Why Are Police Shootings Dominating the News?

[Asclepias]

The only reason that we even have a police force is because a percentage of people won't behave. Probably the same percentage of police that won't behave. Address brutality in general if you want to be taken seriously.

The police are there to 'protect and serve'. Responsible police tactics take community concerns into account. Killing the unarmed, those under control, those in custody betrays the mandate to the police to protect and serve the community in their charge.

Protect and serve law abiding citizens from criminal civilians who murder or brutalize people every day.

Twas ever thus. Police are now killing civilians, the unarmed, the minority. Is this a change? Have police always acted this aggressively while protecting us from the murderers and brutes? Is this now standard operating procedure for policing? Do community police departments need all the paramilitary gear they got after September 11th?

Or are we now painfully aware of police brutality after, well, we saw it in Chicago in 1968, on the streets of Los Angeles in 1993, in Ferguson, Missouri last summer, in Cleveland this past winter, on Staten Island last autumn, in Baltimore Maryland las month?

Its a progression. They have long run roughshod over the Black and Hispanic communities. They have now escalated to the white community as well.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Nope, you're very wrong. I have never ever said nor implied that cops were worse than the general public, and certainly they're not. Obviously, you've misunderstood everything that I've said.

Oh,....so you're using the same silly tactics on him you tried using on me!!

Not going all that well this time either I see.....

Just speaking the truth and telling it like it is, nothing more, nothing less. FYI - I use no tactics, none.

Yeah....sure.....uh-huh!!
You are as dishonest as the day is long....

Nope, sorry, I'm a very honest person, and always have been. If you can show otherwise, please do so, otherwise your words are hollow with no meaning.

I'll bet there are fewer politicians in jail than cops.

I'm not sure, I don't know, but I bet it's very close between the two.

 

[mudwhistle]

Blah blah blah---seriously. I think your point is to somehow tell us how much worse cops are than the general population. You are failing. Mighty easy to criticize someone else ain't it ?

Nope, you're very wrong. I have never ever said nor implied that cops were worse than the general public, and certainly they're not. Obviously, you've misunderstood everything that I've said.

Oh,....so you're using the same silly tactics on him you tried using on me!!

Not going all that well this time either I see.....

Just speaking the truth and telling it like it is, nothing more, nothing less. FYI - I use no tactics, none.

Yeah....sure.....uh-huh!!
You are as dishonest as the day is long....

Nope, sorry, I'm a very honest person, and always have been. If you can show otherwise, please do so, otherwise your words are hollow with no meaning.

Not just hollow but also no meaning?

From such a literalist I really don't think you understand that words sometimes have more than one meaning. Also, several different words often have the same exact meaning.

 

[mudwhistle]

The only reason that we even have a police force is because a percentage of people won't behave. Probably the same percentage of police that won't behave. Address brutality in general if you want to be taken seriously.

The police are there to 'protect and serve'. Responsible police tactics take community concerns into account. Killing the unarmed, those under control, those in custody betrays the mandate to the police to protect and serve the community in their charge.

Protect and serve law abiding citizens from criminal civilians who murder or brutalize people every day.

Twas ever thus. Police are now killing civilians, the unarmed, the minority. Is this a change? Have police always acted this aggressively while protecting us from the murderers and brutes? Is this now standard operating procedure for policing? Do community police departments need all the paramilitary gear they got after September 11th?

Or are we now painfully aware of police brutality after, well, we saw it in Chicago in 1968, on the streets of Los Angeles in 1993, in Ferguson, Missouri last summer, in Cleveland this past winter, on Staten Island last autumn, in Baltimore Maryland las month?

Obama has been busy giving them the very armor that Democrats harangued Bush into giving our troops. Now he's selling it to police and national guard troops. Why is this???

Why is Obama putting our police in tanks at the same time he's telling everyone they should be disarmed?

 

[Sonny Clark]

Nope, you're very wrong. I have never ever said nor implied that cops were worse than the general public, and certainly they're not. Obviously, you've misunderstood everything that I've said.

Oh,....so you're using the same silly tactics on him you tried using on me!!

Not going all that well this time either I see.....

Just speaking the truth and telling it like it is, nothing more, nothing less. FYI - I use no tactics, none.

Yeah....sure.....uh-huh!!
You are as dishonest as the day is long....

Nope, sorry, I'm a very honest person, and always have been. If you can show otherwise, please do so, otherwise your words are hollow with no meaning.

Not just hollow but also no meaning?

From such a literalist I really don't think you understand that words sometimes have more than one meaning. Also, several different words often have the same exact meaning.

