Again. Police murder two more innocent black men. How do we stop this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sier

3. Hold the Police Accountable. (Body Cameras, Stricter Penalties for Manslaughter)

---

Why do you have this listed as #3? This should be #1 and the only one. At no time could I as a civilian EVER do the ridiculous, dumb, paranoid shit that cops seem to get away with and expect to not go to prison. Let me and my buddy roll up on a 12 year old with a b.b. gun and shoot him dead and I'm in fucking prison. Let me shoot an unarmed man who is walking away from me with his hands up and I'm going to fucking prison.

Citizens don't need to be disarmed just so trigger happy cops will stop shooting people. Cops just need to stop shooting so many people. When you show up 7 to 1, you don't need to shoot somebody to get them to comply. There's too many instances of cops being pussies (because if you fear for your life in most of these cases, that's what the fuck you have to be) and just pulling a trigger.

Lock the guns of the police in their cars. Make them have to think about removing it from the secured area.

Also, regarding your hypothetic scenarios about if a guy is slapped a few times, eventually he'll start ducking: I don't think you realize the irony of that question. The Black Community is constantly getting slapped (be it physically with actual beatings, or legally with stop and frisk/driving while black/etc.) and duck. You're right. Fear of the police has become instinctual for many of them. And with good fucking reason.

Cops seem to think they're heroes, but they're little more than abusive revenue collectors and usually thrill-junkies. By virtue of their training, they seek to intimidate and bully their way to compliance, rather than pursuing less violent and threatening means of gaining said compliance.

There are no good cops. None that are still employed anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sier

If you disarm the police, you will have to disarm the people

---

No you don't.

There are numerous first world countries whose police are not packing fatal death dealers that they whip out idiotically at every opportunity because it gets their dick hard.

The gun can be in a locker in their patrol car to be used only in the appropriate situations.

They don't need it on hand constantly so they can whip it out and feel like a tough guy from NCIS: Los Angeles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aristotle

There are numerous first world countries whose police are not packing fatal death dealers that they whip out idiotically at every opportunity because it gets their dick hard.

---

I just did a quick search:
http://qz.com/727941/how-do-police-h...nt-carry-guns/

Quote:

---

In Norway, Iceland, New Zealand, Britain, and Ireland, police officers generally do not carry firearms. In one of these countries, Iceland, it’s legal for citizens to carry guns—and there’s an estimated rate of 30 privately-owned guns per 100 people.

---

The only country (not limited to just "first world") where citizens carry but cops don't is an isolated island with a population of 300,000, according to that article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firear...United_Kingdom

This isn't a citizen gun ownership issue. This is about cops having their gun out all the damn time when it is utterly unnecessary.

Why does a cop need the gun on his hip? He doesn't. Have it in his car. Locked up. Far safer and far less inappropriate use.

He doesn't need to be brandishing it all the time. That's how you have situations like this......... all the damn time. Absolutely no good reason, and the cop jerks his pistol so he can be a bad ass and intimidate/get his way:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1wFUgThMlc

If a situation is dangerous, stay back and wait for backup.

The point is, it is clear we can't solve this through training. Too many wanna be Dirty Harry types jerking their pistol at every opportunity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tathar

Both sides? Being a prosecutor and a defense attorney is hardly grounds to say you know what Law Enforcement Officers face everyday...lol You go ahead sit inside the courthouse and sip your pumpkin spice latte and let murderers out on home incarceration. Unless you have ever had to wrestle with a full grown man on the ground for almost 10 minutes just to arrest him for nearly killing his wife (broken orbital and jaw bone) at 3am by yourself then you have no argument.
In no way am I saying trade freedom for security. I served in the military to guard the freedoms we have here in the U.S. As for your statistical analogies, where are the statistics? You just spouted off what you have heard in the leftest news reports. Police work is dangerous, that is a proven fact! How many cabbies and dentists have been killed this year along compared to LEOs. I'm not saying others jobs are not dangerous, but police inherently go to work with targets
on their backs. It is the nature of the beast. In my 10 years as an Officer have have been shot at twice and ran over once. I know your kind though, you'd pay good money to watch people kill police on live TV just to get your rocks off and scream down with our oppressors. Just next time you need assistance because of someone shooting at you, trying to rob you, or breaking into your house, please feel free to call a criminal and see if they will help you :)

"Those who turn their backs on Law Enforcement better learn to make friends with criminals"

---

There is so much that is wrong with the sentiment that only the police can judge the police or that only a cop knows what "Law Enforcement Officers" face every day. I note that you used some interesting capitalization there, and probably intentionally.

