Zone1 Why is that the police hesitate,

[beagle9]

Otherwise when it comes to ending a situation before it gets way out of hand or control ?

Watching all these police chase videos on YouTube, and it appears to me that many times they end up allowing a chase to ensue that could have been avoided or stopped quickly. WTH ?

Many times it appears that in the first part of the escape attempt, this is when the situation could have been stopped immediately or quickly before it gets way out of control.

Why is this such a volatile issue that never seems to get a better solution that is applied across the board ??
Now from a rolling pursuit in motion that's different, but many start from a stop and then flee situation.

Do you all see the same things in these YouTube video's when watching them ?

If an assailant runs away with a weapon in hand or after he just attacked the cops either on foot or with a vehicle, then why the hesitation before shooting the person even if he is running with his back turned ? I asked this question because if the person escapes with weapon in hand or with a deranged mind, then can't such a person endanger the public at large by attacking them also, and worse highjacking them also or kidnapping them and such ? So why take the chance ? Why the hesitation ?


Over and over I'm seeing cops being shot due to either poor judgement, poor training, "hesitation", and possible fear, but is it fear of retribution from a system bent towards the criminals instead of law and order ??

Some of these runners after endangering lives and the public at large, need their sorry aces kicked once the officer's catch their no good aces.


How this nation got to the point where the criminals have more rights and favorable status than the law and the victims is an amazing thing.

Is there no training to address these problems or is it all caused by political correctness or in these days wokeness ??

 

[BULLDOG]

Because they are cops. Not judge, jury, and executioner.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

Otherwise when it comes to ending a situation before it gets way out of hand or control ?

Watching all these police chase videos on YouTube, and it appears to me that many times they end up allowing a chase to ensue that could have been avoided or stopped quickly. WTH ?

Many times it appears that in the first part of the escape attempt, this is when the situation could have been stopped immediately or quickly before it gets way out of control.

Why is this such a volatile issue that never seems to get a better solution that is applied across the board ??
Now from a rolling pursuit in motion that's different, but many start from a stop and then flee situation.

Do you all see the same things in these YouTube video's when watching them ?

If an assailant runs away with a weapon in hand or after he just attacked the cops either on foot or with a vehicle, then why the hesitation before shooting the person even if he is running with his back turned ? I asked this question because if the person escapes with weapon in hand or with a deranged mind, then can't such a person endanger the public at large by attacking them also, and worse highjacking them also or kidnapping them and such ? So why take the chance ? Why the hesitation ?


Over and over I'm seeing cops being shot due to either poor judgement, poor training, "hesitation", and possible fear, but is it fear of retribution from a system bent towards the criminals instead of law and order ??

Some of these runners after endangering lives and the public at large, need their sorry aces kicked once the officer's catch their no good aces.


How this nation got to the point where the criminals have more rights and favorable status than the law and the victims is an amazing thing.

Is there no training to address these problems or is it all caused by political correctness or in these days wokeness ??

1. Law enforcement personnel are TRAINED to initially "de-escalate" the situations they encounter, to prevent any loss of life.
2. No matter how much of a scumbag the person might be, those scumbags have family and friends who will almost always defend them and complain to the police, judges and politicians about how their favorite scumbag was treated and those agencies listen to them, especially the politicians who like to get elected.
3. This isn't the old west. As tempting as it is to just remove the criminal scumbags from the gene pool, we just can't.
What I REALLY hate about our criminal justice system is seeing these DA's and Judges keep giving criminals chance, after chance, after chance, after chance, allowing them to amass long rap sheets. If someone criminal repeatedly causes any victims, whether physically or financially, even if it isn't violent, that person should be declared a "habitual criminal" and placed in a prison for life. As to the number of violations to determine this, that should be set nationally. Perhaps six or ten as a baseline.

