US police have killed 24 people so far in Feb.

[bill5]

Did you actually read these articles?

Other than the wife killed by her deputy sheriff husband and the two officers on administrative leave pending an investigation, each story has violence against police officers in the line of duty or an armed suspect.

When a police officer is run over twice by a car and his partner shoots I think they had a reasonable escalation of force.

Oh stop it. Why are you actually reading the links and pointing out facts? They don't matter any more. What matters are excuses (however blatantly weak and ridiculous) for self-righteous hissies. Police are evil brutes! Police bad!

lol

 

[tulc]

Oh stop it. Why are you actually reading the links and pointing out facts? They don't matter any more. What matters are excuses (however blatantly weak and ridiculous) for self-righteous hissies. Police are evil brutes! Police bad!

lol

If any other group killed over 1,000 Americans a year would you say anyone who asked questions about it as being "self-righteous hissies"?
tulc(is honestly curious)

 

[Ana the Ist]

That might work if the people who work for the FDA were empowered to stop people on the street or enter their homes while armed.

If the FDA needed to do those things to effectively do their jobs...I imagine they would be empowered to do so.

Do you think cops could effectively do their jobs without stopping people or entering homes?

I consider it a lot of killing because they killed over 1500 people last year. To give it some perspective check out this article from 2015:
By the numbers: US police kill more in days than other countries do in years
where they compare the US with various other countries around the world. We have cities here where the police will kill more in a week then other countries police will kill in several years.
tulc(is off to drive some people here in Chicago)

Well try to keep it in perspective...in January so far this year, Chicago has had 299 shooting victims.
Chicago murders up in January 2017 compared to last year

I imagine that is a lot compared to those other nations. 299 shooting victims in just January equals a whole lot of criminals who are armed and willing to shoot people. If you've got a way of arresting those criminals without arming officers...I'm willing to listen.

 

[tulc]

If the FDA needed to do those things to effectively do their jobs...I imagine they would be empowered to do so.

I also can't come up with another government group that kills as many Americans as the police.

Do you think cops could effectively do their jobs without stopping people or entering homes?

the discussion isn't really about that, I'd have no problem with those aspects as long they were done according to the law, it's the part about the police killing people while doing the above that I'm having a real problem with.

Well try to keep it in perspective...in January so far this year, Chicago has had 299 shooting victims.
Chicago murders up in January 2017 compared to last year

...so the standard for police should be "Don't be worse then street crime!"?

I imagine that is a lot compared to those other nations. 299 shooting victims in just January equals a whole lot of criminals who are armed and willing to shoot people. If you've got a way of arresting those criminals without arming officers...I'm willing to listen.

uhmmm...the police already being heavily armed doesn't seem to have stopped those deaths has it?
tulc(thinks you raised some good points in your post!)

 

[Ana the Ist]

I also can't come up with another government group that kills as many Americans as the police.

Ok....and?

the discussion isn't really about that, I'd have no problem with those aspects as long they were done according to the law, it's the part about the police killing people while doing the above that I'm having a real problem with.

You think they're being done contrary to the law?

...so the standard for police should be "Don't be worse then street crime!"?

If they were...then the police have long since met that standard. That wasn't the point I was making though...you seem perplexed as to why police end up shooting people...I was pointing out a justification. That is, there are lots of violent criminals ready to shoot police.

uhmmm...the police already being heavily armed doesn't seem to have stopped those deaths has it?
tulc(thinks you raised some good points in your post!)

Those deaths...no...but how would you expect to get justice for the victims of those people without armed police? Strong language doesn't typically beat a gun in a fight.

There are probably plenty of deaths that were stopped by "armed police" that you and I would never know about. How many times has an armed mugger turned the other way because he saw a cop coming? How many gang members have avoided a shooting when they saw a cop pull up nearby? How many store clerks are alive because a cop walked in at the right time?

It's hard to say...but given how many crimes do occur, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that it's a number that might even exceed the number killed.

 

[bill5]

Please get a room and do not feed the trolls. Didn't you see the sign.

 

[tulc]

Ok....and?

and nothing, if between the two of us we can't come up with a list that does it more doesn't that sort mean this is the group that seems to need to be over hauled?

You think they're being done contrary to the law?

some are, and I'm pretty sure the ones that are done legally aren't supposed to end up with dead people.

