opposition. They're literally going in with tanks at this point.
They're jumping straight to 'maim or kill' before assessing a situation. If they want to go in cautiously as if every person is armed and extremely dangerous, fine--but don't act immediately as if the person is firing on you unless they are. The issue is that a lot of the major police issues that have come up are because officers aren't going through that system you just said--they aren't assessing the situation and deescalating the response as need be. They're overly aggressive in situations which don't call for it.
If the actual response from officers was what you listed--there wouldn't be much complaint. But when a couple of officers jump out of a car at a 12 year old with a bb gun and open fire on him in under 5 seconds--none of that assessment you listed is actually happening, and that is a problem.
Quote:
How do police know he got it off the shelf? Is it loaded? You realize you can actually kill with a bb gun, right? How do you KNOW, for certain, that he's not a threat?
Dancing idiot. roll your eyes, chuckle, turn to walk away...and he pulls out a gun and shoots you in the back or a knife which he attacks you from behind with.
Thing is, most folks don't think like that, they don't HAVE to, but Police do. Or if you don't, you highly risk going home in a box.
I wasn't saying you can't kill someone with a bb gun. I was referencing the case in Ohio where the man was in Walmart, some racist moron calls 911, and rather than walking in calmly and assessing the situation and realizing he wasn't a threat, officers shot him down before doing any kind of deducing to see what the reality of the situation was.
All three of those cases I mentioned were based on reality--the only one where the guy got away without any issue was the one who was actually waving a loaded firearm and threatening to shoot people.
The innocent guy with a bb gun in Walmart is shot to death on sight, and the dumb guy dancing got shoved around needlessly.
How is it that one officer is able to talk down a nutjob with a loaded weapon but other officers can't handle non-threats without issue?
Dancing idiot. roll your eyes, chuckle, turn to walk away...and he pulls out a gun and shoots you in the back or a knife which he attacks you from behind with.
Thing is, most folks don't think like that, they don't HAVE to, but Police do. Or if you don't, you highly risk going home in a box.
Yeesh. Going by that, I have to wonder why they don't have their guns drawn at all times.
The NYPD are employees of the city working on a busy street in America, not the 82nd Airborne in a recently-taken Fallujah back alley.
That dancing idiot annoyed those officers. They weren't scared of him. You can tell by their reaction. Then they surrounded him, insulted him, and pushed him down, high school bully style.
__________________
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
But this is the issue. Officers are going into situations as if they're against militant opposition. They're literally going in with tanks at this point.
They're jumping straight to 'maim or kill' before assessing a situation. If they want to go in cautiously as if every person is armed and extremely dangerous, fine--but don't act immediately as if the person is firing on you unless they are. The issue is that a lot of the major police issues that have come up are because officers aren't going through that system you just said--they aren't assessing the situation and deescalating the response as need be. They're overly aggressive in situations which don't call for it.
If the actual response from officers was what you listed--there wouldn't be much complaint. But when a couple of officers jump out of a car at a 12 year old with a bb gun and open fire on him in under 5 seconds--none of that assessment you listed is actually happening, and that is a problem.
True. The response to "Does he have a gun? I don't know, therefore I will treat him as if he does" isn't (or shouldn't be) "better shoot him in the head to be safe." Some American police are having some big issues with their response protocols.
Quote:
I wasn't saying you can't kill someone with a bb gun. I was referencing the case in Ohio where the man was in Walmart, some racist moron calls 911, and rather than walking in calmly and assessing the situation and realizing he wasn't a threat, officers shot him down before doing any kind of deducing to see what the reality of the situation was.
All three of those cases I mentioned were based on reality--the only one where the guy got away without any issue was the one who was actually waving a loaded firearm and threatening to shoot people.
The innocent guy with a bb gun in Walmart is shot to death on sight, and the dumb guy dancing got shoved around needlessly.
How is it that one officer is able to talk down a nutjob with a loaded weapon but other officers can't handle non-threats without issue?
I am well aware of and acquainted with all 3 cases you mentioned. My assessment stands. You treat each situation with a suspect as armed and dangerous until proven otherwise.