 

[1srelluc]

1. Law enforcement personnel are TRAINED to initially "de-escalate" the situations they encounter, to prevent any loss of life.
2. No matter how much of a scumbag the person might be, those scumbags have family and friends who will almost always defend them and complain to the police, judges and politicians about how their favorite scumbag was treated and those agencies listen to them, especially the politicians who like to get elected.
3. This isn't the old west. As tempting as it is to just remove the criminal scumbags from the gene pool, we just can't.
What I REALLY hate about our criminal justice system is seeing these DA's and Judges keep giving criminals chance, after chance, after chance, after chance, allowing them to amass long rap sheets. If someone criminal repeatedly causes any victims, whether physically or financially, even if it isn't violent, that person should be declared a "habitual criminal" and placed in a prison for life. As to the number of violations to determine this, that should be set nationally. Perhaps six or ten as a baseline.

Virginia has a mandatory three strike rule, your third violent felony got you life.

It was also why you started to see so many charges being pleaded down.

That said it is a deterrence as I've heard many convicts talk about the fear of it.

The Commonwealth of Virginia has what is known as the “three strikes” law (Virginia Code Section 19.2-297.1), which applies specifically to violent felony offenses. If a person has twice been previously convicted of a violent felony crime and is convicted a third time (or more), then according to the law, the individual must be sentenced to life in prison.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Normal police officers are conscious of not just their authority but the rights of the perpetrator along with the safety of the public. Their job is to enforce the law but not at ALL costs and endangering the public or violating the laws or the U.S. constitution in the process of capturing someone who doesn't want to be taken into custody has to be taken into consideration.

It is NOT legal to shoot a person in the back, because deadly force is only supposed to be used to neutralize an eminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death and a person fleeing is no longer considered a legal threat in most circumstances.

Chasing them can put a lot of innocent lives at risk and they have to weigh all of this, sometimes in a split second.

 

[beagle9]

Normal police officers are conscious of not just their authority but the rights of the perpetrator along with the safety of the public. Their job is to enforce the law but not at ALL costs and endangering the public or violating the laws or the U.S. constitution in the process of capturing someone who doesn't want to be taken into custody has to be taken into consideration.

It is NOT legal to shoot a person in the back, because deadly force is only supposed to be used to neutralize an eminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death and a person fleeing is no longer considered a legal threat in most circumstances.

Chasing them can put a lot of innocent lives at risk and they have to weigh all of this, sometimes in a split second.

Understood, but in the case of the perp attempting to run after assaulting a police officer, and then showing himself to be a threat not only to the police but to the public as well, then that perp should be stopped by gunfire before leaving the scene if trying to escape after using violent force in the attempt to escape. A long time ago I remember a perp trying to wrestle the gun from an officer unsuccessfully, and then the perp attempted to flee when the officer shot him before he could escape to possibly pose a threat to the public at large. The officer went to jail due to the pressure of being tried first in the court of public opinion that reverberate into his trial. Now if the perp in his escape would have carjacked a mother and her baby, and placed them in extreme danger before being captured again, it would have all been shoved under a rug.

Seems when watching all these cop video's, that we now have a huge problem in discernment between criminal supposed rights and the rights of the innocent public.

 

[beagle9]

Funny thing.

I used the YouTube videos that I've been watching in order to write about this topic.

Per the algorithm it was giving me, I felt saddened watching the police videos in which showed the police being brutalized and even killed by the perps.

Well YouTube was following the algorithms based upon my watched videos on the topic, otherwise and it gave me videos in favor of the cops being the good guy's, but the next thing I know is that I started getting video after video of corrupt cop's doing bad thing's to the American public.

It's almost like YouTube is looking at my algorithm and then adjusting the algorithm counter to my interest. It's just highly coincidental it seemed.

 

[BULLDOG]

Funny thing.

I used the YouTube videos that I've been watching in order to write about this topic.

Per the algorithm it was giving me, I felt saddened watching the police videos in which showed the police being brutalized and even killed by the perps.

Well YouTube was following the algorithms based upon my watched videos on the topic, otherwise and it gave me videos in favor of the cops being the good guy's, but the next thing I know is that I started getting video after video of corrupt cop's doing bad thing's to the American public.

