CDZ What is With All of the Deadly Police Shootings?

[320 Years of History]

It seems like every other day we see or hear of another deadly shooting of someone who is armed but not posing an immediate threat of death or great bodily harm to anyone. In many instances the police appear to start shooting earlier than may become necessary and, when they do, keep firing until their guns are empty.

Is this a reflection of an official policy of shoot to kill, or are these examples of poor judgement/panic on the part of individual police officers? It seems that less lethal means and training should be implemented to deal with these situations.

Is this an unrealistic proposal?

I doubt there is an official "shoot to kill" policy. I don't know if the root problem stems from the hiring practices of police officers, wage economics, or the things you suggest. Personally, I think it's probably a combination of them. I am aware that in the 1980s and 1990s, the D.C. police force was under pressure to boost its ranks, and to do so it offered shields to people who were previously rejected. I know too that high intelligence isn't among the traits possessed by most police officers, and I know that lacking strong critical thinking skills, individuals often enough fail to exercise sufficient circumspection over the stimuli they encounter, and that in turn can lead easily to one's making emotionally driven rather than rational choices. Lastly, I suspect that most folks with markedly above average intelligence will opt to pursue careers other than state or municipal law enforcement.

I know two police officers. Both are nice enough individuals who fit the profile noted in the article linked above, and both are also far more likely on any given matter to "go with their gut" than they are to critically and methodically assess things. That's so for the stuff I have discussed with them in decidedly non-life-threatening circumstances. I trust them as individuals, and they are of high integrity, but, quite frankly, I wouldn't want to be the criminal they seek to apprehend. I wouldn't put it past either of them to "shoot first and ask (deal with) questions (consequences) later." That's how they handle discussions. I have no reason to think they do anything differently while on duty. I suspect too that most cops are just like them.

They should. Police officers have a right to life. Their duty is to protect the general public, not individuals.
I do agree that some shootings shouldn't have happened, but who am I? I wasn't in that situation. I don't know how I would have handled it. Neither do you or anyone else.

They should what?

It's so that I wasn't there, haven't been trained as a cop, and can't say with 100% certainty how I'd have handled it. One doesn't need to have been present to glean that "something doesn't smell right" and thus endeavor to examine the matter more closely to determine if something was or is.

I'm one who will give appointed/elected officials the benefit of the doubt until they give me a reason not to. The quantity of cops that kill suspects is bad enough, but the linchpin for me is that (1) often enough they don't face any charges and (2) that there seems also to be an increasing quantity of cops charged for having killed someone. Neither of those things should be happening more than a handful or so of times a year.

In light of the clearly documented case of collusion among police officers to obfuscate the facts of the McDonald shooting in Chicago, there is IMO clearly a need to audit the situation across the board. Police forces are tightly knit closed societies that have a unique set of privileges with regard to law enforcement events. Cops are given a very high degree of trust and abusing it no mean matter.

We all know that criminals are given to collude to save their own skin, but we entrust and expect that cops won't do so as well. Indeed, they are obligated more so than the rest of us not to break the very law they are tasked to enforce. As any auditor will tell you, collusion is incredibly hard to detect and all but impossible to prevent. That occurred even one incident of blatant collusion of the nature shown in the McDonald matter is highly disturbing.

 

[Care4all]

It seems like every other day we see or hear of another deadly shooting of someone who is armed but not posing an immediate threat of death or great bodily harm to anyone. In many instances the police appear to start shooting earlier than may become necessary and, when they do, keep firing until their guns are empty.

Is this a reflection of an official policy of shoot to kill, or are these examples of poor judgement/panic on the part of individual police officers? It seems that less lethal means and training should be implemented to deal with these situations.

Is this an unrealistic proposal?

It is a Democrat political policy being pushed and aided by the media who pick and choose the stories of the day and use them to make it look more like their ideology fits with their agenda.
Dems and mainstream media are using psychological warfare and many Americans are falling for it.

it's the video....that's what's making this even available for the media to second guess and sensationalize.

 

[jillian]

Always had them. We now just have videos too.

it's more than that. it's that police don't live in the communities they police like they used to. there is distrust on both the part of the offers and the part of people in the community. this leads to fear and overreaction.

but it's also about racism. officers shoot more quickly when the person they are approaching is black. that is a function of insensitivity and bad training.

 

[TNHarley]

It seems like every other day we see or hear of another deadly shooting of someone who is armed but not posing an immediate threat of death or great bodily harm to anyone. In many instances the police appear to start shooting earlier than may become necessary and, when they do, keep firing until their guns are empty.

Is this a reflection of an official policy of shoot to kill, or are these examples of poor judgement/panic on the part of individual police officers? It seems that less lethal means and training should be implemented to deal with these situations.