If they were...then the police have long since met that standard. That wasn't the point I was making though...you seem perplexed as to why police end up shooting people

Actually I'm not surprised. If you look at police culture you'll see the militarization mind set of the police of America has pretty much taken over. They've not been trained in how to deescalate situations, almost the only tool they've been given by their training is a "hammer" and when your only tool is a hammer? then most problems are seen as nails.

...I was pointing out a justification. That is, there are lots of violent criminals ready to shoot police.

understood.

Those deaths...no...but how would you expect to get justice for the victims of those people without armed police?

You do realize it's not the polices job to get justice, right? that's the courts job.

Strong language doesn't typically beat a gun in a fight.

No, but the truth is most of those fights could have been avoided if the police were trained in dealing with different situations.

There are probably plenty of deaths that were stopped by "armed police" that you and I would never know about. How many times has an armed mugger turned the other way because he saw a cop coming? How many gang members have avoided a shooting when they saw a cop pull up nearby? How many store clerks are alive because a cop walked in at the right time?

how about those people who were killed by the police that weren't armed? there are a lot of those people and they're just as dead.

It's hard to say...but given how many crimes do occur, I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that it's a number that might even exceed the number killed.

Perhaps. Or you could say if America didn't have so many guns there wouldn't be so many gun deaths.
tulc(if we want to discuss what's reasonable that would also work)

 

[Ana the Ist]

and nothing, if between the two of us we can't come up with a list that does it more doesn't that sort mean this is the group that seems to need to be over hauled?

No...I would expect the police to kill more Americans than any other government group....with or without an overhaul.

some are, and I'm pretty sure the ones that are done legally aren't supposed to end up with dead people.

None are "supposed" to end up with dead people...but real life can get difficult fast and sometimes it does.

Actually I'm not surprised. If you look at police culture you'll see the militarization mind set of the police of America has pretty much taken over. They've not been trained in how to deescalate situations, almost the only tool they've been given by their training is a "hammer" and when your only tool is a hammer? then most problems are seen as nails.

It's unfortunate isn't it? Sometimes I find it funny that the same people who argue against the "militarization of the police" are the ones who wouldn't restrict the average citizens' ability to "militarize" even a bit.

I remember back when most California police carried a revolver...

Then there was that awful robbery shootout with the two guys who were carrying assault rifles and covered in armor...it was ridiculous.

Sadly, if you want them to be able to do their job...then they have to be ready for the worst of us, and the worst of us can get pretty heavily armed if they want.

You do realize it's not the polices job to get justice, right? that's the courts job.

It's a process. The courts aren't going out collecting evidence and arresting criminals...all necessary steps towards justice.

No, but the truth is most of those fights could have been avoided if the police were trained in dealing with different situations.

That sounds awfully optimistic. I think it's fair to say some could be avoided...but most? Doubtful.

how about those people who were killed by the police that weren't armed? there are a lot of those people and they're just as dead.

I'm not happy about it if that's what you're asking...yet police are people, and people sometimes make mistakes...though not every unarmed "shooting" is a mistake.

Perhaps. Or you could say if America didn't have so many guns there wouldn't be so many gun deaths.
tulc(if we want to discuss what's reasonable that would also work)

I could say that...but then you usually have someone chime in about a nation with more guns and less deaths. I try to avoid that argument.

 

[tulc]

US police have killed 144 people in 2017
(144) February 10, 2017 ME M
http://www.pressherald.com/2017/02/10/report-police-involved-shooting-leaves-1-dead-1-wounded-in-vassalboro/

(143) February 10, 2017 NJ M
http://www.nj.com/cumberland/index.ssf/2017/02/man_dies_in_police-involved_shooting_authorities_s.html

(142) February 10, 2017 IL F
http://wgntv.com/2017/02/10/police-on-scene-of-reported-shooting-in-north-center/

(141) February 10, 2017 TN M/B Jocques Scott Clemmons, 31
http://wkrn.com/2017/02/10/person-shot-while-fleeing-police-in-east-nashville/
(140) February 10, 2017 WA M
http://www.columbian.com/news/2017/feb/10/officer-involved-shooting-clark-vancouver-sheriff-mall/

(139) February 9, 2017 NM M
http://www.daily-times.com/story/news/crime/2017/02/10/fbi-investigating-officer-involved-shooting/97744996/
tulc(39 people in February)

 

[dgiharris]

Tulc is promoting the agenda that police are bad people. (like in his other thread).

tulc's heart is in the right place, but he is going about this in the wrong way.

he is partially right, the fact that in the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" police essentially don't have to follow the Constitution and can basically just do whatever they want and lie about it in court enables a police culture that views the citizenry as subjects and not as superiors.

