Robittybob1 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 When people have not been subjected to corruption, they assume that cooperation would result in a more moderate response from the police. However, there are even more stories and videos of blacks standing in a mall, walking down the street, pulled over for a questionable traffic violation, or driving a car nicer than the cops think a black could afford etc. being beaten, arrested without due process, held in jail for weeks or months, and yes killed making cooperating as risky as running away. In a moment of panic, running away at least gives you a chance to avoid the abuse if you are lucky. There are a number of psychological, sociological, and anthropological studies that show the seemingly odd responses such as a crowd submitting to a small number of captors, or a single individual fighting against what appears hopeless. Running actually makes more sense than it seems on the surface. Somehow you have to find a way of breaking that cycle. You fire 8 shots but how do you know if any have hit the target? I did see any shots being fired into the person while they were down. Maybe the whole idea of running after an offender is wrong. Are you allowed to run after someone and tackle them to the ground if they are running away? Are you allowed to punch them or taser them from behind? You fire 8 shots but how do you know if any have hit the CITIZEN? I did NOT see any shots being fired into the person while they were down. Maybe the whole idea of running after an offender is wrong. Are you allowed to run after someone and tackle them to the ground if they are running away? Are you allowed to punch them or taser them from behind? Corrections made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 ...Maybe the whole idea of running after an offender is wrong. He could have radioed for assistance as he went after him and then his colleagues could head him off; there is no 'I' in team, which is what a police force is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robittybob1 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 He could have radioed for assistance as he went after him and then his colleagues could head him off; there is no 'I' in team, which is what a police force is. Well can't he still just keep on walking away? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Well can't he still just keep on walking away? I think the officer can use reasonable force to apprehend him which could mean striking him with his baton to bring him down. I think the point is the situation needs to escalate in proportion before lethal force is used. He could have just tracked him until assistance came. This is from the UK government site on arrest powers: Police powers to use reasonable forceIf you try to escape or become violent, the police can use ‘reasonable force’, eg holding you down so you can’t run off. You can also be handcuffed. The police have powers to search you when you’re arrested. https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-of-arrest-your-rights Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32237544 Dashboard cam footage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32237544 Dashboard cam footage. How would it have played out if it was a white bloke doing that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willie71 Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 Somehow you have to find a way of breaking that cycle. How about having the police treat black people like people instead of abusing and killing them? That's the logical place to start, not with having the victim take responsibility for being abused. We don't tell women to stop antagonizing their abusers either. Fixing police abuse is the responsibility of the police administration, and if they won't fix it, the government needs to step in and fix it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted April 10, 2015 Share Posted April 10, 2015 How would it have played out if it was a white bloke doing that? It was so odd that no policeman would have been able to resist giving chase. But after the scuffle it seems that the officer's cognitive faculties went offline and he opened fire without any sane, legal, or prodecural reasoning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted April 29, 2015 Share Posted April 29, 2015 (edited) President Obama nails it today. First 5 minutes are great. Last 5 minutes are phenomenal (starting at 9m in, amplified at 11:30m). Context - Baltimore riots after police kill black man in van by breaking his spine while handcuffed. Edited April 29, 2015 by iNow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 I'm at work iNow, so I can't watch the video you posted. Sorry. I hope he announced some actions that will be taken to ensure these incidents don't happen again. The time for rousing speeches is past, actions need to be taken before more of these incidents tear the country apart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharonY Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 The thing is, law enforcement is state business and I am not sure how much the feds can enforce policies or are able to investigate misconduct. They can provide or deny certain assistance to promote adoption of certain policies but beyond that their reach may be limited (but I could be wrong). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 You are correct. Federal power here is extremely limited due to the 10th amendment. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/police_powers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 (edited) The definition, creation and interpretation of law, above all things, should be federal business, not state. I am bemused by the degree of autonomy states have on critical stuff that really requires harmonisation across the whole country. Edited May 12, 2015 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted May 31, 2015 Share Posted May 31, 2015 (edited) US police kill more than two people a day, report suggests Data collected by the Washington Post newspaper suggests that the number of people shot by US police is twice as high as official figures claim. The paper said that during the first five months of this year, 385 people - more than two a day - were killed. The number of black people was disproportionately high among the victims, especially unarmed ones. Official statistics rely on self-reported figures from law enforcement agencies. They suggest about 400 people have been killed each year since 2008. Read more: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32950383 Edited May 31, 2015 