Really ?? Are you serious ??? ... ah, com'on now ... for real ????? ... you're a smart fellow ....... you sure know a lot ........ thanks ... the info is much appreciated .......... what is a literalist?

 

[Nosmo King]

The only reason that we even have a police force is because a percentage of people won't behave. Probably the same percentage of police that won't behave. Address brutality in general if you want to be taken seriously.

The police are there to 'protect and serve'. Responsible police tactics take community concerns into account. Killing the unarmed, those under control, those in custody betrays the mandate to the police to protect and serve the community in their charge.

Protect and serve law abiding citizens from criminal civilians who murder or brutalize people every day.

Twas ever thus. Police are now killing civilians, the unarmed, the minority. Is this a change? Have police always acted this aggressively while protecting us from the murderers and brutes? Is this now standard operating procedure for policing? Do community police departments need all the paramilitary gear they got after September 11th?

Or are we now painfully aware of police brutality after, well, we saw it in Chicago in 1968, on the streets of Los Angeles in 1993, in Ferguson, Missouri last summer, in Cleveland this past winter, on Staten Island last autumn, in Baltimore Maryland las month?

Obama has been busy giving them the very armor that Democrats harangued Bush into giving our troops. Now he's selling it to police and national guard troops. Why is this???

Why is Obama putting our police in tanks at the same time he's telling everyone they should be disarmed?

When dis the President say the police should be disarmed?

After 9/11, the paramilitary equipment came flooding in to police departments large and small. Surely that was not then Senator Obama's call.

 

[dilloduck]

aren't you even listening to yourself ? You claim that cops are in the news because there are videos. There are millions of videos. Who in the hell thinks these are newsworthy ? Granted it was important for people to see black thugs destroying their own neighbourhood.

Thats why I told you to read the thread. Thats not the only reason. There is an interest in the stories now since the cops are getting caught. Evidently millions of people think they are newsworthy. Thats why they are on the news.

How do you know that people aren't just bored and find the sensationalism of shootings and rioting to be more entertaining than the Kardashians

 

[Esmeralda]

Democrats are using the police as a scapegoat for their corruption and failure. Did you know that Baltimore received $1.8 billion in stimulus money from Obama? Take a guess who got the lions share of this money...yes public employee unions the Democratic party's cash cow for campaign contributions. Guess how many jobs they created for $1.8 billion, 290 that's $2.9 million spent per job. Hundreds of millions were siphoned off by the public employee unions, this left an embarrassing $3 million for jobs training for poor black neighborhoods.

How about citing a source for this. Facts are facts. Prove your knowledge claims are facts.

I don't play the liberals stupid give me a link game but I will throw you a bone, I read this in the news this morning. You have two choices, you can choose to remain ignorant on this subject or you can do your own research and find the article yourself.

LMAO You have got to be kidding. Asking for verification, for evidence of claims you make is a liberal game? It is standard procedure for debate since debate began. It is what educated people do. Anyone who graduated high school with any basic knowledge knows you support knowledge claims with verifiable support. Anyone who went to college knows it. IT IS NOT A GAME CREATED BY LIBERALS. It is what intelligent, educated people do. If you make a claim of fact, you support it with verifiable evidence. Plain and simple. Poor you. Seem to be without basic schooling.

 

[BluesLegend]

Democrats are using the police as a scapegoat for their corruption and failure. Did you know that Baltimore received $1.8 billion in stimulus money from Obama? Take a guess who got the lions share of this money...yes public employee unions the Democratic party's cash cow for campaign contributions. Guess how many jobs they created for $1.8 billion, 290 that's $2.9 million spent per job. Hundreds of millions were siphoned off by the public employee unions, this left an embarrassing $3 million for jobs training for poor black neighborhoods.

How about citing a source for this. Facts are facts. Prove your knowledge claims are facts.

I don't play the liberals stupid give me a link game but I will throw you a bone, I read this in the news this morning. You have two choices, you can choose to remain ignorant on this subject or you can do your own research and find the article yourself.

LMAO You have got to be kidding. Asking for verification, for evidence of claims you make is a liberal game? It is standard procedure for debate since debate began. It is what educated people do. Anyone who graduated high school with any basic knowledge knows you support knowledge claims with verifiable support. Anyone who went to college knows it. IT IS NOT A GAME CREATED BY LIBERALS. It is what intelligent, educated people do. If you make a claim of fact, you support it with verifiable evidence. Plain and simple. Poor you. Seem to be without basic schooling.