It is odd that in my career as a lawyer I have been shot at more times than you, and assaulted more times than you - oddly, all as a prosecutor.

The warrior cop mentality that you display here is part of the problem. Police officers are not warriors, they should not think of themselves as military.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...a2962#comments

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sier

There are a few prerequisites to making this happen.

1. If you disarm the police, you will have to disarm the people - Be it wholesale or select portions.

---

Why? There are multiple examples of other nations that allow firearms to the population but not to the police. Most modern countries do not permit their local police force to carry firearms at all, they are all locked away save for emergency situations.

Quote:

---

2. If you disarm the people, you will need to guarantee the criminal elements no longer carry firearms.

---

We have these things, called laws, that punish people for using firearms in an illegal manner. I know that you are trying to set up the argument that "criminals will always get guns, so cops need them" but that's a red herring.

Quote:

---

3. If you disarm the police without meeting prerequisites 1 and 2, you will need to ensure the police are comfortable in their position where each routine traffic stop could potentially end in a one sided armed conflict.

It's very simple to make the statement the police should be disarmed, but this is an extremely complicated overhaul. There are no easy steps to making *any* of the above prerequisites occur. If the above prerequisites are not put into play before that happens, you will not have an effective police force due to the imminent police strikes, resignations, and disastrous deaths which are certain to follow.

This is not the UK where it is an absurd rarity to own a firearm, and the police do not have to worry quite so much over simple incidents.

---

It's odd. The UK has a lot of violent crime with weapons, yet their police officers do not suddenly need firearms to feel secure about their alpha-male status.

Quote:

---

In reality, the correct solution(s) to the current cop violence epidemic would be as follows:

---

You meant to say "... solution(s) to the ongoing cop violence epidemic..." or "...solution(s) to the suddenly revealed cop violence epidemic..." because anyone being honest about this topic would concede that the police have ALWAYS been violent towards our population. To claim that this is a new thing is abhorrent or patently naive. Just go back each decade and there are tons of examples of it, however, with the advent of affordable cell phones with cameras we are just seeing it - kind of the way we got to see war for the first time on TV. You should take a look at images of police brutality in the 50s... Im sure that if those protestors would have just complied the dogs would not have attacked them.

Quote:

---

1. Ensure threat to life to the police is minimized (Gun Control) OR Reform the criminal element before it becomes a criminal element (Improve Moral Compass of Society as a Whole).

---

It is statistically safer to be a taxi cab driver than it is to be a police officer armed with military grade armor and weaponry. So this imaginary threat to their lives has in fact been minimized. CHECK.

Quote:

---

2. Improve the conditions of the criminal element - If someone is able and willing to work, they should work. If someone is able and willing to seek advanced education, they should do so.

---

Victim shaming at its finest. She got raped because she's a whore. If she would have kept her legs closed she wouldnt be here. If she would have wore some less revealing clothes.... They are enacting these types of programs in the Philippines right now.

Quote:

---

3. Hold the Police Accountable. (Body Cameras, Stricter Penalties for Manslaughter)

---

Why wasnt this number 1? The problem -is- the police, it starts and ends with them. This mentality that they are some military organization protecting us from "the criminal elements" (in reality: the black man is what they mean) is allowing them to murder/brutalize people in mass.

I also want to add that as a prosecutor I handled approximately 20,000 cases. I finished my career as a prosecutor in the major trial unit where the only cases I prosecuted were murder and child rape cases. In my career as a prosecutor I met very few good cops.

One of the reasons I left wasn't that I wanted to make more money, I was making a decent salary and loved the feeling that I was doing something to help protect society. I left because I realized that police lie, and lie at a higher rate than most groups that I knew.

