.

[RDKirk]

The following is anecdotal only, but I suggest it shows what might be wrong with police culture in the USA: I saw a clip of an angry man with a big knife being accosted by the police. Fair enough - the police indeed need to deal with this situation as such a man presents a clear and present danger. The cops ordered the guy to drop the knife. He did not and started to move towards them brandishing the knife. Key point: he was at least 10 or 15 yards away! The police shot and killed him. I would have thought the right thing to was to simply back off from the guy and continue to try to talk him out of his angry state.

In short, it certainly appeared that the police did not need to fire their guns. I think, repeat think, there is something wrong with the "culture" of law enforcement in the US.

A man with a knife can close ten yards in less than two seconds, and even if the officer fires in time, the first round (or two or three) may not stop him. One huge fallacy a lot of people live in about real-life self defense is an underestimation of the speed that an assailant can cover ground to make his attack.

What this means is that a woman in a parking lot needs to start taking action against a suspicious man while he's still 15 or more yards away, whether that action is running or screaming...or pulling out her gun. The primary tactic of an assailant against a woman is always to present a friendly face until he can get close enough....

 

[RDKirk]

Yes, I believe the state police conducted the investigation. He was shot by local law enforcement.

The LEO's that responded were given false information by a store's loss prevention specialist that led them to believe that my friend was in a highly agitated state and waving a weapon around in the store. That false characterization (store video ultimately proved that he was not agitated or waving a weapon around) put the police in a highly defensive posture upon arrival at the scene. It was a mess. A good man lost his life. I later met one of the responding officers at a trade show. His life is now a shambles.

Murder by SWAT.

 

[RDKirk]

A grand jury.

But here is the problem--already noted even in this thread: Americans at the present have a basic belief that a police officer decision to shoot is his to make, and whatever grounds he chose to make that decision must be perfectly valid.

This is something that isn't even about race, because these people are just as unsympathetic to a white man being shot as they are to a black man being shot. That's why this police officer walked away with no legal repercussions:

 

[Archivist]

Yes, I believe the state police conducted the investigation. He was shot by local law enforcement.

The LEO's that responded were given false information by a store's loss prevention specialist that led them to believe that my friend was in a highly agitated state and waving a weapon around in the store. That false characterization (store video ultimately proved that he was not agitated or waving a weapon around) put the police in a highly defensive posture upon arrival at the scene. It was a mess. A good man lost his life. I later met one of the responding officers at a trade show. His life is now a shambles.

At least they had an outside force investigate. Too often that doesn't happen.

 

[Mudinyeri]

But here is the problem--already noted even in this thread: Americans at the present have a basic belief that a police officer decision to shoot is his to make, and whatever grounds he chose to make that decision must be perfectly valid.

This is something that isn't even about race, because these people are just as unsympathetic to a white man being shot as they are to a black man being shot. That's why this police officer walked away with no legal repercussions:

Based on the news coverage over the past couple weeks, I would disagree. Quite the opposite seems true, in fact. Whenever a LEO shoots someone, the media assumes that the officer was in the wrong.

 

[RDKirk]

Based on the news coverage over the past couple weeks, I would disagree. Quite the opposite seems true, in fact. Whenever a LEO shoots someone, the media assumes that the officer was in the wrong.

As one 24/7 news producer said to me back in the late 80s, "BS is better than static."

The fact of what I said is borne out by subsequent police and court rulings in those cases. It's pretty darned hard to get a grand jury to indict or a court jury to convict--and those are expressions of "the people."

 

[expos4ever]

A man with a knife can close ten yards in less than two seconds, and even if the officer fires in time, the first round (or two or three) may not stop him. One huge fallacy a lot of people live in about real-life self defense is an underestimation of the speed that an assailant can cover ground to make his attack.....

Maybe so, but my distinct recollection from the clip was that the officers could easily just have backed off. Either way, the particular example is not really that important. I think its clear that there is enough "evidence" out there for us to collectively to at least ask the question whether there is a problem with "police culture" and try to fix the problem if there is.

 

[RDKirk]

Maybe so, but my distinct recollection from the clip was that the officers could easily just have backed off. Either way, the particular example is not really that important. I think its clear that there is enough "evidence" out there for us to collectively to at least ask the question whether there is a problem with "police culture" and try to fix the problem if there is.

Oh, I ask the question often enough, particularly when there is no real apparent threat, like a man whose hands are clearly empty and the man is thirty feet away, or the man is clearly unarmed and physically under control (although still resisting futilely). And yet such as those get shot without consequences to the police.

But in the case of someone who is armed, the threat range is a lot farther than most people think.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Based on the news coverage over the past couple weeks, I would disagree. Quite the opposite seems true, in fact. Whenever a LEO shoots someone, the media assumes that the officer was in the wrong.

Not only wrong, but racist.

 

[Frisky Wren]

Brilliant article by John Gibbs over at the Federalist.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/11...ail&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-cbe167ab22-83889421

If Mr.Gibb's was white he'd likely be called every name in the book.
Brave of him to write that and I agree with him. People who try to take on police or give them a hard time typically don't fare well. Because it seems to be the attitude is what makes it appear as they have something to hide. Or, they're of ill intent toward to officer.
After all, a cop is doing their job. Why give them a hard time when being respectful goes a lot further?

 

[paul becke]

Hmm.....you must be one of those people who Act on what they WANT to do.

I tend to have some control so as not to act on something just because I FEEL a certain way.


Like your Steinbeck quote.

Yes. It's a cracker, Hank. And there's a lot of truth in it.