Police have the attitude, "Do what I say or else..." and "If I'm wrong I'm wrong but let the courts sort it out that is what they are there for..." and "No matter what happens, I'm going home tonight to my wife and kids, if that means I kill a citizen or two so be it..."

....Do you think cops could effectively do their jobs without stopping people or entering homes?

we've gone a few thousand rounds arguing about police. Ultimately, our paths diverge from the beginning.

I am a firm believer in the Constitution and the Rights of the Constitution. I believe that the citizenry is more important than the government officials. I believe that the role of ANY government official including the police is to serve the citizenry.

In regards to law enforcement, I believe the primary role of law enforcement is to keep the peace. The secondary role should be enforcement of the law.

The problem we have in this country with police is very simple.
#1) They are given authority by the State to commitment unlimited violence against the citizenry in commission of their duties.

now, this is a key point. This means that as long as a police officer is technically doing his job, he can do anything he wants to you as long as he is enforcing the law. But wait a minute, how is this a bad thing?

Simple, this means that there is no proportional response to the crime being committed. This means that any crime, no matter how minor can be met with a disproportionate amount of violence. Even in the case of the officer being wrong, as long as he has "reasonable suspicion" the State will give him "the benefit of the doubt".

Now, good police or even normal police don't abuse their power. The problem is the bad police, the ego maniac police, the flat out sado-[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] bleepards that are police, these are the people killing the citizenry. And to make matters worse, the so-called "good police" cover for these bad apples.

Now, fixing the problem is relatively simple, truth be told, everything is already in place. The laws are in place, the systems are in place, the regulations are in place. The problem is simply we as a society have turned our brains off. Whenever police misconduct happens, we collectively drop our IQs by 50 points and we enter this weird realm where normal logic does not apply. We extend the police a courtesy that we would never extend to any normal average citizen. Now we excuse this using logical fallacies but the end result is we have a system that encourages bad police to be bad police. They can break the law, get caught breaking the law, and yet they are not held to a higher standard.

We'd fix 70% of the problems with police if we simply held them to a higher standard and enforced that standard. For instance, police should be imprisoned and fired for perjury regardless of the magnitude of the perjury in question. Similarly, if a police officer has knowledge of another police officer breaking the law and he does nothing about it, that police officer should also be imprisoned and fired. Do that simple thing, and you fix 70% if not more of the problems.

but no, for some reason the thought of holding police officers to a higher standard is something we as a populace can't swallow. Collectively we feel safer surrendering power and turning off our brains. The reason is that we believe that police misconduct can never happen "to us". I mean, as long as you are a good person, as long as you obey the law, what do you have to worry about?

And then someone like John Crawford gets killed, and we just shrug and say, "Well mistakes happen, what are ya gonna do...". Despite the video, despite the fact he was carrying a toy gun inside the store he intended to buy said toy gun in a State and County where Open Carry is legal, he was killed. He was killed so fast and in such a confusing way that he had no time to even know what was going on. And yet... many of us watch the video, drop our IQ 50 points and say, "Well, it was just a mistake..."

okay end rant

 

[Ana the Ist]

tulc's heart is in the right place, but he is going about this in the wrong way.

he is partially right, the fact that in the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" police essentially don't have to follow the Constitution and can basically just do whatever they want and lie about it in court enables a police culture that views the citizenry as subjects and not as superiors.

Police have the attitude, "Do what I say or else..." and "If I'm wrong I'm wrong but let the courts sort it out that is what they are there for..." and "No matter what happens, I'm going home tonight to my wife and kids, if that means I kill a citizen or two so be it..."




we've gone a few thousand rounds arguing about police. Ultimately, our paths diverge from the beginning.

I am a firm believer in the Constitution and the Rights of the Constitution. I believe that the citizenry is more important than the government officials. I believe that the role of ANY government official including the police is to serve the citizenry.

In regards to law enforcement, I believe the primary role of law enforcement is to keep the peace. The secondary role should be enforcement of the law.