Is this an unrealistic proposal?

I doubt there is an official "shoot to kill" policy. I don't know if the root problem stems from the hiring practices of police officers, wage economics, or the things you suggest. Personally, I think it's probably a combination of them. I am aware that in the 1980s and 1990s, the D.C. police force was under pressure to boost its ranks, and to do so it offered shields to people who were previously rejected. I know too that high intelligence isn't among the traits possessed by most police officers, and I know that lacking strong critical thinking skills, individuals often enough fail to exercise sufficient circumspection over the stimuli they encounter, and that in turn can lead easily to one's making emotionally driven rather than rational choices. Lastly, I suspect that most folks with markedly above average intelligence will opt to pursue careers other than state or municipal law enforcement.

I know two police officers. Both are nice enough individuals who fit the profile noted in the article linked above, and both are also far more likely on any given matter to "go with their gut" than they are to critically and methodically assess things. That's so for the stuff I have discussed with them in decidedly non-life-threatening circumstances. I trust them as individuals, and they are of high integrity, but, quite frankly, I wouldn't want to be the criminal they seek to apprehend. I wouldn't put it past either of them to "shoot first and ask (deal with) questions (consequences) later." That's how they handle discussions. I have no reason to think they do anything differently while on duty. I suspect too that most cops are just like them.

They should. Police officers have a right to life. Their duty is to protect the general public, not individuals.
I do agree that some shootings shouldn't have happened, but who am I? I wasn't in that situation. I don't know how I would have handled it. Neither do you or anyone else.

They should what?

It's so that I wasn't there, haven't been trained as a cop, and can't say with 100% certainty how I'd have handled it. One doesn't need to have been present to glean that "something doesn't smell right" and thus endeavor to examine the matter more closely to determine if something was or is.

I'm one who will give appointed/elected officials the benefit of the doubt until they give me a reason not to. The quantity of cops that kill suspects is bad enough, but the linchpin for me is that (1) often enough they don't face any charges and (2) that there seems also to be an increasing quantity of cops charged for having killed someone. Neither of those things should be happening more than a handful or so of times a year.

In light of the clearly documented case of collusion among police officers to obfuscate the facts of the McDonald shooting in Chicago, there is IMO clearly a need to audit the situation across the board. Police forces are tightly knit closed societies that have a unique set of privileges with regard to law enforcement events. Cops are given a very high degree of trust and abusing it no mean matter.

We all know that criminals are given to collude to save their own skin, but we entrust and expect that cops won't do so as well. Indeed, they are obligated more so than the rest of us not to break the very law they are tasked to enforce. As any auditor will tell you, collusion is incredibly hard to detect and all but impossible to prevent. That occurred even one incident of blatant collusion of the nature shown in the McDonald matter is highly disturbing.

but the linchpin for me is that (1) often enough they don't face any charges and (2) that there seems also to be an increasing quantity of cops charged for having killed someone

 

[TNHarley]

Always had them. We now just have videos too.

it's more than that. it's that police don't live in the communities they police like they used to. there is distrust on both the part of the offers and the part of people in the community. this leads to fear and overreaction.

but it's also about racism. officers shoot more quickly when the person they are approaching is black. that is a function of insensitivity and bad training.

or statistics

 

[jillian]

Always had them. We now just have videos too.

it's more than that. it's that police don't live in the communities they police like they used to. there is distrust on both the part of the offers and the part of people in the community. this leads to fear and overreaction.

but it's also about racism. officers shoot more quickly when the person they are approaching is black. that is a function of insensitivity and bad training.

or statistics

if you look at it as a statistical issue, then we need to discuss disparate enforcement rates in the black and white communities for the same actions....

so no, an unarmed black kid is not statistically ANYTHING that would make an officer shoot him. a person selling loose cigarettes did not do anything "statistically" which required a choke hold to kill him.

fahrschtey?

 

[320 Years of History]

It seems like every other day we see or hear of another deadly shooting of someone who is armed but not posing an immediate threat of death or great bodily harm to anyone. In many instances the police appear to start shooting earlier than may become necessary and, when they do, keep firing until their guns are empty.

Is this a reflection of an official policy of shoot to kill, or are these examples of poor judgement/panic on the part of individual police officers? It seems that less lethal means and training should be implemented to deal with these situations.

Is this an unrealistic proposal?

It is a Democrat political policy being pushed and aided by the media who pick and choose the stories of the day and use them to make it look more like their ideology fits with their agenda.
Dems and mainstream media are using psychological warfare and many Americans are falling for it.

it's the video....that's what's making this even available for the media to second guess and sensationalize.