I would challenge police officers on their version of events, as trial prep, and they would try to tell me to "go with it" or "we'll fix that before trial." I had police officers flat out lie on the stand and when I called them on it, have their supervisors attempt to have me disciplined.

I cannot think of *any* profession were gross incompetence and unhuman conduct gets defended (and often very vehemently) other than the police work. If you change the roles, can you imagine anyone defending a truck driver who runs over a bunch of people because his GPS tells him to turn left?
Can you imagine anyone saying that "well but the GPS told him to turn!" but we constantly hear "The dispatcher did not inform the cop about the toy gun."
Can you imagine anyone defending the truck driver by saying "There's always some risk in being on the street, those people should have been more careful," but we constantly hear people find little things to blame everytime someone gets shot needlessly by the police.

If a truck driver runs over a kid because he thinks it's a little squirrel and then does nothing to help the dying kid because it's not in his job description, do you think anyone will defend him by saying "But driving a truck is so hard and a very monotonous job and anyone can mistake anything for anything," or that "it is not the truck driver's job to save people."

In any of the above situations, at the very very bare minimum the guy involved will be immediately fired and no sane trucking company will launch an investigation that ends with the conclusion that "The truck driver did not do anything wrong and followed the procedure," but police departments constantly reach the exact same fucking conclusion when one of their own displays unhuman gross incompetence that results in the death of innocent people.


So, everytime you hear anyone use their stupid flawed logic to defend gross incompetence by the police, just substitute a truck driver and see if the logic makes any sense at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xywalan

I cannot think of *any* profession were gross incompetence and unhuman conduct gets defended (and often very vehemently) other than the police work. If you change the roles, can you imagine anyone defending a truck driver who runs over a bunch of people because his GPS tells him to turn left?
Can you imagine anyone saying that "well but the GPS told him to turn!" but we constantly hear "The dispatcher did not inform the cop about the toy gun."
Can you imagine anyone defending the truck driver by saying "There's always some risk in being on the street, those people should have been more careful," but we constantly hear people find little things to blame everytime someone gets shot needlessly by the police.

If a truck driver runs over a kid because he thinks it's a little squirrel and then does nothing to help the dying kid because it's not in his job description, do you think anyone will defend him by saying "But driving a truck is so hard and a very monotonous job and anyone can mistake anything for anything," or that "it is not the truck driver's job to save people."

In any of the above situations, at the very very bare minimum the guy involved will be immediately fired and no sane trucking company will launch an investigation that ends with the conclusion that "The truck driver did not do anything wrong and followed the procedure," but police departments constantly reach the exact same fucking conclusion when one of their own displays unhuman gross incompetence that results in the death of innocent people.


So, everytime you hear anyone use their stupid flawed logic to defend gross incompetence by the police, just substitute a truck driver and see if the logic makes any sense at all.

---

Wow. Well said.

How often is the Truck Driver shot at?

I'm interested in hearing individuals discuss how a Police Officer should react in those situations.

Duck? Hide? Pray? Matrix-Style Bullet Time?

I'm aware that the UK has disarmed their police while some of the population still has firearms, but that is but an extremely small fraction of the United States gun ownership. This is not a country where the Police are shot at on a regular basis.

I know of two employees under me at this time who keep/often keep firearms in their vehicles in the parking lot while at work. These are not individuals whose lives are in danger by any means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sier

How often is the Truck Driver shot at?

---

Statistically speaking drivers are shot at more than cops.

Quote:

---

I'm interested in hearing individuals discuss how a Police Officer should react in those situations.

Duck? Hide? Pray? Matrix-Style Bullet Time?

---

I do not think there is a single person arguing that the police should not be allowed to use deadly force in response to deadly force. The problem is that police apologists have carved out this new series of exceptions where police officers use force because they perceive that something MAY be a threat later. Kid has a toy gun that isnt pointed? Kill him. Guy has a cell phone? Kill him. Guy has no weapon at all but is walking slowly in our direction? Kill him. Guy is laying down on the ground as ordered? Kill him. Guy is laying down on the ground trying to get his mental patient to settle down? Kill him.

The argument that police deserve to go home is an emotional red herring. If police officers are not willing to do their job correctly they should not be police officers. For some reason we allow the police to use force on us that we prohibit our military from using on enemy populations. And for "some" reason we tolerate the killing of black people, because of made up bullshit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joreth

Statistically speaking drivers are shot at more than cops.