The problem we have in this country with police is very simple.
#1) They are given authority by the State to commitment unlimited violence against the citizenry in commission of their duties.

now, this is a key point. This means that as long as a police officer is technically doing his job, he can do anything he wants to you as long as he is enforcing the law. But wait a minute, how is this a bad thing?

Simple, this means that there is no proportional response to the crime being committed. This means that any crime, no matter how minor can be met with a disproportionate amount of violence. Even in the case of the officer being wrong, as long as he has "reasonable suspicion" the State will give him "the benefit of the doubt".

Now, good police or even normal police don't abuse their power. The problem is the bad police, the ego maniac police, the flat out sado-[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] bleepards that are police, these are the people killing the citizenry. And to make matters worse, the so-called "good police" cover for these bad apples.

Now, fixing the problem is relatively simple, truth be told, everything is already in place. The laws are in place, the systems are in place, the regulations are in place. The problem is simply we as a society have turned our brains off. Whenever police misconduct happens, we collectively drop our IQs by 50 points and we enter this weird realm where normal logic does not apply. We extend the police a courtesy that we would never extend to any normal average citizen. Now we excuse this using logical fallacies but the end result is we have a system that encourages bad police to be bad police. They can break the law, get caught breaking the law, and yet they are not held to a higher standard.

We'd fix 70% of the problems with police if we simply held them to a higher standard and enforced that standard. For instance, police should be imprisoned and fired for perjury regardless of the magnitude of the perjury in question. Similarly, if a police officer has knowledge of another police officer breaking the law and he does nothing about it, that police officer should also be imprisoned and fired. Do that simple thing, and you fix 70% if not more of the problems.

but no, for some reason the thought of holding police officers to a higher standard is something we as a populace can't swallow. Collectively we feel safer surrendering power and turning off our brains. The reason is that we believe that police misconduct can never happen "to us". I mean, as long as you are a good person, as long as you obey the law, what do you have to worry about?

And then someone like John Crawford gets killed, and we just shrug and say, "Well mistakes happen, what are ya gonna do...". Despite the video, despite the fact he was carrying a toy gun inside the store he intended to buy said toy gun in a State and County where Open Carry is legal, he was killed. He was killed so fast and in such a confusing way that he had no time to even know what was going on. And yet... many of us watch the video, drop our IQ 50 points and say, "Well, it was just a mistake..."

okay end rant

Dgi...you always seem upset that we allow police to be wrong sometimes. Yet, for the life of me, I can't think of any other way policing could work.

Imagine for a moment that we let citizens disobey police if the police are wrong...

Cop pulls you over for speeding...and you weren't speeding...should the person just be allowed to take off? Cop wants to arrest you for trespassing...and you aren't trespassing...should you be able to resist arrest? Run away? Fight him?

How would that work?

 

[dgiharris]

Dgi...you always seem upset that we allow police to be wrong sometimes. Yet, for the life of me, I can't think of any other way policing could work.

Imagine for a moment that we let citizens disobey police if the police are wrong...

Cop pulls you over for speeding...and you weren't speeding...should the person just be allowed to take off? Cop wants to arrest you for trespassing...and you aren't trespassing...should you be able to resist arrest? Run away? Fight him?

How would that work?

It would work the way it works in the UK, Australia, South Korea and ever other "free" Western Democracy.

You argue as if it is impossible for police to police without having the option of unlimited violence in their back pocket to whip out to keep the citizenry in line.

Police response must fit the magnitude of the "suspicion" of the crime committed.

Look we can go back and forth all day hurling anecdotes at each other. The real meat of the argument lies in what you believe in. Do you believe that the Constitution should apply 100% of the time? Do you believe police must abide by the Constitution? Do you believe that police should be held to a lower standard, that is, police break the law and abuse their power and nothing happens to them (i.e whenever police infringe on a citizen's rights).

What I am arguing is not some pie in the sky liberal unrealistic fantasy. There are DOZENS of Western Democracies that employ what I am talking about so it's not unrealistic.

All I want is:
#1) Police to follow the Constitution
#2) Police to be held accountable for whenever they violate a citizen's Constitutional Rights
#3) Police to use proportional response when dealing with citizens suspected of wrong doing.

That's it. And for the life of me I just can't accept the position, "Sorry, unless police can use unlimited violence when enforcing the law (to include the most TRIVIAL OF LAWS) then you will have the degradation of society and complete anarchy.