Second guess? When you see a person walking away from you, there's no need to guess whether he's a threat to you. They are not.

My grade school teacher all purported to have eyes in the back of their heads, but even that isn't enough to allow them or anyone else to be an immediate and deadly threat from that direction. Short of showing that the suspect is likely going to (or trying to) blow themselves up and take the surrounding area with them, there just isn't a need to use deadly force on a retreating suspect/individual.

 

[320 Years of History]

but the linchpin for me is that (1) often enough they don't face any charges and (2) that there seems also to be an increasing quantity of cops charged for having killed someone

I explained why I wrote that in the sentence immediately following the one you quoted. Did you not read that far? Do you routinely quote folks so as to remove the contextual cues from their words?

 

[TNHarley]

Always had them. We now just have videos too.

it's more than that. it's that police don't live in the communities they police like they used to. there is distrust on both the part of the offers and the part of people in the community. this leads to fear and overreaction.

but it's also about racism. officers shoot more quickly when the person they are approaching is black. that is a function of insensitivity and bad training.

or statistics

if you look at it as a statistical issue, then we need to discuss disparate enforcement rates in the black and white communities for the same actions....

so no, an unarmed black kid is not statistically ANYTHING that would make an officer shoot him. a person selling loose cigarettes did not do anything "statistically" which required a choke hold to kill him.

fahrschtey?

Ok lets do it
IKR? Why was the black woman telling the cop to do those things? She MUST be racist!

 

[jillian]

Always had them. We now just have videos too.

it's more than that. it's that police don't live in the communities they police like they used to. there is distrust on both the part of the offers and the part of people in the community. this leads to fear and overreaction.

but it's also about racism. officers shoot more quickly when the person they are approaching is black. that is a function of insensitivity and bad training.

or statistics

if you look at it as a statistical issue, then we need to discuss disparate enforcement rates in the black and white communities for the same actions....

so no, an unarmed black kid is not statistically ANYTHING that would make an officer shoot him. a person selling loose cigarettes did not do anything "statistically" which required a choke hold to kill him.

fahrschtey?

Ok lets do it
IKR? Why was the black woman telling the cop to do those things? She MUST be racist!

i'm not sure what you're talking about. please clarify.

 

[TNHarley]

but the linchpin for me is that (1) often enough they don't face any charges and (2) that there seems also to be an increasing quantity of cops charged for having killed someone

I explained why I wrote that in the sentence immediately following the one you quoted. Did you not read that far? Do you routinely quote folks so as to remove the contextual cues from their words?

When I saw that, I stopped reading.
Its hard to be compelled to retardation.

 

[TNHarley]

Always had them. We now just have videos too.

it's more than that. it's that police don't live in the communities they police like they used to. there is distrust on both the part of the offers and the part of people in the community. this leads to fear and overreaction.

but it's also about racism. officers shoot more quickly when the person they are approaching is black. that is a function of insensitivity and bad training.

or statistics

if you look at it as a statistical issue, then we need to discuss disparate enforcement rates in the black and white communities for the same actions....

so no, an unarmed black kid is not statistically ANYTHING that would make an officer shoot him. a person selling loose cigarettes did not do anything "statistically" which required a choke hold to kill him.

fahrschtey?

Ok lets do it
IKR? Why was the black woman telling the cop to do those things? She MUST be racist!

i'm not sure what you're talking about. please clarify.

Lets discuss disparate enforcement rates.
You are referring to the fat guy selling cigs on the corner in NY, right? A BLACK woman was telling that cop to do those things. I believe she was his superior or something.. IDK that was a couple years ago.

 

[Valerie]

Always had them. We now just have videos too.

it's more than that. it's that police don't live in the communities they police like they used to. there is distrust on both the part of the offers and the part of people in the community. this leads to fear and overreaction.

but it's also about racism. officers shoot more quickly when the person they are approaching is black. that is a function of insensitivity and bad training.

or statistics

if you look at it as a statistical issue, then we need to discuss disparate enforcement rates in the black and white communities for the same actions....

so no, an unarmed black kid is not statistically ANYTHING that would make an officer shoot him. a person selling loose cigarettes did not do anything "statistically" which required a choke hold to kill him.

fahrschtey?

Ok lets do it
IKR? Why was the black woman telling the cop to do those things? She MUST be racist!

i'm not sure what you're talking about. please clarify.

notice how the only time anyone ever says silly things like "so he MUST be racist" it's just some stooge attempting to deflect from your valid points...