---

Not to mention the fact that police officer is not even close to one of the most dangerous professions. Police officer is 15th.

http://time.com/4326676/dangerous-jobs-america/

There are 6 professions that are at least twice as deadly as police officer. Most police officer deaths are due to car accidents, not being shot. That's the nature of a job that involves a lot of driving - which is why "Driver/sales workers and truck drivers" is #8 with 9 times as many deaths as police officer. (and "Taxi drivers and chauffeurs" is #10).

Also, police officer on the job fatalities have been declining for 2 decades. And yet civilians being killed keeps rising.

I've said it many times before, but my suggested solution is pretty basic:

1. Disarm the police. Lock their gun in the patrol car and every single removal has a review.
   
   
2. Stop using police as tax collectors. This inherently puts them at odds with the general population, results in the "wrong type of person" pursuing the job, and diminishes trust between police and citizens.
   
   
3. End the war on drugs. It has been a catastrophic failure, stigmatizes a health problem (drug addiction), fills our prisons, costs us billions, and unnecessarily makes police work more dangerous than it needs to be.
   
   
4. Mandatory body cams and dash cams that must be in constant working order.
   
   
5. Adjust police training. The most important thing isn't an arrest. The most important thing is safety. No high speed chases unless it is a hostage type situation or an innocent in immediate danger. No pulling guns on people just to "get them to comply." Wait for backup. Don't be a warrior hero. Etc.

All of these things will make the job of police officer much more attractive to better people, less attractive to bullies, and ultimately a far more rewarding and safer career.

1. Disarm the police. Lock their gun in the patrol car and every single removal has a review.
   I partially agree with this. It doesn't resolve the issue of routine traffic stops gone awry, but it does assist with any incidents involved potential gun use (armed robbery, etc)
   
   
2. Stop using police as tax collectors. This inherently puts them at odds with the general population, results in the "wrong type of person" pursuing the job, and diminishes trust between police and citizens.
   Are you speaking of the "Busywork" type tasks? Evictions, etc? I agree with you that it puts them at odds with people, but the alternative would be to outsource this to someone else with equal capacity. I don't see the need to carry a gun in these minor cases.
   
   
3. End the war on drugs. It has been a catastrophic failure, stigmatizes a health problem (drug addiction), fills our prisons, costs us billions, and unnecessarily makes police work more dangerous than it needs to be.
   I'm not in favor of ending the war on drugs, since my children and your children could very well be victimized.
   
   I'm in favor of changing the war on drugs however. You're right, what we're doing currently doesn't work.
   
   You're far more likely to endanger lives drinking and driving than drinking and smoking. Our laws should reflect this.
   
   
4. Mandatory body cams and dash cams that must be in constant working order.
   Definitely. If you hold or may potentially hold a firearm, this is a great way of keeping you accountable of using it correctly.
   
   
5. Adjust police training. The most important thing isn't an arrest. The most important thing is safety. No high speed chases unless it is a hostage type situation or an innocent in immediate danger. No pulling guns on people just to "get them to comply." Wait for backup. Don't be a warrior hero. Etc.

Definitely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sier

1. Disarm the police. Lock their gun in the patrol car and every single removal has a review.
   I partially agree with this. It doesn't resolve the issue of routine traffic stops gone awry, but it does assist with any incidents involved potential gun use (armed robbery, etc)
   
   
2. Stop using police as tax collectors. This inherently puts them at odds with the general population, results in the "wrong type of person" pursuing the job, and diminishes trust between police and citizens.
   Are you speaking of the "Busywork" type tasks? Evictions, etc? I agree with you that it puts them at odds with people, but the alternative would be to outsource this to someone else with equal capacity. I don't see the need to carry a gun in these minor cases.
   
   
3. End the war on drugs. It has been a catastrophic failure, stigmatizes a health problem (drug addiction), fills our prisons, costs us billions, and unnecessarily makes police work more dangerous than it needs to be.
   I'm not in favor of ending the war on drugs, since my children and your children could very well be victimized.
   