As to why one officer can talk someone down and another can't...think about your workplace. Do you have people who are better at one job or another? Better at one aspect of a job, or another. Or is everyone equally as good at everything as everyone else? I have seen a 4 hour standoff ended by a Police Negotiator 5 minutes after the negotiator showed up, because some folks are really good at talking to other folks, and some people, no matter how much you train them, can't talk the weather out of a weatherman. "Police" are not one homogeneous force made of up 100% interchangeable bits. One police officer is not "just as good as" another police officer. Just like any other job, training, job experience, life experience, ability and raw talent affect "a policeperson".
True. The response to "Does he have a gun? I don't know, therefore I will treat him as if he does" isn't (or shouldn't be) "better shoot him in the head to be safe." Some American police are having some big issues with their response protocols.
I am well aware of and acquainted with all 3 cases you mentioned. My assessment stands. You treat each situation with a suspect as armed and dangerous until proven otherwise.
As to why one officer can talk someone down and another can't...think about your workplace. Do you have people who are better at one job or another? Better at one aspect of a job, or another. Or is everyone equally as good at everything as everyone else? I have seen a 4 hour standoff ended by a Police Negotiator 5 minutes after the negotiator showed up, because some folks are really good at talking to other folks, and some people, no matter how much you train them, can't talk the weather out of a weatherman. "Police" are not one homogeneous force made of up 100% interchangeable bits. One police officer is not "just as good as" another police officer. Just like any other job, training, job experience, life experience, ability and raw talent affect "a policeperson".
But if someone in most lines of work is consistently poor at their job--they get demoted, punished, fired.
Police reacted badly to a situation in Walmart and a man is dead.
Police reacted badly to a 12 year old kid with the bb gun and a boy is dead.
Yes, there are varying levels of not being good at your job--the NYPD officers overreacting to the dancing guy are kinda crappy at assessing risk--the officers who killed John Crawford and Tamir Rice should probably not be working as police officers anymore.
Instead, at least in the case of John Crawford--the officers received no punishment at all, and that is a huge problem.
But if someone in most lines of work is consistently poor at their job--they get demoted, punished, fired.
Police reacted badly to a situation in Walmart and a man is dead.
Police reacted badly to a 12 year old kid with the bb gun and a boy is dead.
Yes, there are varying levels of not being good at your job--the NYPD officers overreacting to the dancing guy are kinda crappy at assessing risk--the officers who killed John Crawford and Tamir Rice should probably not be working as police officers anymore.
Instead, at least in the case of John Crawford--the officers received no punishment at all, and that is a huge problem.
Do you expect to get fired after making one mistake at your job? Should police? Yes, they work in a job where things can be life or death, but so do other folks. Do you fire firemen after one of them screws up and backdrafts a fire, destroying a house? Do you fire a doctor after he makes a mistake and misdiagnoses a fatal disease? If you fire everyone who makes a mistake, no one works anymore. The consequences of the mistakes of the police are far greater than if you make a mistake at work, I am sure, but the principle is the same. If it's a continual or even "occasional" problem, it sure needs to be looked at. But firing someone immediately for some mistake in a job where split second decisions are required...I can't get behind that.
Also, how do you know that they "received no punishment"? Or do you mean "They received no punishment that I could see that would make me feel better." Does your job publish every disciplinary action it takes against it's employees? Should it? They weren't taken out and dragged through the streets so that the general public could feel better, but I doubt that they "received no punishment".
If nothing else, the knowledge that they have killed someone will weigh forever heavily on their mind...and if they are even remotely decent people (which they probably are) they will probably end up laying awake many a night, wondering about "that call".
Last edited by WhiteTiger; 12-31-2014 at 11:33 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to WhiteTiger For This Useful Post:
OK, this is obviously an exercise in futility, so I'll cut to the chase and leave it at that.
Here's some hyperbole for you (thanks to Nik for the big word).
Let's start a thread called 'Police shooting of unarmed teen'. Not just a teen, which would be horrifying enough, but an unarmed teen. Oh, the humanity. Let's basically portray it as an execution (seriously, go back and read post #1 - you wrote it). Damn pigs! The poor kid was trying to surrender and everything! Hands up, don't shoot!
But I'm the one that's exaggerating.
