Law Enforcment

[tw]

Originally Posted by glatt

Should I be mocking the Harvard prof or the Economist? It's unclear from the article who came up with that phrase.

First, the Economist study is about all cops. We are not discussing all cops. We are discussing a minority who are a problem. How large is that minority? No statistics provided. The Economist study does not address that issue.

Second, UT's Hummelstown video demonstrates a problem. (And the victim was white.) Some cops have an adversarial attitude. We know people with more power (ie guns) are easily corrupted by that power - are quicker to make conclusions from their emotions rather then based in facts. A problem that the NRA does not want discussed. And yet that is the issue.

People with guns must be trained to become and remain more responsible. To act logical; not emotional. Apparently some venues still have a Mayor Daley or Mayor Rizzo attitude. Which then implies biases are imposed fastest on those one does not like.

How many cops have this attitude? How many venues spend more time in making friends of all citizens rather than let or encourage cops regard all as suspects? Unfortunately no quantitative statistics exist. Neighborhood policing was an example of how to avert a bad mindset.

Plenty of examples exist including Harvard Professor Gates confrontation with Sgt Crowley. And UT's Hummelstown video. Blacks have long complained about this double standard. Philando Castile's killing on livestream video in MN demonstrates that this problem clearly exists. As an excited cop yells at others after he shot Philando for no apparent reason (other than fear and emotion).

The Economist notes a completely different scenario. "Black lives matter" stems from other police confrontations where an officer was the only aggressor. As demonstrated by a reporter who followed Newark police for most of a year. Confrontation because those cops treated every person as a potential perp rather than a citizen to protect. How many officers have that attitude? The Economist study would say if it addressed that problem. Meanwhile, top cops in Newark disbanned that police unit after the reporter's video demonstrated that problem.

How many cops are trained in or have this bad attitude? We don't know. Statistics do not exist. We know the problem exists since complaints exist in all states. Including intentional profiling of blacks by NJ State Troopers on the NJ Turnpike as encouraged by top department management. We do not even know how many of those complaints are justified. We only know that a flurry of videos now demonstrate a problem is widespread. And probably has existed long before Professor Gates was arrested because he broke into his own house.

A situation escalated due to emotions by both men. Ironic that both men had a history of teaching for better inter-racial relations. And that both Gates and Sgt Crowley are distant cousins. But facts were irrelevant during the confrontation. Emotions and assumptions based in misinformation dominated that confrontation. In other situations, a guy with more power jumped to conclusions, in some cases, because power is a corrupting influence. Gun used when no threat justified that action. How often? No statistics exist.

UT's Hummelstown video is a damning example. Any reply cannot ignore a problem demonstrated by that video. How widespread is the problem? The Economist study does not address that issue. How many departments train their officers to not be confrontational to everyone. No facts exist. Economist does not ask. It was not the subject of their study.

How large is a minority of officers who jump to conclusions as 'wanna be' cop Zimmerman did by shooting Martin for no reason. Another example of a problem created when someone has too much power (ie a gun) and insufficient training (or mindset) to think logically. "He looks different. So he must be evil." A problem made worse when top management encouraged it as in the case in Newark and by State Troopers on the NJ Turnpike.

There are many adults who react like children - as demonstrated in that damning Hummelstown video.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by glatt

"before attacking an officer" implies that eventually they do attack an officer. It's a poor choice of words. They should have said "without" attacking an officer. I was confused by that too. Should I be mocking the Harvard prof or the Economist? It's unclear from the article who came up with that phrase.

"Without" would imply that he never was going to attack the officer. We all know he was planning on it, but got shot before he could carry out his evil plan.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

We all know he was planning on it, but got shot before he could carry out his evil plan.

Harvard professor shots cop who is a family member. Interesting. I never saw that headline.

[Undertoad]

tw: "Question is not about one example... Address the race topic with numbers."

ut: "Here are your statistics."

tw: "These statistics do not address the topic of racial injustice."

ut: "They do, but you have misinterpreted them."

tw: "The topic is not racial injustice. Here is one example that shows a problem. There are no statistics on this."

Come on now.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

ut: "Here are your statistics."

A blank line is your statistics? That is the point. Relevant statistics do not exist. Again, the Economists does not discuss a minority who apparently are the problem. What the other overwhelming majority do is irrelevant. And what one obvious problem is - cops who use excessive force (ie gun fire) when no threat exists. And cops who regard everyone as a perp.

The Economist does not distinguish between shooting of unaggressive suspects verse others who are aggressive. Your (what I can only assume you are citing) statistics do not apply to many events that even "Black lives matter" complain about.

Please stop being so emotional. Please return to an adult frame. If you posted a relevant number, then recited which number is relevant - so that logical discussion can continue. An obviously emotional reply makes honest discussion impossible. One can only *assume* which number you believe is relevant.

Explain why your Hummelstown video is irrelevant. Every post references your refusal to discuss it. Logical is to explain why that is irrelevant - since it demonstrates the problem. Was that Hummelstown policewoman shooting justified or not? An example of a problem embedded in "Black lives matter" protests.

And again today, another innocent (not an aggressor) man shot because a cop thought a mentally retarded man playing with a truck was a threat. Another example of a shooting because neither suspect *never* did and *never* was going to threaten a cop. Another shooting and the complaint was irrelevant to an Economist study. And not defined any of your numbers.

So calm down Sherlock. Answer in an adult and unemotional attitude. Posted are logical questions. Please answer them without so much irrational animosity. Start with what is obviously relevant - the Hummelstown shooting. Why are your still unknown numbers relevant?

Emotion attached to contempt for "Black lives matter" makes no logical sense.

[Undertoad]

And that's our interaction for 2016. See you next year.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

And that's our interaction for 2016. See you next year.

Would that be calendar year; or, fiscal year? 'Cause, you know, October 1st isn't that far away and we all know how much you miss getting your annual tongue lashings.

[Spexxvet]

Nope. No problem here. Move along.

[Big Sarge]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Nope. No problem here. Move along.

OK. That was a total fuck up. Write the check. Fire or reassign the officer. Total career ender

[Clodfobble]

But you see, the police chief for that department explained it: the officer actually MEANT to shoot the white disabled guy. So, you know, aside from still being wrong and firing when it was uncalled for, he ALSO has shitty aim.

The therapist lived, thank God. And they are already offering settlement money.

[Spexxvet]

It would go a long way for a law enforcement representative to say " yeeeaaah, we fucked up. Sorry". But the Blue Brotherhood has solidarity.

[sexobon]

It would seem that civilians need a means to protect themselves from the people they hire to protect themselves. When civilians have the means to protect themselves, they can be more discerning about those they hire to watch their backs. Until then, you're at their mercy.

[Griff]

It would be beyond stupid for me to carry when I work. We don't have a too few guns problem. We do have a problem with poorly trained, scared, and maybe PTSDed cops who don't seem to know how to de-escalate situations safely. We civilians want cops who are on our side and assess situations well under pressure. We get that it is a tough job and thankless in some neighborhoods but you can't excuse the gun first mentality we've hammered into our cops.

[sexobon]

Who said anything about guns? I said "means." You seem to have a one track mind.

Cops are who they are as individuals. The problem is with those hiring the wrong individuals.

[BigV]

"A" problem, not "THE" problem.