 

[Uncle Siggy]

Who are you referring to?

It's your political ideology that automatically makes you racist, no need to say it is required. (Just ask Trump he wasn't considered to be a racist before he ran for President but now he is). You don't support BLM and you don't support politicians that want you to vote for them because they "Are trying real hard" and ignore that haven't delivered the goods anytime in the last 70 years...

[sarc]

 

[Dave-W]

I saw a GREAT example of someone being arrested, "cuffed and stuffed" as it were and he was completely innocent.

BTW - all the players in this little drama were white.

It was on an unsolved crime TV show and happened in Texas. A masked man went into a gas station convenience store late at night and pulled a gun on the clerk telling him to open the safe. They had no safe so the perp took the guy to the till and told him to open it and give him the cash. He did and hit the silent alarm button while doing so. Then they went back to the store room and again the perp said to open the safe. Just then an alarm went off from someone pulling up to the gas pumps. The perp shot the guy in the head and fled out a back door. (all caught on surveillance cameras)

The guy at the gas pump went in to pay his bill and no one was in there, so he came out the door just as the police arrived from the silent alarm. They arrested him, cuffed him and stuffed him in the back of their squad car. Then they went in and found the dead clerk. The gas customer was released only after they saw the video surveillance footage.

If he had resisted arrest, he would have (rightly) spent time behind bars for his own actions.

 

[RDKirk]

I saw a GREAT example of someone being arrested, "cuffed and stuffed" as it were and he was completely innocent.

BTW - all the players in this little drama were white.

It was on an unsolved crime TV show and happened in Texas. A masked man went into a gas station convenience store late at night and pulled a gun on the clerk telling him to open the safe. They had no safe so the perp took the guy to the till and told him to open it and give him the cash. He did and hit the silent alarm button while doing so. Then they went back to the store room and again the perp said to open the safe. Just then an alarm went off from someone pulling up to the gas pumps. The perp shot the guy in the head and fled out a back door. (all caught on surveillance cameras)

The guy at the gas pump went in to pay his bill and no one was in there, so he came out the door just as the police arrived from the silent alarm. They arrested him, cuffed him and stuffed him in the back of their squad car. Then they went in and found the dead clerk. The gas customer was released only after they saw the video surveillance footage.

If he had resisted arrest, he would have (rightly) spent time behind bars for his own actions.

What is your point? That white suspects frequently survive contact with white police? I don't think that's disputed.

 

[Archivist]

I saw a GREAT example of someone being arrested, "cuffed and stuffed" as it were and he was completely innocent.

BTW - all the players in this little drama were white.

It was on an unsolved crime TV show and happened in Texas. A masked man went into a gas station convenience store late at night and pulled a gun on the clerk telling him to open the safe. They had no safe so the perp took the guy to the till and told him to open it and give him the cash. He did and hit the silent alarm button while doing so. Then they went back to the store room and again the perp said to open the safe. Just then an alarm went off from someone pulling up to the gas pumps. The perp shot the guy in the head and fled out a back door. (all caught on surveillance cameras)

The guy at the gas pump went in to pay his bill and no one was in there, so he came out the door just as the police arrived from the silent alarm. They arrested him, cuffed him and stuffed him in the back of their squad car. Then they went in and found the dead clerk. The gas customer was released only after they saw the video surveillance footage.

If he had resisted arrest, he would have (rightly) spent time behind bars for his own actions.

The guy was a reasonable suspect in the case you described. He was just at the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

It's your political ideology that automatically makes you racist, no need to say it is required. (Just ask Trump he wasn't considered to be a racist before he ran for President but now he is). You don't support BLM and you don't support politicians that want you to vote for them because they "Are trying real hard" and ignore that haven't delivered the goods anytime in the last 70 years...

[sarc]

Yup. I'm a racist. An angry black woman on the internet told me so, so it must be true.

 

[Dave-W]

What is your point? That white suspects frequently survive contact with white police? I don't think that's disputed.

No - my point is his compliance is the example of how to properly respond to police orders, even if you are totally not involved. He did not run, did not protest his innocence; indeed he had no clue what was even going on.

 

[Dave-W]

The guy was a reasonable suspect in the case you described. He was just at the wrong place at the wrong time.

And at the time he had no clue that there even was a crime.

 

[Archivist]

No - my point is his compliance is the example of how to properly respond to police orders, even if you are totally not involved. He did not run, did not protest his innocence; indeed he had no clue what was even going on.

Correct. If a police officer issues a lawful order, as was done in the case you described, you must obey it. If the officer issues an unlawful order you may refuse to comply. You may then be arrested, and I'm not suggesting that you resist arrest, but you are not obligated to obey the illegal order. Example of an illegal order: A reporter was filming a crime scene and was ordered to stop by a police officer. The reporter was standing where he was allowed to stand so that wasn't an issue. When he refused to stop filming the officer arrested him. The case was later thrown out and the reporter received about $20,000 in damages. That was paid by the taxpayers, not by the officer. BTW, the officers only rationale for giving the order: "Because I said so." What a jerk!

 

[ChristsSoldier115]

What is your point? That white suspects frequently survive contact with white police? I don't think that's disputed.

Wouldn't the numbers say otherwise? I think more than double the whites are killed than blacks by police, and I think more blacks are likely to be confronted than whites to begin with. If anything.. those numbers tell me police have a bigger problem with white folks being idiots than blacks. Blacks resist less than whites, or at least try and kill police. Because everyone in this thread is saying police won't use that sort of force unless necessary, and so white folks seem to require it more than blacks. Whites are more dangerous to police than blacks.