Police officer pulls you over for speeding. You have an attitude. Big flipping deal. He should write the ticket and that should be that. But no. Police will escalate the situation to "teach you some respect" and next thing you know, a citizen is in jail or worse because he had the audacity to be a jackass.

So essentially, what we have in this country is that unless you are a model citizen, unless the police officer likes you, then then Constitution doesn't apply to you when dealing with police. A police officer can incorrectly approach, incorrectly and unlawfully give you an illegal order (like hang up your phone, put down your cigarette, etc) and then you say no and the police officer can now use force because "you resisted a lawful order" or some other such drivel.

All I want is for police to be held to a higher standard and to abide by the Constitution.. Why is that so hard? Why is that impossible?

More than 50% of the problems with police would be solved if they were simply held accountable. ANd I don't just mean for major crap like shooting a kid. No. I'm talking at every level. A police officer purposefully stands in your way and purposefully prevents you from exercising your right to free speech (i.e. filming something) that officer should be fired. It shouldn't take a major event to prove you are unfit to be a cop. No other job on the planet allows its employees to so blatantly be "bad employees" like police. No other job excuses bad behavior and incompetence and flat out enables a bad environment like police.

It literally hurts my heart whenever injustices are committed and then we as a public lower our IQs 50 points and extend benefits of a doubt so ridiculous that we would never accept such excuses from anyone else. And then, when video evidence surfaces conclusively proving a wrong, then the cops are "mistaken" and we shrug and say, "Oh, he was just mistaken..." Wow. Really? Wow...

There are plenty of times I've sided with cops, but in those instances things made "sense". Unfortunately, I'm in the minority. I'm one of the few who don't lose 50 IQ points simply because I'm listening to some cops ridiculous excuse.

end rant

 

[bill5]

If any other group killed over 1,000 Americans a year would you say anyone who asked questions about it as being "self-righteous hissies"?

That would depend on the specifics. I'm one of these crazy people who thinks you should look at all the facts vs ignoring them or cherry-picking the one that that serve as an excuse to attack a group of people and incite others. That's a KKK/nazi kind of mentality which I'll pass on, as would any sane person who can walk and chew gum at the same time...unless of course they're trolling.

 

[bill5]

Dgi...you always seem upset that we allow police to be wrong sometimes.

Yeah what's up w/that? They should be perfect. It's not like they're human beings or anything.

All hail the armchair quarterbacks!

lol @ this thread and lol @ me for wasting time on it. Have fun

 

[tulc]

That would depend on the specifics. I'm one of these crazy people who thinks you should look at all the facts vs ignoring them or cherry-picking the one that that serve as an excuse to attack a group of people and incite others. That's a KKK/nazi kind of mentality which I'll pass on, as would any sane person who can walk and chew gum at the same time...unless of course they're trolling.

Oops...you just Godwined this thread when you brought up Nazi's in a thread not about Nazi's.
tulc(didn't make the rule, but it's still there)

 

[tulc]

Yeah what's up w/that? They should be perfect. It's not like they're human beings or anything.

Human beings who can pretty much kill anyone or anything and have people still act like there's something wrong with people if ask they be held to account for doing so.

All hail the armchair quarterbacks!

It should be pointed out: quarterbacks don't tend to drive up to you on the street and shoot you 2 seconds after arriving.

lol @ this thread and lol @ me for wasting time on it. Have fun

Thank you for that, it's not really fun but I do think it needs to be brought up.
tulc(thanks for stopping in)

 

[crjmurray]

That's way too many.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It would work the way it works in the UK, Australia, South Korea and ever other "free" Western Democracy.

You argue as if it is impossible for police to police without having the option of unlimited violence in their back pocket to whip out to keep the citizenry in line.

Impossible?...no...unreasonable?...absolutely. The vast majority of states allow the citizenry to arm themselves in public...either concealed or in plain sight. They allow this without asking for 1/10th of the training a cop gets. The notion of disarming police isn't going to encourage better police...it's going to chase good cops away and engender lazy cops who show up once the danger is all gone.

Police response must fit the magnitude of the "suspicion" of the crime committed.

I'd say it typically does.

Look we can go back and forth all day hurling anecdotes at each other. The real meat of the argument lies in what you believe in. Do you believe that the Constitution should apply 100% of the time?