 

[TNHarley]

it's more than that. it's that police don't live in the communities they police like they used to. there is distrust on both the part of the offers and the part of people in the community. this leads to fear and overreaction.

but it's also about racism. officers shoot more quickly when the person they are approaching is black. that is a function of insensitivity and bad training.

or statistics

if you look at it as a statistical issue, then we need to discuss disparate enforcement rates in the black and white communities for the same actions....

so no, an unarmed black kid is not statistically ANYTHING that would make an officer shoot him. a person selling loose cigarettes did not do anything "statistically" which required a choke hold to kill him.

fahrschtey?

Ok lets do it
IKR? Why was the black woman telling the cop to do those things? She MUST be racist!

i'm not sure what you're talking about. please clarify.

notice how the only time anyone ever says silly things like "so he MUST be racist" it's just some stooge attempting to deflect from your valid points...

Racism was one of her arguments, dumbfuck

 

[Programmer]

For their own protection and the protection of possible would-be 'victims' around them, the Police are not trained to 'WOUND' people. Those deemed a threat, those armed and refusing to comply with police direction will be met with deadly force.

Kids are not taught to RESPECT the cops any more. Black Lives Matter members, for example, have been seen in the media calling for the murder of all whites AND POLICEMEN. 'REVEREND' Al Sharpton, after the Michael Brown shooting I THINK, went to NY to hold a march in which he CALLED on blacks NOT to cooperate with the police.

Michael Brown was the perfect example. he was a boy trapped in a very large man's body. He had no respect for authority, no respect for anyone else or what they owned. He stole from a store, assaulted the store owners / clerk, ignored a policeman's request to get out f the street, failed to obey a policeman's order, attacked the policeman, and was shot dead in self defense. Who can tell me where the problem began?
- It began AT HOME, with his parents and his up-bringing. It began with the bombardment of disrespectful, in some cases racist, crap. It began with the indoctrinating propaganda that all blacks are 'victims' and that people 'owe them'. It began with a lack of respect for others being taught in the home.

People in Baltimore screamed for 'justice' while burning down and looting the stores and the store owners that were n that neighborhood to HELP them, who did nothing to them! 'Mob Mentality' is what some people call it. I call it 'who you are / what you are' finally being let out. Disrespectful, law-breaking, selfish animals.

I will not deny there are not bad people - bad cops - out there, and they need to be taken down, but the police do not deserve even half (IMO) of the blame being heaped upon them. Don't want to get shot? Obey the law and respect the police. If they are targeting you by mistake or out of racism, COMPLY...THEN deal with / address it after that potentially heated conflict is over. Sure beats getting shot and dying!

RESPECT! That's what we need to get back, though - all of us!

Police should be trained to wound.

 

[jwoodie]

Police should be trained to wound.

How about disable with taser, tear gas, flash bang, nets, etc.?

 

[Programmer]

Police should be trained to wound.

How about disable with taser, tear gas, flash bang, nets, etc.?

Well, that hasn't worked. Maybe their pistols need to run .25 ACP.

 

[jillian]

or statistics

if you look at it as a statistical issue, then we need to discuss disparate enforcement rates in the black and white communities for the same actions....

so no, an unarmed black kid is not statistically ANYTHING that would make an officer shoot him. a person selling loose cigarettes did not do anything "statistically" which required a choke hold to kill him.

fahrschtey?

Ok lets do it
IKR? Why was the black woman telling the cop to do those things? She MUST be racist!

i'm not sure what you're talking about. please clarify.

notice how the only time anyone ever says silly things like "so he MUST be racist" it's just some stooge attempting to deflect from your valid points...

Racism was one of her arguments, dumbfuck

to be fair, you haven't addressed my points except to imply that racial arrest statistics somehow justifies killing young, unarmed black men.

 

[jillian]

Police should be trained to wound.

How about disable with taser, tear gas, flash bang, nets, etc.?

Well, that hasn't worked. Maybe their pistols need to run .25 ACP.

they didn't try those in any of the cases we've been discussing.

 

[TNHarley]

if you look at it as a statistical issue, then we need to discuss disparate enforcement rates in the black and white communities for the same actions....

so no, an unarmed black kid is not statistically ANYTHING that would make an officer shoot him. a person selling loose cigarettes did not do anything "statistically" which required a choke hold to kill him.

fahrschtey?

Ok lets do it
IKR? Why was the black woman telling the cop to do those things? She MUST be racist!

i'm not sure what you're talking about. please clarify.

notice how the only time anyone ever says silly things like "so he MUST be racist" it's just some stooge attempting to deflect from your valid points...

Racism was one of her arguments, dumbfuck

to be fair, you haven't addressed my points except to imply that racial arrest statistics somehow justifies killing young, unarmed black men.

Statistically, a black male is more likely to do something crazy. I was simply pointing out why logically someone would think that.
You mentioned enforcement rates. I am waiting on that.