Uh oh. Here come the facts. The poor unarmed teen was in a life and death struggle with the police when he was shot? He was basically in the cruiser fighting with the police? Well, that's problematic. Based on those pesky facts, it's almost as if this was a great example of when deadly force was justified ('but he was unarmed though!').
But let's not let that get in the way of some good ol' police bashing. The fact that this thread is built on this foundation seems fitting to me.
I'm all for holding the few bad apple cops accountable, but I'm sorry if I can't sit back and listen to cops in general get bashed while 'innocent' victims and fricking half-wits going gangnam-style are the heroes. Maybe the dancing idiot will show up instead of the police the next time you need help. Good luck.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Winnie For This Useful Post:
OK, this is obviously an exercise in futility, so I'll cut to the chase and leave it at that.
Here's some hyperbole for you (thanks to Nik for the big word).
Let's start a thread called 'Police shooting of unarmed teen'. Not just a teen, which would be horrifying enough, but an unarmed teen. Oh, the humanity. Let's basically portray it as an execution (seriously, go back and read post #1 - you wrote it). Damn pigs! The poor kid was trying to surrender and everything! Hands up, don't shoot!
But I'm the one that's exaggerating.
Uh oh. Here come the facts. The poor unarmed teen was in a life and death struggle with the police when he was shot? He was basically in the cruiser fighting with the police? Well, that's problematic. Based on those pesky facts, it's almost as if this was a great example of when deadly force was justified ('but he was unarmed though!').
But let's not let that get in the way of some good ol' police bashing. The fact that this thread is built on this foundation seems fitting to me.
I'm all for holding the few bad apple cops accountable, but I'm sorry if I can't sit back and listen to cops in general get bashed while 'innocent' victims and fricking half-wits going gangnam-style are the heroes. Maybe the dancing idiot will show up instead of the police the next time you need help. Good luck.
This is why I'm giving you no credibility. I never said that at all. I was giving updates and quoting the links I provided.
You seriously need to smarten up or don't participate In this conversation . You response Is totally unacceptable on CP. Either grow up or stop posting in this thread. Your reaction is over the top.
Edit :
we are also discussing in the other police forces that the DOJ!!! have found severe problems with. The problems within these city forces were so bad the DOJ is reforming them under their supervision and consultation.
Either don't act like 9 year old with an attitude in your post or It may be better for you and other posters you just don't post at all .
Last edited by combustiblefuel; 01-01-2015 at 01:38 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to combustiblefuel For This Useful Post:
People need to watch that Brian Willis Tedx talk when it comes to the term "unarmed" and how there are still cops who are killed by unarmed assailants and unarmed assailants who use the officers gun.
Unarmed does not equal no threat.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jar_e For This Useful Post:
People need to watch that Brian Willis Tedx talk when it comes to the term "unarmed" and how there are still cops who are killed by unarmed assailants and unarmed assailants who use the officers gun.
Unarmed does not equal no threat.
and yet police forces all over the entire globe manage to deal with unarmed threats without deadly force.
Being skeptical about excessive uses of force by police doesn't mean you're anti-police or that you want police to end up dead. The goal is that the officer and the suspect both come out of the situation alive. The goal is that officers aren't put in unnecessary danger--but also that suspects are apprehended without unnecessary force or death.
The DOJ is questioning these police forces. These are police forces which are using Asset Forfeiture laws to steal money and property from innocent citizens. These are police forces that have policies like Stop and Frisk where they can literally stop you for any reason they see fit, even though well over 80% of the people they stop are innocent of any wrongdoing and about 80% of those stopped are minorities (compared to <12% white stops), thus it's pretty clear racial profiling in action.
There are actual issues that need to be handled. This isn't an anti-cop thing, this is a pro-civil-liberties thing.
Though in this country, civil liberties only seem to matter when it comes to gun rights.
The Following User Says Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
and yet police forces all over the entire globe manage to deal with unarmed threats without deadly force.
Being skeptical about excessive uses of force by police doesn't mean you're anti-police or that you want police to end up dead. The goal is that the officer and the suspect both come out of the situation alive. The goal is that officers aren't put in unnecessary danger--but also that suspects are apprehended without unnecessary force or death.