Meh, its not my job to educate ignorant liberals. I don't even like them, they hate me and I hate them right back x10, are we on the same page now?

 

[Asclepias]

aren't you even listening to yourself ? You claim that cops are in the news because there are videos. There are millions of videos. Who in the hell thinks these are newsworthy ? Granted it was important for people to see black thugs destroying their own neighbourhood.

Thats why I told you to read the thread. Thats not the only reason. There is an interest in the stories now since the cops are getting caught. Evidently millions of people think they are newsworthy. Thats why they are on the news.

How do you know that people aren't just bored and find the sensationalism of shootings and rioting to be more entertaining than the Kardashians

Because thats a stupid reason only a stupid person would think was actually the cause.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Why Are Police Shootings Dominating the News?"

One of the more idiotic questions from the right, which is quite an accomplishment.

 

[Yarddog]

TIME to wake up folks, these far and few Incidents they are picking and choosing TO PROTEST OVER. all of this is being PLANNED by, (guess who) and being used Against YOU by the Democrat party, Unions, etc FOR THEIR AGENDAS. they are also using BLACK people (the rioters and looters) in all this AS PAWNS.
wake the hell up

snip:
olice shootings and other tales of alleged police abuse (e.g., Eric Garner) dominate the news these days. You can hardly open a newspaper or turn on a television set without seeing protesters, rioters and looters, along with earnest talking heads debating the issue. Why is this? Why has violence on the part of policemen become the story du jour?

One possible answer is that police violence is a terrible problem that presumably has been with us for quite a while, but is just now coming to light. Some respectable commentators support this view. Reason, for example, links to KilledByPolice.net and concludes that “more than 1,000 people have been killed by police in 2014.” KilledByPolice.net is an interesting, bare bones database that collects stories about fatal incidents involving law enforcement from a wide variety of sources.

But it isn’t really a shock that, in a country of 320 million, there are a perceptible number of fatal encounters with policemen. If you follow the links on the KilledByPolice site, it is immediately obvious that in the overwhelming majority of cases, no possible blame can be attached to the officers in question. Most often the person they shoot is a criminal, and they shoot the criminal because the criminal fired first. The second most common fatal incident is commonly referred to as “suicide by cop.” This happens often, and one can argue that better means of dealing with would-be suicides could be developed. But this is not the issue that consumes our news shows. (A digression: an astonishing number of people commit suicide by standing in front of trains. No one blames the railroads for this.)

I haven’t attempted an exhaustive analysis of the cases linked at KilledByPolice, but if you spend some time reviewing the linked stories, I think you will conclude, as I did, that the percentage of cases in which police officers could reasonably be blamed is very small–somewhere between 1 and 5 percent. So maybe there are somewhere between 10 and 50 cases a year where a serious claim could be made that improper police conduct–not just homicide, but any sort of questionable judgment–resulted in a fatality. (From what we know so far, I would say that the Freddie Gray case is probably one of them.) Is this enough to explain the current obsession with the police?

I don’t think so. To draw a simple comparison, every year something like 390 children, most of them younger than five years old, drown in swimming pools. If our news media were to take on swimming pool safety as a cause, and give every one of these drownings–more than one per day–front page, above the fold coverage, and if our television talking heads were to devote a large portion of their time to debating swimming pool safety and the ins and outs of each individual drowning, many people would no doubt be convinced that we are living in the midst of a swimming pool crisis. That crisis would be an order of magnitude greater than the police abuse scandal, and a large majority of the victims would be small children, not the sketchy characters that police officers so often encounter.

But that isn’t happening. Given the comparative insignificance of the police abuse issue, quantitatively speaking, one might suspect that its current dominance of public discourse fits someone’s agenda.

Which, of course, it does. The police abuse story, which began in a nascent form with Trayvon Martin and continued, more fully developed, with Eric Garner, Michael Brown and Freddie Gray, is part of the Democratic Party’s effort to divide America along racial lines, in expectation of political gain. Leftists say “Black lives matter,” as though there were some people who say they don’t. Rarely has paranoia been more ruthlessly, or more dishonestly, promoted.

But a more specific left-wing agenda may also be in play. Al Sharpton–as buffoonish as Harry Reid and as corrupt as Hillary Clinton, with more blood on his hands than Democratic National Committeeman Bull Connor–is one of his party’s most authentic spokesmen. And Sharpton wants to place the nation’s police forces under federal control: “We need the Justice Department to step in and take over policing in this country.” Here he is:

ALL of it here:
Why Are Police Shootings Dominating the News Power Line

It certainly takes peoples minds off other issues, like selling of nuclear materials to Russia. Its not a bad thing for the Democrats, it also allows them to push harder for more centralized control. its a win/ win for them.