Of course...you know, except when it legally doesn't.

Do you believe police must abide by the Constitution?

Absolutely.

Do you believe that police should be held to a lower standard, that is, police break the law and abuse their power and nothing happens to them (i.e whenever police infringe on a citizen's rights).

Not at all.

What I am arguing is not some pie in the sky liberal unrealistic fantasy. There are DOZENS of Western Democracies that employ what I am talking about so it's not unrealistic.

None of them have our gun laws or crime problems...

All I want is:
#1) Police to follow the Constitution
#2) Police to be held accountable for whenever they violate a citizen's Constitutional Rights
#3) Police to use proportional response when dealing with citizens suspected of wrong doing.

Typically, this is exactly what happens. I'll admit, #2 probably needs to happen more often...but that's an issue for the courts.

That's it. And for the life of me I just can't accept the position, "Sorry, unless police can use unlimited violence when enforcing the law (to include the most TRIVIAL OF LAWS) then you will have the degradation of society and complete anarchy.

Who is saying that?

Police officer pulls you over for speeding. You have an attitude. Big flipping deal. He should write the ticket and that should be that. But no. Police will escalate the situation to "teach you some respect" and next thing you know, a citizen is in jail or worse because he had the audacity to be a jackass.

Police do simply write a ticket the overwhelming majority of the time...regardless of the attitude people give them.

Let's keep in mind though...that just like you, police are people...they have feelings, attitudes, emotions and everything else regular people have. I know you think that they should never act out of anger, frustration, spite...whatever...but the reality is they are people. It's going to happen sometimes. I'm not excusing it...I'm just saying that it's a part of reality.

So essentially, what we have in this country is that unless you are a model citizen, unless the police officer likes you, then then Constitution doesn't apply to you when dealing with police.

Is it really asking for too much for you to be respectful and polite to a cop? A cop?!? A guy who in most cases deals with more stressful garbage and human waste than a janitor? A guy who you wouldn't trade a bad day at work with ever?

I know you think that there should never be any consequences for you mouthing off to a cop...and again, I'm not excusing it...but they are people. Just like you...they want to be treated with respect. Just like you...they don't want to get shot at.

I know it eats you up inside that anyone has any authority over you...but you need to let that go dgi, that's called society. There's always going to be someone else who has authority over you...we all live with it. It doesn't make you less of a man, or a punk, or weak for you to treat a cop with respect.

A police officer can incorrectly approach, incorrectly and unlawfully give you an illegal order (like hang up your phone, put down your cigarette, etc) and then you say no and the police officer can now use force because "you resisted a lawful order" or some other such drivel.

Lol and I finally have my answer...

You think that you should be able to determine for yourself whether or not something is legal...and then argue with the cop about it. It's not for you to decide dgi...it's for the courts to decide. Fight your battles there...not out in the street with cops. No cop is expected to be a legal expert on every single aspect of the law. Even if you went to law school...you'd still specialize in a certain area of the law since its so unbelievably complex. So even if you think a cop is doing something wrong...you should probably obey him anyway and fight your battle in court.

All I want is for police to be held to a higher standard and to abide by the Constitution.. Why is that so hard? Why is that impossible?

They do and they typically are.

More than 50% of the problems with police would be solved if they were simply held accountable. ANd I don't just mean for major crap like shooting a kid. No. I'm talking at every level. A police officer purposefully stands in your way and purposefully prevents you from exercising your right to free speech (i.e. filming something) that officer should be fired.

Just out of curiosity...and since I was so nice as to answer all your questions...would you answer this one...

Is there any mistake that you think a cop should be able to make (with regards to their interactions with the public) that he doesn't "get fired" for? From the sound of it...you think that "accountability" means every cop gets fired the moment he makes any mistake. If we did that there'd be no police. Why? Say it with me now...cops are human.

It shouldn't take a major event to prove you are unfit to be a cop. No other job on the planet allows its employees to so blatantly be "bad employees" like police. No other job excuses bad behavior and incompetence and flat out enables a bad environment like police.

Well...to be fair...it's hard to think of another job where every single action you do can have such massive consequences. It's also hard to think of another job where so many actions require split second decision making which can, again, have such massive consequences. Perhaps something like a neurosurgeon...or heart surgeon...but those guys have years of schooling, years of training, and typically make hundreds of thousands of dollars. If you were willing to pay that kind of money...you could probably demand those standards...and they could reasonably be expected/required. You would also probably see the best candidates lining up for that job.

