Senate "Race" Relations (was "U.S. Society and Black Men")

Holding a police officer to account for shooting someone is not giving them the chair. If a police officer shoots someone unjustly then they should go to trial just like anyone else and be called to account for their actions. But we know that this isn't happening.

Bringing a disturbing trend of unarmed black people being shot to national attention so that we can solve an injustice is something everyone should be on board with. It makes us safer, it makes police departments more effective. Fixing the problem and making people responsible for their actions is a no brainer.

 

I'm fine with bad police officers being given what they deserve. I'm not okay with the movement against police in general.

 

That happens all the time in other instances in this thread for the other side of the argument and you have no problem with it.

 

The drumbeat of reparations continues to grow. This time it is a U.N. affiliated commission:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...a-history-of-racial-terrorism-says-u-n-panel/

 

Was or was not the Boston Tea Party a protest?

 

i think i get where you're coming from, but "criminal establishment" is a bit hyperbolic/crackpot sounding as a nickname for the police. we can just call them cops and the ones that murder people can be "killer cops"

 

I'm aware that isn't the legal statute. I'm saying that in some instances that the use of deadly force is allowable for the safety of the public and not just the officer, which is something that I felt was being overlooked in your post. And btw, you and I have discussed at length before how someone can still be a threat even if they are unarmed.

No. I think the training to the applicable scenarios were shooting is justifiable should have more time dedicated to it.

I don't think you can compare Jim Crow or slavery to issues of a felony in progress or a threat to public safety or the safety of another person to protect them from imminent bodily harm.

Asking an officer to make a moral or ethical decision in probably a good amount of shootings is just ridiculous and puts their lives in more jeopardy that it probably would be at that instant. Morally, they are to enforce the law regardless of color, creed, or nationality.

I didn't say this, so I think you're conflating what I said with someone else.

 

I never said black people should stop committing crimes, I said criminals should not commit crimes and it would make the job of the police easier. Why do you continue to misconstrue my words?

 

I mentioned that as an example of when force is allowable. Note that I didn't cite specific instances and reasons where officers have used their weapons.

You know what I mean by a threat to public safety, and it isn't because they "look bad".

Because it isn't the statute that is the problem. The problem is the person/people doing the enforcement of the law which starts at the beginning of training. The statutes (you know, the laws enforced) are largely fine (except for say our drug laws), and the policy of enforcement towards the populace (as in how they are enforced) is where the issue is. The training in shooting scenarios needs to be more extensive IMO, as well as how officers are taught to approach minority individuals and violations possibly retraining if needed to termination if severe. That's one area where body cams can also help beyond shootings.

 

Just to help Scruffy out, here's the most dangerous professions in America:

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/efkk45kifl/americas-10-deadliest-jobs-2/#682239607875

Police aren't on the list, so maybe the whole fear for their lives thing the police have is a bit overstated?

 

Police Officers killed in 2016: http://www.odmp.org/search/year

 

Are you making up stats now? WTF

Where's your proof? Please post it

 

I was remembering this incident a while back and I have no idea why people were ardently defending this woman. She literally began a gunfight over a traffic violation. Worse still, she was coaching her children to be inherently distrustful of police officers in a case in which she was obviously breaking the law. Unbelievable.

http://www.wbaltv.com/news/police-korryn-gaines-involved-in-police-incident-in-march/41016216

Making a martyr out of this person is crazy.

 

Misleading at best.

This includes anyone in law enforcement, not police, so you can see corrections officers dying in car accidents listed in the statistics. And there's at least one DHS ICE officer this year who is included.

This officer crashed his car on patrol, into a parked car: http://www.odmp.org/officer/22793-deputy-sheriff-travis-russell

This officer had a heart attack during training: http://www.odmp.org/officer/22804-first-sergeant-joseph-g-portaro

This officer crashed his patrol car into a tree: http://www.odmp.org/officer/22824-trooper-jeffrey-nichols

Have you going any statistics not influenced by your blatant disingenuity?

 

What made me sad was her son's so called "statement" after the incident occurred.

 

The website not having a filter regarding how the officer died makes me disingenuine?

 

Yes. Because the number dead is substantially higher than the actual risk factor of the job.

i.e. there's nothing that makes driving a patrol car more risky than driving a cab, truck, or civilian car. There is a risk inherent in pursuits, but the deaths I cited - of which there are many more - are not related to the officer in a position of risk i.e. in a pursuit.

Therefore, to infer the reaction of police - or, more accurately, the overreaction - is defensible is misleading at best. There is no evidence that the police are actually at risk, but this is America. There's no evidence that people will break into your house and harm you, but an entire industry corrupted your government and courts over this lie, soooooo...

Police are not materially at risk in the course of their duties to the extent that their reliance on lethal force can be excused or dismissed.

 

Well, when you present sources of information, it is up to you to evaluate them and make sure that they are being representative of the issue at hand as well as factually correct.

 

If nobody were committing crimes we wouldn't need police. That's also never going to happen. What is your point? Is there a point?

Posting a website with inaccurate data attempting to convince everyone your points are valid isn't going to help you make your case.

Plus, considering you said this --

-- and then failed to list the 700+ shootings and reasons for each and every shooting, I'm surprised anyone is taking you this seriously right now.

Generalizations and misinformation are part of the problem on both sides, here. You are perpetuating the problem with these kinds of posts.

We need police but we don't need them to be abusing power. We also do not need generalizations to allow those officers who wrongfully used their power to escape any consequences, just as we don't need a media-fest instilling fear in the populace. We need respect on both sides of the law and we need the police to be held accountable for their actions. Being underpaid doesn't give you the right to murder someone. Nor does the difficulty of their job. If they aren't cut out to uphold the law properly, they shouldn't be police.