 

[Stephanie]

The only reason that we even have a police force is because a percentage of people won't behave. Probably the same percentage of police that won't behave. Address brutality in general if you want to be taken seriously.

The police are there to 'protect and serve'. Responsible police tactics take community concerns into account. Killing the unarmed, those under control, those in custody betrays the mandate to the police to protect and serve the community in their charge.

Protect and serve law abiding citizens from criminal civilians who murder or brutalize people every day.

Twas ever thus. Police are now killing civilians, the unarmed, the minority. Is this a change? Have police always acted this aggressively while protecting us from the murderers and brutes? Is this now standard operating procedure for policing? Do community police departments need all the paramilitary gear they got after September 11th?

Or are we now painfully aware of police brutality after, well, we saw it in Chicago in 1968, on the streets of Los Angeles in 1993, in Ferguson, Missouri last summer, in Cleveland this past winter, on Staten Island last autumn, in Baltimore Maryland las month?

Obama has been busy giving them the very armor that Democrats harangued Bush into giving our troops. Now he's selling it to police and national guard troops. Why is this???

Why is Obama putting our police in tanks at the same time he's telling everyone they should be disarmed?

You have to wonder if these libs keep up on the news in the country?

oh my, From the NYslimes:
War Gear Flows to Police Departments
By MATT APUZZOJUNE 8, 2014

Inside
Photo

A military-style armored personnel carrier, top, that the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office in Florida bought off a contractor. Credit Jacob Langston


NEENAH, Wis. — Inside the municipal garage of this small lakefront city, parked next to the hefty orange snowplow, sits an even larger truck, this one painted in desert khaki. Weighing 30 tons and built to withstand land mines, the armored combat vehicle is one of hundreds showing up across the country, in police departments big and small.

The 9-foot-tall armored truck was intended for an overseas battlefield. But as President Obama ushers in the end of what he called America’s “long season of war,” the former tools of combat — M-16 rifles, grenade launchers, silencers and more — are ending up in local police departments, often with little public notice.

During the Obama administration, according to Pentagon data, police departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft.

The equipment has been added to the armories of police departments that already look and act like military units. Police SWAT teams are now deployed tens of thousands of times each year, increasingly for routine jobs. Masked, heavily armed police officers in Louisiana raided a nightclub in 2006 as part of a liquor inspection. In Florida in 2010, officers in SWAT gear and with guns drawn carried out raids on barbershops that mostly led only to charges of “barbering without a license.”

When the military’s mine-resistant trucks began arriving in large numbers last year, Neenah and places like it were plunged into the middle of a debate over whether the post-9/11 era had obscured the lines between soldier and police officer.

“It just seems like ramping up a police department for a problem we don’t have,” said Shay Korittnig, a father of two who spoke against getting the armored truck at a recent public meeting in Neenah. “This is not what I was looking for when I moved here, that my children would view their local police officer as an M-16-toting, SWAT-apparel-wearing officer.”


Continue reading the main story
Military Equipment for Local Police
As the nation’s wars abroad wind down, many of the military’s surplus tools of combat have ended up in the hands of state and local law enforcement. Totals below are the minimum number of pieces acquired since 2006 in a selection of categories.

all of it here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html?_r=0

 

[Delta4Embassy]

TIME to wake up folks, these far and few Incidents they are picking and choosing TO PROTEST OVER. all of this is being PLANNED by, (guess who) and being used Against YOU by the Democrat party, Unions, etc FOR THEIR AGENDAS. they are also using BLACK people (the rioters and looters) in all this AS PAWNS.
wake the hell up

snip:
olice shootings and other tales of alleged police abuse (e.g., Eric Garner) dominate the news these days. You can hardly open a newspaper or turn on a television set without seeing protesters, rioters and looters, along with earnest talking heads debating the issue. Why is this? Why has violence on the part of policemen become the story du jour?

One possible answer is that police violence is a terrible problem that presumably has been with us for quite a while, but is just now coming to light. Some respectable commentators support this view. Reason, for example, links to KilledByPolice.net and concludes that “more than 1,000 people have been killed by police in 2014.” KilledByPolice.net is an interesting, bare bones database that collects stories about fatal incidents involving law enforcement from a wide variety of sources.