   I'm in favor of changing the war on drugs however. You're right, what we're doing currently doesn't work.
   
   You're far more likely to endanger lives drinking and driving than drinking and smoking. Our laws should reflect this.
   
   
4. Mandatory body cams and dash cams that must be in constant working order.
   Definitely. If you hold or may potentially hold a firearm, this is a great way of keeping you accountable of using it correctly.
   
   
5. Adjust police training. The most important thing isn't an arrest. The most important thing is safety. No high speed chases unless it is a hostage type situation or an innocent in immediate danger. No pulling guns on people just to "get them to comply." Wait for backup. Don't be a warrior hero. Etc.

Definitely.

---

The mostly hypothetical, and relatively actual small sample size, of police officers assaulted during traffic stops is 9.5% of officer injuries and deaths come during traffic stops. It is a myth used to justify the use of deadly force.

What is also disturbing is that we are now starting to see through the spread of social media, and phones with good recording methods, that the vast majority of the interactions with police at the roadside (that result in force being used) are situations caused by the police and then lied about. For instance, there are several high profile cases right now where the police justified the use of deadly force by one of the throw away arguments "reached for a gun, moved suspiciously, cop was in danger" and turns out that the victim was completely unarmed.

Items not found in the following quotes but found in previous statements I had nothing I felt a need to reply regarding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sier

[list=1][*] Stop using police as tax collectors. This inherently puts them at odds with the general population, results in the "wrong type of person" pursuing the job, and diminishes trust between police and citizens.
Are you speaking of the "Busywork" type tasks? Evictions, etc? I agree with you that it puts them at odds with people, but the alternative would be to outsource this to someone else with equal capacity. I don't see the need to carry a gun in these minor cases.

---

The real alternative would be to not do those things in the first place. They are the result of an excessive government that has been able to expand tremendously because they had a military force to make it happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sier

[list=1][*] End the war on drugs. It has been a catastrophic failure, stigmatizes a health problem (drug addiction), fills our prisons, costs us billions, and unnecessarily makes police work more dangerous than it needs to be.
I'm not in favor of ending the war on drugs, since my children and your children could very well be victimized.

I'm in favor of changing the war on drugs however. You're right, what we're doing currently doesn't work.

You're far more likely to endanger lives drinking and driving than drinking and smoking. Our laws should reflect this.

---

The War on Drugs needs to end. The danger of the war on drugs comes from the creation of a black market for those drugs, and, in response to that black market, the violence officers are expected to inflict. If you decriminalize drugs a lot of this trouble will go away. It is not illegal to drink, but it is illegal to operate a vehicle while drunk. Let people get high, but hold them accountable for what they do while high. And not just marijuana - all drugs. Don't regulate them. Don't "legalize" them, which just means government taxation and control. Just remove every law banning the possession of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sier

[list=1][*] Mandatory body cams and dash cams that must be in constant working order.
Definitely. If you hold or may potentially hold a firearm, this is a great way of keeping you accountable of using it correctly.

---

In theory. The reality is we've got tons of videos of cops murdering people on video, and the only backlash is people being angry. Very angry. But also not really being violently angry. Destructive of property, sure. But the amount of restraint by the citizens in response to literally dozens of very, very questionable police shootings this year alone, that were caught on video, is amazing. Currently police aren't being held accountable, except to a self-investigating body that, of course, never finds the officer acting in a bad way. I believe this has less to do with protecting the officer than most people would believe, and more to do with protecting the tax money that would otherwise get to go to buying bigger, better vehicles.

Taking this as a broad summary of a lot of text:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gromgor

It is not illegal to drink, but it is illegal to operate a vehicle while drunk.

---

I agree. We need less legislation about state, and more about actions. It shouldn't be illegal to do something unlicensed; it should be illegal to do something dangerous.

I'd actually go further. Driver licensing is completely unnecessary - we have traffic offences to take care of the actual issues on the road. If you run a red light and crash into another car, you were in the wrong, whether you have a licence or not. There's already a lot of confusion about licensing across state/country boundaries. (Are you able to use a Californian licence to drive in Florida? What about driving around Europe? What about a UK licence in the US?) Eliminate it all by simply saying that it's your actions, not the state of having/not having a document.