It literally hurts my heart whenever injustices are committed and then we as a public lower our IQs 50 points and extend benefits of a doubt so ridiculous that we would never accept such excuses from anyone else.

You probably shouldn't look into how often doctors actually make huge mistakes and never get held accountable. It's one of those areas where the courts defer to the professional's "expertise" because it's what they do on a regular basis.

And then, when video evidence surfaces conclusively proving a wrong, then the cops are "mistaken" and we shrug and say, "Oh, he was just mistaken..." Wow. Really? Wow...

There are plenty of times I've sided with cops, but in those instances things made "sense". Unfortunately, I'm in the minority. I'm one of the few who don't lose 50 IQ points simply because I'm listening to some cops ridiculous excuse.

end rant

Right...everyone's dumb except you lol because you always know the law and who is in the "right"? C'mon dgi...

 

[Vylo]

The numbers bring up interesting points. There are 4 main factors IMO that cause police to kill people:

1. Improper police conduct. That's what everyone loves to jump on, on both sides of the argument. While this does certainly contribute to deaths caused by police, I would wager this is actually one of the smaller, if not the smallest of the listed causes of police killings.

2. Inadequate staffing and funding. If a cop is just given a gun and a car, he's a lot more like to have to shoot then if he has a partner, more police backup nearby, nonlethal options, and protective gear. They need to feel and actually be safer, it makes them less likely to shoot.

3. Inadequate or improper training. If you train a cop to shoot first, what do you expect him to do? You need to train cops to diffuse situations with as little violence as possible. The military seems to do a much better job of this, which I find odd considering they are most often dealing foreign, armed combatants.

4. Armed populace. I'm not saying this to rag on the second amendment, I support it, but it has a cost and this is one of them. Cops have to worry about guns constantly, and it can be easy for them to mistake something for a gun when we have more of them than pets. Beyond this, it also increases the likelihood of criminals having guns. In countries were guns are highly restricted, police don't have to deal with this nearly as much, which is why many of them seem to lack the hair-trigger response US police do.

Only #1 is controllable by the police themselves. Administration mostly has to take care of #3, and we the people have to address #2 and #4.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The numbers bring up interesting points. There are 4 main factors IMO that cause police to kill people:

1. Improper police conduct. That's what everyone loves to jump on, on both sides of the argument. While this does certainly contribute to deaths caused by police, I would wager this is actually one of the smaller, if not the smallest of the listed causes of police killings.

2. Inadequate staffing and funding. If a cop is just given a gun and a car, he's a lot more like to have to shoot then if he has a partner, more police backup nearby, nonlethal options, and protective gear. They need to feel and actually be safer, it makes them less likely to shoot.

3. Inadequate or improper training. If you train a cop to shoot first, what do you expect him to do? You need to train cops to diffuse situations with as little violence as possible. The military seems to do a much better job of this, which I find odd considering they are most often dealing foreign, armed combatants.

Just out of curiosity...why would you think the military is doing a "much better job" of this? In Iraq alone...they killed an estimated 12000 or so innocent civilians (if I remember the numbers correctly) including women and children, mostly at vehicle checkpoints, and mostly because of language barrier issues (again, if I remember correctly).

Keep in mind, I don't know a lot about military procedures...but I do know they don't ever run those vehicle checkpoints with 1 or 2 guys. It's always multiple soldiers...usually with vehicle barriers between themselves and the vehicles...and typically within responding range of other units.

I understand war is a different animal altogether...but that doesn't sound like it's a stellar performance. It could be worse I guess...they could just be shooting everyone who drives up to them...but they also don't have to worry a whole lot about getting prosecuted for an honest mistake.

4. Armed populace. I'm not saying this to rag on the second amendment, I support it, but it has a cost and this is one of them. Cops have to worry about guns constantly, and it can be easy for them to mistake something for a gun when we have more of them than pets. Beyond this, it also increases the likelihood of criminals having guns. In countries were guns are highly restricted, police don't have to deal with this nearly as much, which is why many of them seem to lack the hair-trigger response US police do.

Only #1 is controllable by the police themselves. Administration mostly has to take care of #3, and we the people have to address #2 and #4.

I don't really disagree with anything else you've said.