But it isn’t really a shock that, in a country of 320 million, there are a perceptible number of fatal encounters with policemen. If you follow the links on the KilledByPolice site, it is immediately obvious that in the overwhelming majority of cases, no possible blame can be attached to the officers in question. Most often the person they shoot is a criminal, and they shoot the criminal because the criminal fired first. The second most common fatal incident is commonly referred to as “suicide by cop.” This happens often, and one can argue that better means of dealing with would-be suicides could be developed. But this is not the issue that consumes our news shows. (A digression: an astonishing number of people commit suicide by standing in front of trains. No one blames the railroads for this.)

I haven’t attempted an exhaustive analysis of the cases linked at KilledByPolice, but if you spend some time reviewing the linked stories, I think you will conclude, as I did, that the percentage of cases in which police officers could reasonably be blamed is very small–somewhere between 1 and 5 percent. So maybe there are somewhere between 10 and 50 cases a year where a serious claim could be made that improper police conduct–not just homicide, but any sort of questionable judgment–resulted in a fatality. (From what we know so far, I would say that the Freddie Gray case is probably one of them.) Is this enough to explain the current obsession with the police?

I don’t think so. To draw a simple comparison, every year something like 390 children, most of them younger than five years old, drown in swimming pools. If our news media were to take on swimming pool safety as a cause, and give every one of these drownings–more than one per day–front page, above the fold coverage, and if our television talking heads were to devote a large portion of their time to debating swimming pool safety and the ins and outs of each individual drowning, many people would no doubt be convinced that we are living in the midst of a swimming pool crisis. That crisis would be an order of magnitude greater than the police abuse scandal, and a large majority of the victims would be small children, not the sketchy characters that police officers so often encounter.

But that isn’t happening. Given the comparative insignificance of the police abuse issue, quantitatively speaking, one might suspect that its current dominance of public discourse fits someone’s agenda.

Which, of course, it does. The police abuse story, which began in a nascent form with Trayvon Martin and continued, more fully developed, with Eric Garner, Michael Brown and Freddie Gray, is part of the Democratic Party’s effort to divide America along racial lines, in expectation of political gain. Leftists say “Black lives matter,” as though there were some people who say they don’t. Rarely has paranoia been more ruthlessly, or more dishonestly, promoted.

But a more specific left-wing agenda may also be in play. Al Sharpton–as buffoonish as Harry Reid and as corrupt as Hillary Clinton, with more blood on his hands than Democratic National Committeeman Bull Connor–is one of his party’s most authentic spokesmen. And Sharpton wants to place the nation’s police forces under federal control: “We need the Justice Department to step in and take over policing in this country.” Here he is:

ALL of it here:
Why Are Police Shootings Dominating the News Power Line

Election time probably has more than a little to do with it. If the news covered all the crimes and violence directed AT police, there'd be no outrage over the occasional suspect-shooting BY police. When you depict just one side of reality, your opinion of reality is flawed though.

 

[dilloduck]

Civilians need to wear body cams so we can inspect them for violence towards police. A great entertainment tool.

 

[Abishai100]

Populism Pantry


I have a theory that addresses this question, and I call it 'The Medusa Theory.'

Our modern world is gauged by mercantilism-catalyzed globalization (i.e., eTrade). Networking efficiency is based on information-relay reliability (i.e., Internet).

Everyone uses the Internet. Men use it to look at sports news instantly, and women use it to look up recipes instantly.

Since women are part of this new world exchange, men and women want news on TV to address curiosities that affect both genders. Since jurisprudence matters are important to both men and women in our age of populism-themed networking (i.e., Facebook), we find that new age social art presents vigilantism-themed comic book superheroes that cater to both men and women: i.e., Superman (DC Comics) and Spider-Woman (Marvel Comics).

In this environment of populism sentimentalism, hysteria about law and order seems to reach the hearts and minds of both men and women. The net result is, both men and women become more and more curious about relevant populism issues such as women in the military and police brutality.

Therefore, when we see a woman in the media (i.e., Hillary Clinton) make public comments about civil matters, we as a society tend to become more naturally curious about civics corruption as it affects both men and women. We are so moved by such news stories these days that we tend to brand the women who appear in the media and make such volatile comments as rabble-rousers or political hypnotists.

Medusa is a Greek deity from ancient world mythology. Medusa was a beautiful woman until a curse turned her into a half-snake monster with the power to turn any man who dares look into her deadly gaze into stone. Medusa represents a timeless human fascination with gender powers as they affect social organization and civics coordination.

Hence, we are intrigued by police brutality and civics corruption as it affects all of society because of what I call The Medusa Theory: a psycho-sociological response to coordination anxieties that arise from concerns that reach both genders equally.





Medusa