It's almost like YouTube is looking at my algorithm and then adjusting the algorithm counter to my interest. It's just highly coincidental it seemed.

There are good cops and bad cops. You didn't know that?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Funny thing.

I used the YouTube videos that I've been watching in order to write about this topic.

Per the algorithm it was giving me, I felt saddened watching the police videos in which showed the police being brutalized and even killed by the perps.

Well YouTube was following the algorithms based upon my watched videos on the topic, otherwise and it gave me videos in favor of the cops being the good guy's, but the next thing I know is that I started getting video after video of corrupt cop's doing bad thing's to the American public.

It's almost like YouTube is looking at my algorithm and then adjusting the algorithm counter to my interest. It's just highly coincidental it seemed.

I really don't have any insight into how those particular algorithms work but maybe what could be happening is an attempt by the algorithm to illustrate both sides of the issue?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

There are good cops and bad cops. You didn't know that?

And this is why I began my response with "Normal police officers..." although I was a bit torn about using that particular term.

 

[beagle9]

I really don't have any insight into how those particular algorithms work but maybe what could be happening is an attempt by the algorithm to illustrate both sides of the issue?

Seems it happened after I posted this topic here on the issue though.. That is what was weird.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

If you log into a gmail account when you use your browser it could be that Google is tracking your browsing history/habits and then using that "knowledge" to try to provide you with a more "satisfying" online experience. The following information is generated by AI:

"When you agree to Google’s Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, you’re granting Google broad, irrevocable rights to use your data across all of its services — including Gmail, YouTube, Google Maps, Drive, Photos, and Search.

Google’s privacy policy includes language that allows the company to:

• Scan and analyze your emails (content, metadata, attachments)
• Retain your data indefinitely, even after deletion in many cases
• Aggregate information across platforms (e.g., YouTube history influenced by Gmail, Maps influenced by Search, etc.)
• Use your data to train algorithms that personalize your experience and improve Google's advertising products

“We use your information to deliver our services, like processing the terms you search for in order to return results or helping you share content by suggesting recipients from your contacts.”
– Google Privacy Policy

But what’s more concerning is the cross-product integration, which includes the following clause (as of the latest policy update):

“We may combine the information we collect among our services and across your devices for these purposes.”

Gmail: Scanned for keywords to target you with ads (e.g., email about insulin → ads and news stories for GLP drugs, for example)

• YouTube: Algorithm nudged based on things you searched in Chrome or said in a Hangouts/Chat conversation
• Google Maps & Calendar: Events scraped from email used to remind you of flights or meetings
• Android/Pixel devices: Every interaction is logged unless manually disabled

Once your data has been scanned, used, or incorporated into Google’s algorithmic models, you cannot delete or “untrain” that influence. Even deleting your account won’t necessarily remove all traces of your data from Google's backend systems.

While you can delete your data from your dashboard, that doesn't guarantee it's wiped from:

• Google's internal logs
• Advertising models
• AI training data
• Or systems that have replicated or cached your information for "legal or operational reasons"

• If you used Gmail for sensitive topics (e.g., legal strategy, client data, healthcare, forensic reports), it has likely influenced your entire Google experience.
  
  
• Signing into YouTube or Chrome further exposes your browsing behavior across all Google-owned services.
  
  
• If you're concerned about cross-contamination of data between identities, the best option is to use completely siloed browsers, accounts, or VMs.

 

[beagle9]

If you log into a gmail account when you use your browser it could be that Google is tracking your browsing history/habits and then using that "knowledge" to try to provide you with a more "satisfying" online experience. The following information is generated by AI:

"When you agree to Google’s Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, you’re granting Google broad, irrevocable rights to use your data across all of its services — including Gmail, YouTube, Google Maps, Drive, Photos, and Search.

Google’s privacy policy includes language that allows the company to:

• Scan and analyze your emails (content, metadata, attachments)
• Retain your data indefinitely, even after deletion in many cases
• Aggregate information across platforms (e.g., YouTube history influenced by Gmail, Maps influenced by Search, etc.)
• Use your data to train algorithms that personalize your experience and improve Google's advertising products

But what’s more concerning is the cross-product integration, which includes the following clause (as of the latest policy update):


Gmail: Scanned for keywords to target you with ads (e.g., email about insulin → ads and news stories for GLP drugs, for example)

• YouTube: Algorithm nudged based on things you searched in Chrome or said in a Hangouts/Chat conversation
• Google Maps & Calendar: Events scraped from email used to remind you of flights or meetings
• Android/Pixel devices: Every interaction is logged unless manually disabled

Once your data has been scanned, used, or incorporated into Google’s algorithmic models, you cannot delete or “untrain” that influence. Even deleting your account won’t necessarily remove all traces of your data from Google's backend systems.

While you can delete your data from your dashboard, that doesn't guarantee it's wiped from:

• Google's internal logs
• Advertising models
• AI training data
• Or systems that have replicated or cached your information for "legal or operational reasons"
• If you used Gmail for sensitive topics (e.g., legal strategy, client data, healthcare, forensic reports), it has likely influenced your entire Google experience.
  
  
• Signing into YouTube or Chrome further exposes your browsing behavior across all Google-owned services.
  
  
• If you're concerned about cross-contamination of data between identities, the best option is to use completely siloed browsers, accounts, or VMs.

The interesting thing for me actually, was when it offered the counter perspective as if it was thinking for itself. Being flooded with counter perspectives instead of it offering up video's based upon your likes and interest was like WOE Nelly, and like I said it seemed to be after I posted this op or opinion/perspective...

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The interesting thing for me actually, was when it offered the counter perspective as if it was thinking for itself. Being flooded with counter perspectives instead of it offering up video's based upon your likes and interest was like WOE Nelly, and like I said it seemed to be after I posted this op or opinion/perspective...

Well tracking IS possible, just try not to let it freak you out. There are a lot of things that have been going on in connection with each of us and our lives, and personal information that we never consented to and the sudden realization that some people seem inexpicably to know just a little too much about things they shouldn't be unsettling.

I just hope you can take comfort in the fact that in most situations there is a valid explanation for these things that isn't necessarily nefarious.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Otherwise when it comes to ending a situation before it gets way out of hand or control ?

Watching all these police chase videos on YouTube, and it appears to me that many times they end up allowing a chase to ensue that could have been avoided or stopped quickly. WTH ?

Many times it appears that in the first part of the escape attempt, this is when the situation could have been stopped immediately or quickly before it gets way out of control.

Why is this such a volatile issue that never seems to get a better solution that is applied across the board ??
Now from a rolling pursuit in motion that's different, but many start from a stop and then flee situation.

Do you all see the same things in these YouTube video's when watching them ?

If an assailant runs away with a weapon in hand or after he just attacked the cops either on foot or with a vehicle, then why the hesitation before shooting the person even if he is running with his back turned ? I asked this question because if the person escapes with weapon in hand or with a deranged mind, then can't such a person endanger the public at large by attacking them also, and worse highjacking them also or kidnapping them and such ? So why take the chance ? Why the hesitation ?


Over and over I'm seeing cops being shot due to either poor judgement, poor training, "hesitation", and possible fear, but is it fear of retribution from a system bent towards the criminals instead of law and order ??

Some of these runners after endangering lives and the public at large, need their sorry aces kicked once the officer's catch their no good aces.


How this nation got to the point where the criminals have more rights and favorable status than the law and the victims is an amazing thing.

Is there no training to address these problems or is it all caused by political correctness or in these days wokeness ??

Cops in the UK now just ram into motorbikes -

 

[MarathonMike]

Otherwise when it comes to ending a situation before it gets way out of hand or control ?

Watching all these police chase videos on YouTube, and it appears to me that many times they end up allowing a chase to ensue that could have been avoided or stopped quickly. WTH ?

Many times it appears that in the first part of the escape attempt, this is when the situation could have been stopped immediately or quickly before it gets way out of control.

Why is this such a volatile issue that never seems to get a better solution that is applied across the board ??
Now from a rolling pursuit in motion that's different, but many start from a stop and then flee situation.

Do you all see the same things in these YouTube video's when watching them ?

If an assailant runs away with a weapon in hand or after he just attacked the cops either on foot or with a vehicle, then why the hesitation before shooting the person even if he is running with his back turned ? I asked this question because if the person escapes with weapon in hand or with a deranged mind, then can't such a person endanger the public at large by attacking them also, and worse highjacking them also or kidnapping them and such ? So why take the chance ? Why the hesitation ?


Over and over I'm seeing cops being shot due to either poor judgement, poor training, "hesitation", and possible fear, but is it fear of retribution from a system bent towards the criminals instead of law and order ??

Some of these runners after endangering lives and the public at large, need their sorry aces kicked once the officer's catch their no good aces.


How this nation got to the point where the criminals have more rights and favorable status than the law and the victims is an amazing thing.

Is there no training to address these problems or is it all caused by political correctness or in these days wokeness ??

IMO the reason so many situations like that arise is because Cops STILL DO NOT have an effective non-lethal option during arrest. Tasers are basically juiced-up toys, that often fail to neutralize an arrestee.

 

[beagle9]

Cops in the UK now just ram into motorbikes -

Depending on the situation and crime committed, then I say yes that is an appropriate stop or way to stop the fleeing suspect, otherwise if say a robbery suspect is running away or etc.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Depending on the situation and crime committed, then I say yes that is an appropriate stop or way to stop the fleeing suspect, otherwise if say a robbery suspect is running away or etc.

At one time, they gave chase but if danger to the public was too high, they called off the pursuit. Now they just run over the twats, and that's how it should be.

 

[beagle9]

At one time, they gave chase but if danger to the public was too high, they called off the pursuit. Now they just run over the twats, and that's how it should be.

Sure didn't hurt that idiot, as he took off running on foot instantly..

 

[Dragonlady]

Otherwise when it comes to ending a situation before it gets way out of hand or control ?

Watching all these police chase videos on YouTube, and it appears to me that many times they end up allowing a chase to ensue that could have been avoided or stopped quickly. WTH ?

Many times it appears that in the first part of the escape attempt, this is when the situation could have been stopped immediately or quickly before it gets way out of control.

Why is this such a volatile issue that never seems to get a better solution that is applied across the board ??
Now from a rolling pursuit in motion that's different, but many start from a stop and then flee situation.

Do you all see the same things in these YouTube video's when watching them ?

If an assailant runs away with a weapon in hand or after he just attacked the cops either on foot or with a vehicle, then why the hesitation before shooting the person even if he is running with his back turned ? I asked this question because if the person escapes with weapon in hand or with a deranged mind, then can't such a person endanger the public at large by attacking them also, and worse highjacking them also or kidnapping them and such ? So why take the chance ? Why the hesitation ?


Over and over I'm seeing cops being shot due to either poor judgement, poor training, "hesitation", and possible fear, but is it fear of retribution from a system bent towards the criminals instead of law and order ??

Some of these runners after endangering lives and the public at large, need their sorry aces kicked once the officer's catch their no good aces.


How this nation got to the point where the criminals have more rights and favorable status than the law and the victims is an amazing thing.

Is there no training to address these problems or is it all caused by political correctness or in these days wokeness ??

Your police kill more civilians that any police force in the first world - bar NONE. They're killing more than 1000 people per year. And just to be clear - last year, American police killed 1,096 civilians. The French police killed 37, the Brits 3, Germany 11, and there were 69 in Canada - which is the highest in our history and is raising concerns in Canada.

Police Killings by Country 2025

And you're complaining that American police aren't quick enough to kill.