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/01/police-commit-1-in-13-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ IMAGE SUMMARY: https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2015/06/gun_cops.png&w=1484 America's law enforcement officers have shot and killed upwards of 385 people so far this year, according to a new Washington Post investigation. That's a rate of about 1 every 9 hours, or 2.5 shootings per day. That's a lot compared to other countries -- cops in Germany killed only 8 people in 2013-2014, for instance. British police didn't kill anyone last year. Through June 1, there have been 5,099 gun deaths in the U.S., according to up-to-date numbers maintained by the Gun Violence Archive. Based on the 385 figure, that means that American police are responsible for about 1 in every 13 gun deaths in the country, or 8 percent. The Gun Violence Archive numbers include suicide as well as homicide, so the police-involved share of gun homicides would be even larger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endy0816 Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) A lot of guns here in circulation. Gotta assume the 'bad guy' is armed with a deadly weapon. Action may be bad, but inaction is likely to be worse. That's the nasty logic anyways. May be partially racially biased, but probably more due to sheer socioeconomics than anything else. Edited June 2, 2015 by Endy0816 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) In the interests of balance, this is the 2015 statistics for police deaths - All causes: Line of Duty Deaths: 54 9/11 related illness: 2Accidental: 1Assault: 1Automobile accident: 15Gunfire: 14Gunfire (Accidental): 2Heart attack: 11Motorcycle accident: 1Struck by vehicle: 3Vehicle pursuit: 2Vehicular assault: 2 http://www.odmp.org/search/year Edited June 2, 2015 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endy0816 Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) Looks about what you would expect. I looked at the violent crime statistics at one point and saw they were fairly comparable across our countries. You are just more likely to have someone end up dead here. Luckily most guns are in few hands but people with stockpiles can lead to issues as well, so not much better. Edited June 2, 2015 by Endy0816 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 (edited) In the interests of balance, this is the 2015 statistics for police deaths - All causes: <snip> Gunfire: 14 So, police are killing civilians at a rate of 385:14, and that's just in the last 5 months. This means that in the US when there is a death caused by gunfire and police are somehow involved, it's because 97% of the time the police are killing a civilian and 3% of the time a civilian is killing a police officer. I recognize they have a hard and stressful job, but that strikes me as out of balance and a bit excessive in a free and modern society. Edited June 2, 2015 by iNow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waitforufo Posted June 2, 2015 Share Posted June 2, 2015 So, police are killing civilians at a rate of 385:14, and that's just in the last 5 months. This means that in the US when there is a death caused by gunfire and police are somehow involved, it's because 97% of the time the police are killing a civilian and 3% of the time a civilian is killing a police officer. I recognize they have a hard and stressful job, but that strikes me as out of balance and a bit excessive in a free and modern society. While all of those 399 deaths are unfortunate, the ratio should not be surprising. The police receive significant firearms training. They are trained to shoot to kill. They are trained to keep pulling the trigger until their gun is empty. In stress situations people naturally perform to their training without thinking. Most civilians receive no training. At best most civilians take a few shots at a range, where they barely aim and never take score or attempt to improve their performance. Training significantly improves performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 The police receive significant firearms training. They are trained to shoot to kill. They are trained to keep pulling the trigger until their gun is empty. In stress situations people naturally perform to their training without thinking.<snip> Training significantly improves performance.Perhaps if instead they were trained to deescalate situations, seek ways to calm tensions and mitigate stressors, and find clever ways to avoid the death of free citizens we'd have fewer deaths at their hands, less public outrage, and greater trust in their authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) Perhaps if instead they were trained to deescalate situations, seek ways to calm tensions and mitigate stressors, and find clever ways to avoid the death of free citizens we'd have fewer deaths at their hands, less public outrage, and greater trust in their authority. I honestly think the only answer is the British model of unarmed officers and units of weapons-trained officers to support them.when necessary. If you look at the British armed-officers, they act the same as an American officer; they are trained to shoot-to-kill. If every British police officer was armed, I have a strong feeling the police fatality statistics would eventually line up with America's; a gun in hand is the quickest, most convenient "solution" to any confrontation". It takes less effort on the part of the armed officer. Edited June 3, 2015 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zapatos Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 (edited) I honestly think the only answer is the British model of unarmed officers and units of weapons-trained officers to support them.when necessary. If you look at the the British armed-officers, they act the same as an American officer; they are trained to shoot-to-kill. If every British police officer was armed, I have a strong feeling the police fatality statistics would eventually line up with America's; a gun in hand is the quickest solution to any confrontation. In my opinion the only way we can follow the British model of unarmed officers is if we follow the British model of unarmed citizenry. Unfortunately I don't see that happening either. Edited June 3, 2015 by zapatos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 In my opinion the only way we can follow the British model of unarmed officers is if we follow the British model of unarmed citizenry. Unfortunately I don't see that happening either. Yes, definitely. The right to bear arms has to be repealed first... and pigs will fly before then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now