The DOJ is questioning these police forces. These are police forces which are using Asset Forfeiture laws to steal money and property from innocent citizens. These are police forces that have policies like Stop and Frisk where they can literally stop you for any reason they see fit, even though well over 80% of the people they stop are innocent of any wrongdoing and about 80% of those stopped are minorities (compared to <12% white stops), thus it's pretty clear racial profiling in action.
There are actual issues that need to be handled. This isn't an anti-cop thing, this is a pro-civil-liberties thing.
Though in this country, civil liberties only seem to matter when it comes to gun rights.
I'm not arguing the examples you've documented. Obviously cause for concern the ones you've brought up (and I'm sure many others).
I was just saying how I hate this "unarmed" term is a blanket and somehow implied there's zero threat to the officer. That simply is not true. It's a fluid spectrum at all times, armed or not. That Brian Willis TedX talk, which I hope you watched, is incredibly telling for use of force, etc.
I wasn't trying to say or imply you were anti-cop for the record.
Well it's obvious which one of those officers joined up to compensate for something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos
That dancing idiot annoyed those officers. They weren't scared of him. You can tell by their reaction. Then they surrounded him, insulted him, and pushed him down, high school bully style.
In fairness to the cops, it was really only the one who was acting like a power tripping ######bag
I don't really get what you're showing here other than continuing to push your anti police agenda.
Do I think the police handled that correctly after they determined he wasn't threat? No. Not at all.
But even you and the others have to acknowledge that in the light of the environment in NY at the moment, and indeed, the entire US, the "prank" was in really poor taste and certainly had the possibility of eliciting such a response, considering to NY police officers were murdered while sitting in their car last week.
Last edited by Bent Wookie; 01-01-2015 at 09:36 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to For This Useful Post:
I don't really get what you're showing here other than continuing to push your anti police agenda.
Do I think the police handled that correctly after they determined he wasn't threat? No. Not at all.
But even you and your other anti policers have to acknowledge that in the light of the environment in NY at the moment, and indeed, the entire US, the "prank" was in really poor taste and certainly had the possibility of eliciting such a response, considering to NY police officers were murdered while sitting in their car last week.
Bent Wookie, I really respect your opinions on these subjects (I mean that sincerely) but these snippy comments you're making, and the agenda you're pushing; that everyone getting on poor policing are "anti policers" is really grating and taking way more away from the discussion than the posters you're accusing of the same.
It's especially frustrating for me, as I've had some harsh words for certain aspects of American law enforcement and think it's completely broken in most States, yet I defend Calgary Police more than anyone I know and think they do an incredible job. They're a force that most American forces could only dream of being like. Yet based on your generalizations, I end up being an "anti-policer" based on your commentary in this thread.
It's to the point now where whenever I see a new post from you I already know it's a sarcastic shot at someone criticizing law enforcement, and lately it's gone beyond that to the point where you're now just grouping everyone into a catch all "Anti-policers" and throwing drive by's at the group.
The Following User Says Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
Bent Wookie, I really respect your opinions on these subjects (I mean that sincerely) but these snippy comments you're making, and the agenda you're pushing; that everyone getting on poor policing are "anti policers" is really grating and taking way more away from the discussion than the posters you're accusing of the same.
It's especially frustrating for me, as I've had some harsh words for certain aspects of American law enforcement and think it's completely broken in most States, yet I defend Calgary Police more than anyone I know and think they do an incredible job. They're a force that most American forces could only dream of being like. Yet based on your generalizations, I end up being an "anti-policer" based on your commentary in this thread.
It's to the point now where whenever I see a new post from you I already know it's a sarcastic shot at someone criticizing law enforcement, and lately it's gone beyond that to the point where you're now just grouping everyone into a catch all "Anti-policers" and throwing drive by's at the group.
I can respect that. You have to understand how frustrating it is the read the same criticisms over and over. They can have opinions, absolutely, but be open to changing those opinions. And yes, it is the same group of people that push these threads and opinions.
If you followed my posts through the years, I think you can sense that frustration.
I agree with a lot of sentiments in this thread but at the same time, this thread has become a forum to push the agenda of some.
The Following User Says Thank You to For This Useful Post:
